See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/367091647

Project concepts, project concept design, and other topics affecting the front-
end of projects

Thesis · November 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 1,714

1 author:

Pekka J Buttler
Arcada University of Applied Sciences
5 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Pekka J Buttler on 13 January 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Pekka Buttler EKONOMI OCH SAMHÄLLE

366
Project concepts, project concept design, and other topics affecting ECONOMICS AND SOCIETY
the front-end of projects

PEKKA BUTTLER  PROJECT CONCEPTS, PROJECT CONCEPT DESIGN, AND OTHER TOPICS AFFECTING THE FRONTEND OF PROJECTS
Projects today make up roughly one third of GDP Essay 1 is uses an extensive integrative literature
in developed nations. In many industries, the share review to theorise and develop the notion of project
of projects is even higher. Simultaneously – as we concepts. Essay 2 outlines a practice-oriented
all are aware – projects fail too often for comfort. research method and argues that this research
Project failure has two faces: On the one hand method is suitable to studying project concept design
projects may be finished late, and cost more than and other instances of creative teamwork. Essay 3
expected, while the result’s functionality may also uses empirical material to explore the phenomenon
leave something to be desired. In short: the project of hidden goals in projects and argues that goal-
was not done right. On the other hand, projects hiding is both more common and more nuanced
may turn out to have produced its result exactly to than previously known. These three essays are
specifications, on time and within budget, only for brought together, put into context and discussed in
it to turn out that the result is not what was needed, a summary chapter.
or that a different solution might have served This dissertation contributes to the literature of the
everyone’s needs better. In short: not the right project Study of Projects in several ways. First, it describes
was done. what project concepts are, showing that project
The topics of this dissertation – project concepts
and project concept design – play a central role in
concepts are both dualities and multiplicities.
Second, it highlights the significance of the process Project concepts, project concept
helping private and public organizations do the right and practice of project concept design and identifies
project. As is argued in this dissertation, projects are
commenced in the hope of making project concepts
five core functions (alignment, meshing, articulation,
consideration, evaluation) through which project
design, and other topics affecting
– the central, founding ideas for a project – come
true. Hence, the question of doing the right project is
concept design can contribute to doing the right
project. Third, the dissertation concludes that while
the front-end of projects
essentially a question of designing the right project project concept design primarily supports doing
concepts. However, understanding the significance the right project, it also can contribute to doing
of project concept design is not the same as knowing the project right. Fourth, the dissertation discusses
how to design the right project concepts. Given that several environmental factors that contribute to or
very little research on this topic exists, the dissertation
and its essays set out to offer some fundamental
inhibit successful project concept design. Fifth, it
discusses the practical difficulties facing endeavours
PEKKA BUTTLER
concepts, outlining avenues for further research and to study project concept design and outlines a
tools to aid researchers in pursuing those avenues. practice-oriented research method that it argues
could support future research.

HANKEN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

HELSINKI
ARKADIANKATU 22, P.O. BOX 479,
00101 HELSINKI, FINLAND
PHONE: +358 (0)29 431 331

VAASA ISBN 9789522324740 (PRINTED)

KIRJASTONKATU 16, P.O. BOX 287, ISBN 9789522324757 (PDF)
65101 VAASA, FINLAND ISSNL 04247256
PHONE: +358 (0)6 3533 700 ISSN 04247256 (PRINTED)
ISSN 2242699X (PDF)
[email protected]
HANKEN.FI/DHANKEN 9 789522 324740 HANSAPRINT OY, TURENKI
 Ekonomi och Samhälle
Economics and Society

Skrifter utgivna vid Svenska handelshögskolan

Publications of the Hanken School of Economics

Nr 366

Pekka Buttler

Project concepts, project concept

design, and other topics affecting
the front-end of projects

Helsinki 2022
Project concept design: Project concepts, project concept design, and other topics
affecting the front-end of projects

Key words: Projects, project management, Study of Projects, project concepts, project
concept design, design, project front-end, practice, research methods, hidden goals,
creativity, ideation

Supervised by
Frank den Hond
Professor
Hanken School of Economics, Finland

Mikko Vesa
Associate Professor
Hanken School of Economics, Finland

Mikael Laakso
Associate Professor
Hanken School of Economics, Finland

Opponent
Bjørn Sørskot Andersen
Professor
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Norway

© Hanken School of Economics & Pekka Buttler, 2022

Pekka Buttler
Hanken School of Economics
Department of Management and Organisation
Subject: Management and Organisation
P.O.Box 479, 00101 Helsinki, Finland

The originality of this publication has been checked in accordance with the quality
assurance system of Hanken School of Economics using the Ithenticate software.

Hanken School of Economics

ISBN 978-952-232-474-0 (printed)
ISBN 978-952-232-475-7 (pdf)
ISSN-L 0424-7256
ISSN 0424-7256(printed)
ISSN 2242-699X (pdf)

Hansaprint Oy, Turenki 2022

 i

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Dear Reader,

The dissertation you have before you is the result of an interaction

between myself and several contingencies. The following paragraphs are
devoted to addressing some of the more significant contingencies.

Conventions

Anyone who has embarked on a doctorate has encountered a great

many conventions. Some of these conventions are close to universal,
others are national, while some are local, even parochial. I appreciate
conventions when they are critical to the nature of the endeavour or when
they lessen the number of hard, complex choices one must make, but I
blithely disregard convention when I consider a particular convention
not to have a real value and feel that it has changed from supporting my
work to being a straitjacket. Therefore, I have decided to be somewhat
selective about the dissertation-related conventions I follow and those
I knowingly disregard. Suffice to say that, while I’ve held true to those
conventions arising out of scientific methods (e.g., rigour, giving credit,
and verifiability when possible), I have been more selective regarding
those conventions that concern the form and format of doctoral
dissertations. I’ve done so in order to present myself as a prospective
member of the scientific community and to further the field I graze, while
also hoping to contribute to this field by delivering a readable text.1

Material circumstances

While there are few tasks that demand such a small number of tools
and materials as researching organisations, there are nevertheless some
essential material circumstances. I would like to thank the Hanken

1
Elaboration: To heighten the main text’s readability while still offering the
reader with backing, (citations) argumentation and potential
avenues for further reading, I’m making extensive use of
footnotes to store interesting forks, while streamlining the main
text.
All footnotes have been further classified as either:
Elaboration: giving further detail or extending on a train of
thought/argument;
Terminology: discussions of terms, working definitions, etc.
Note, please: to acknowledge a significant caveat or a different
point of view;
Read more: to cite sources when the number of sources is
extensive or to point the reader towards further literature.
 ii

School of Economics, especially the Department of Management and

Organisation, that has supplied me with a desk, bookshelves, as well
as all the IT and library accesses modern business researchers can’t
live without. Likewise, I extend my gratitude to Liikesivistysrahasto,
Palkansaajasäätiö, the Tre Smeder Foundation, the Hanken Support
Foundation, and the subject of Management and Organization at
the Hanken School of Economics, whose scholarships have enabled
my research.

Human(e) interactions

Getting a doctorate has been the loneliest task I’ve ever worked on. It
has been lonely in the sense that it has been a solo project – every word
has been written by me, the basic setup of the thesis has been decided
upon by me, all the research that has gone into this book (and the essays
it contains) has been undertaken by me alone.

On the other hand, I’ve not always been alone while doing all this solo
work. On the contrary, I’ve been part of a scientific community, both
at Hanken and as a member of the scientific community that studies
projects, project management, and organisations. Therefore, a few words
of thanks are in order (although I hope to have the chance to thank you
all face-to-face):

First, I want to thank my supervisors (in order of appearance):

Thank you, Professor Emeritus Bo-Christer Björk. You were convinced of

my abilities before I was. Thank you also, Senior Lecturer Juho Lindman.
During your time as Assistant Professor at Hanken, your door was always
open, and even after moving on, you’ve been very supportive. Likewise,
I extend my heartfelt gratitude to Associate Professor Mikael Laakso.
I will forever cherish those many occasions when I entered your room
either fuming or dejected and exited with renewed belief in myself and
my project.

Professor Frank den Hond and associate professor Mikko Vesa – you
entered the project at a crucial juncture and did your best to mitigate
the effects of the upheavals encountered at the later stages of the project,
while tirelessly pushing me to challenge myself. While there were times
when I cursed you, there have been even more times when I thanked you.
 iii

Second, I want to thank my pre-examiners: Professor Bjørn Sørskot

Andersen (Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet) and Professor
Martina Huemann (Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien). Your feedback
managed to turn what in hindsight was a decidedly rough draft into this,
a significantly improved dissertation. As we say in Finland: “Kiitos ja
anteeksi” (Thanks and apologies).

Third, besides my supervisors, there have been several other professors

and senior researchers at Hanken and neighbouring universities who
have had a significant impact on either me or on this dissertation: Denise,
Ingrid, Janne, Jeff, Jennie, Karl-Erik, Keijo, Martin F, Mats, Riku, Saku,
Sebastian, Teppo, Thommie, Tom, Turid, Ville-Pekka, Virpi. I would not
be here today without your ideas, participation or support.

Next, I’ve had the pleasure to work in close proximity with a very
special, small group of smart and good-natured fellow PhD students and
researchers at Hanken. Cenyu, Lobna, Linus – you more than anybody
else made coming to the office something to look forward to. You offered
camaraderie, conversation and first-level peer support, without ever
expecting anything in return. You were instrumental in keeping the ball
rolling when its momentum was waning. While the nerd cave is dead, its
spirit lives on.

Then: Alexei, Anna, Annamari, Daniil, Inkeri, Jouni, Kari, Martin vW,
Mikaela, Paula, Pauli, Philippe, Sanne, Sofia, Thomas, Tiina, Tuomas L,
Tuomas K, … there have been many occasions when I’ve felt it to be more
interesting or rewarding to have a conversation with you than to sit at my
desk and bang my head against a seemingly unbreakable wall. I would
not be here without you.

To all those people and organisations who invited me to sit with them at
meeting tables and patiently answered my (at times) stupid questions:
while considerations of anonymity and confidentiality preclude me from
thanking you by name, I want you to know how much your collaboration
has meant to me.

Finally, special and very heartfelt thanks go to my parents, Jörg and

Laura, and my godfather, Janko. I thank you for your support in the
pursuit of my doctoral ambitions, for your financial contributions, for
bestowing upon me an endless supply of literature, and for your attitude
towards life that supports scholarly endeavours.
 iv

A very special thanks also goes to Gerald Ahrend and the Klangwelt
project2 that has kept me company for unending hours when I would
otherwise only have listened to the hum of the ventilation system.

Alina, you were the person who convinced me to go back to school after
10+ years of professional life and comfortable wages. Although you
did not envisage me going for a doctorate, I nevertheless thank you for
pushing me to take the first steps.

Dr Päivi, you entered my life at a watershed moment and your example,

encouragement, warmth and love were instrumental in pushing this
dissertation through to the end. Thank you, I love you.

Volter, Alvar, Bea, and Aarni – three of you were born during this project.
This is for you and all the generations that follow.

Helsinki, Finland

1st of January 2014– 13th of September 2022

2
Read more: http://www.klangwelt.info (accessed 13.9.2022)
 v

CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCING THE DISSERTATION ...........................................1
2 PRESENTING EXISTING THEORY ............................................... 9
2.1 Discussing the history and current state of theorising
regarding projects ..................................................................... 9
2.2 Examining the literature on the project front-end................. 18
2.3 Reviewing existing theorisation regarding project concepts
and project concept design ..................................................... 24
2.4 Summarising the shortcomings of extant theory on project
concepts and project concept design ...................................... 27
3 CONTEMPLATING METHODS .................................................... 29
3.1 Deliberating the phenomena – wide and narrow .................. 29
3.2 Discussing the methods of Essay 1 ......................................... 41
3.3 Discussing the methods of Essay 2 ......................................... 42
3.4 Discussing the methods of Essay 3 ......................................... 43
3.5 Reflecting on methods ........................................................... 44
4 SUMMARISING THE ESSAYS ..................................................... 47
4.1 Summing up Essay 1: “Project concepts – bridging the
strategy–project gap” .............................................................. 47
4.2 Recapitulating Essay 2: “A Practice Method for Studying
Creative Communities” ...........................................................49
4.3 Synopsising Essay 3: “Hidden goals in projects – a qualitative
exploratory study of their occurrence and causes” ................ 50
5 COMING TO CONCLUSIONS ....................................................... 53
5.1 Thinking about science in the realm of the social and artificial,
especially in the Study of Projects .......................................... 54
5.2 Establishing overall contributions.......................................... 57
5.3 Identifying implications for the profession ............................ 79
5.4 Discerning implications for academia ....................................80
 vi

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Essay 1 ............................................................................ 130

Appendix 2 Essay 2 ........................................................................... 196
Appendix 3 Essay 3 ...........................................................................207
 1

1 INTRODUCING THE DISSERTATION

Projects are typically understood as organised entities with a separate
status, with a limited, often defined life span, and equipped with
resources to complete a specific task. Projects abound in every facet of
our existence. Not only are projects common in business, engineering,
and construction, but cultural institutions also work with projects (e.g.,
special exhibitions in museums, theatre productions), as do consultants
when embarking on trying to change their client’s HR processes,
programmers and designers when starting to sketch or write the code
for a novel application or algorithm, and researchers and writers when
they envision a new publication. Whatever the situation, it is generally
accepted that for projects to complete their tasks or goals, they need to
be managed.

The Study of Projects3 has established itself as a field of research focused

on studying projects and seeking to understand how projects can best be
managed. Yet, even after more than 50 years of research, a disturbingly
large share of projects fails to be completed successfully4.

There are, broadly, two modes of failure: projects may fail either in the
sense that their objectives are not delivered on time and within budget,
or that they – even if delivered according to specifications, budget
and schedule – do not satisfy the needs of the involved parties. The
frequency of project failures has, over the decades, engendered numerous
contributions and various streams of research, mostly with little effect
on projects’ success.

Against this backdrop, a new approach has recently appeared on the

horizon that contends that ‘project concepts’ are crucial to all projects,
and that attention to project concepts can make a major contribution to
addressing the continuing lack of success of projects.

3
Terminology: This text intentionally utilises the term Study of Projects
(thus capitalised) in lieu of the more common terms ‘project
management [research/studies]’ and ‘project studies’.
4
Read more: There are no global, standardised statistics available, but the
overall picture from various studies is bleak: Morris offers a short
summary of the Standish Group’s reports on project success rates
from 1994–2009: the share of projects rated as “successful” range
from 16% in 1994 to 35% in 2006 (2013a:87); Pinto (2019:29)
cites several reports that paint a largely similar picture.
 2

“The initial choice of project concept is of critical importance. This represents

the one key decision of many made during the lifetime of a project, which is
likely to have the largest impact on [a project’s] long-term success or failure.”
(Williams and Samset, 2010: 38)

Williams and Samset (2010) make an explicit statement linking the

project concept – defined in short as an idea for a project 5 – to the
ultimate long-term result of a project. This is a sentiment that Williams
and Samset share with a respectable and growing number of authors.
For instance, Barton (2002:81) says that the development of project
concepts determines a major portion of the total life cycle cost of projects.
Similarly, Miller and Hobbs (2005:48) posit that to achieve significant
improvements in the performance of projects, it is insufficient merely to
increase and develop methods for the early scrutiny of budgets, but that
fundamental scrutiny of project concepts is also needed. In a similar vein,
Randle (1960:11) contends that the failure of projects may be inevitable
if the project concept was wrong in the first place, while Ernst (2002:31)
sees project concepts as crucial in facilitating successful project selection.
In short, these claims link project concepts with project effectiveness –
doing the right project.

In addition to leading to overall improvements in project effectiveness,

some authors also link project concepts to project efficiency and to
doing the project right6. Some examples of the detailed effects of project

5
Terminology: As is discussed in more detail in essay 1, the phrase ‘project
concept’ is generally used in literature to denote four distinct
meanings:
a) A post-facto summary of the project’s main point
b) The notion of [what a] ‘project’ [is] (the concept of ‘project’)
c) An idea for a (specific) project
d) The name of a (project) life-cycle phase
Of these, this dissertation focuses solely on ‘project concept’
as something that can be chosen and decided upon, and
something that precedes the project (as it can impact the project
that follows) – a notion that corresponds with the quote from
Williams and Samset 2010 (above).
The focus of this dissertation is therefore on ‘project concepts’
as ideas for a project and not as any of the three other distinct
meanings that the term is used to denote.
6
Terminology: The terms ‘effectiveness’ and ‘efficiency’ (in relation to project
performance) are used in line with the dichotomy laid out by
Miller & Lessard (2001a:14–15), wherein:
• effectiveness corresponds to external performance: overall
utility, market success, social, environmental, and developmental
criteria (‘doing the right project’), and
• efficiency to internal performance: costs, schedules, and
technical performance (‘doing the project right’).
 3

concepts are through a decrease in rework (Wheelwright & Clark,

1992:40) and improvement in the project planning process (Stamatiadis
et al., 2010:292), as well as other positive outcomes, for example a
smaller environmental footprint (Krishna, Moynihan & Callon, 2009:11),
improved competitiveness (Wilford & O’Brien, 2016:1) and a reduced risk
of conflict (Al-Sedairy, 1994:143).

In sum, there is an increasing amount of research on project concepts.

This literature is unanimous in stating that project concepts are of the
utmost significance to both ‘doing the right project’ and ‘doing the project
right’. Considering that projects are well known for too often failing to
deliver, being late and/or over budget (e.g., Pinto 2007, Morris 2013a),
project concepts would seem to offer a promising approach to solving
many of the issues that have perennially challenged projects, project
managers and the organisations that commission projects.

Simultaneously, it is concerning that those texts that promote the

centrality of project concepts offer very little to define, describe or explain
what project concepts are (and what they are not), where or whom they
come from, or what form they take. Even so, perhaps the most blatant
omission here is that these texts, while stating that project concepts are,
for example, “likely to have the largest impact on [a project’s] long-term
success or failure” (Williams and Samset, 2010: 38), do very little to
explain or even posit the mechanisms through which project concepts
are able to enhance the subsequent projects and their chances of success.

This circumstance has several negative repercussions. First, the current

absence of a comprehensive description or definition of project concepts
is liable to seriously hamper future research and theory-building in
the field of project concepts. Second, the lack of an explanation for the
mechanism(s) through which project concepts affect the subsequent
projects undermines the credibility of the claims of benefits of project
concepts, but also raises the possibility that the current understanding
of project concepts may be “one of those handy but treacherous pseudo
concepts, connoting a sort of totality of [project] goodness” (Katz & Kahn,
1966:150), or even worse, that the entire notion7 of project concepts
might be a castle in the air.

7
Terminology: Because using the word ‘concept’ when describing concepts in
general could in this dissertation potentially lead to confusions,
I’ve tried to avoid the use of ‘concept’ except when
a) I am discussing ‘project concepts’; b) quoting; c) discussing
what ‘concepts’ are.
To avoid confusion, I am therefore using the terms ‘notion(s)’,
or ‘construct(s)’ where one would otherwise use the term
‘concept(s)’
 4

These concerns, and the questions implied by them, underlie the purpose
of this essay-based dissertation Simultaneously, these concerns steer
the detailed approach taken. This dissertation therefore constitutes
a four-pronged foray into a set of related and mutually supporting
research questions:

The fundamental question is to explore what those authors who state

that project concepts have specific and general effects mean when they
use the phrase ‘project concept’. Is ‘project concept’ just a combination
of two generic words or does it signify something specific that is merely
never explicitly described. To this end, the dissertation asks the question:

RQ1: What are ‘project concepts’ and what forms do they take?

Going forward, if project concepts are real (in the same sense and extent
as projects are ‘real’), project concepts must also come from somewhere
– both in the sense of having an origin and of being brought forth by
someone or something. The next, obvious question therefore is to
investigate the design8 process that instigates project concepts:

RQ2: Who designs project concepts and how do they do it?

A significant share of the literature that discusses project concepts

sees them as having significant potential to benefit the subsequent
project. Simultaneously, the literature offers very scant indications of
the mechanisms through which that positive effect could be generated,
leading to the obvious, next question:

RQ3: How can project concepts positively affect the subsequent project?

Finally, building on the assumptions that project concepts are ‘real’, and
that project concept design can contribute to the increased effectiveness
and efficacy of the subsequent project, a final, crucial question to explore
is how and due to what kinds of factor project concept design can be
facilitated or impeded.

RQ4: What kinds of factor can facilitate or impede successful project

concept design?

8
Terminology: This dissertation systematically refers to the human activity
that creates/shapes project concepts as ‘design’. See page 62 for
details.
 5

While not constituting an exhaustive investigation into project concepts,

these four research questions allow not only for a comprehensive
understanding of project concept design, but also an understanding that
has the potential to serve scholars and practitioners in their respective
endeavours.

The three essays enclosed in this dissertation address these questions as

follows. Research question 1 (What are ‘project concepts’ and what forms
do they take?) is thoroughly addressed in Essay 1. Based on an extensive
review of the literature, Essay 1 concludes that project concepts are ‘ideas
for a project’, and that project concepts have a dual existence – both
in the form of tacit mental models and as explicit knowledge artefacts.
Further, it shows that projects are attended not by one project concept,
but by a multiplicity of project concepts that together form an internal
notional structure, and that this internal structure furthermore interacts
with conceptualisations of the project’s environment. The description
offered by Essay 1 contributes by enabling a detailed, multifaceted
understanding of project concepts.

Research question 2 (Who designs project concepts and how do they

do it?) is discussed in essay 1 and essay 2. Essay 1 approaches this
question mainly through the literature, while essay 2 takes a practice-
oriented approach combining theory and empirical accounts. While
unequivocally concluding that project concepts are designed by people
(singular and plural), neither essay manages to offer any theoretically
or empirically based logic of inclusion or exclusion regarding which
people design project concepts. Instead, the dissertation concludes that
while certainly not everyone participates in project concept design, and
while the likelihood of someone participating in project concept design
is significantly heightened by being invited to participate, everyone –
independent of seniority, organisational allegiance, specialisation, and
level of ‘insiderness’ – can be involved in project concept design and
is able to offer a valuable – indeed invaluable – contribution to the
process. Further, these essays contribute to painting a picture of the
actual project concept design process by highlighting several crucial
aspects, such as a lack of a natural point of plenitude, a wide spectrum
of ideation processes (both spontaneous and deliberate ideation; both
divergent and convergent ideation) and iteration (intrinsic, extrinsic
and intermediate). Through enhancing our understanding of the project
concept design process, these essays facilitate theory-building regarding
project concept design practice and facilitate managerial understanding
of a crucial process.
 6

The third research question (How can project concepts positively

affect the subsequent project) is touched upon in all three essays. Essay
1 approaches the question by analysing and integrating the existing
literature, Essay 2 investigates the question empirically and through
investigating the underlying process, while Essay 3 takes an empirical
look at a key input into project concept design. This dissertation
therefore concludes that, while project concepts in themselves do little
to aid the subsequent project, the project concept design process can
contribute through several mechanisms. These mechanisms are referred
to as alignment, meshing, articulation, consideration, and evaluation.
Understanding not only that project concept design can indeed benefit
the subsequent project, but also comprehending the mechanisms
through which this occurs, have the potential to significantly inform
practitioners and to offer workable constructs and a vocabulary to
promote future research.

The fourth and final research question asks, “What kinds of factor
can facilitate or impede successful project concept design?” and
this question is touched upon in all three essays. In response to this
question, the dissertation finds that project concept design is a creative
knowledge process, which implies that, first, creativity is crucial, and
that (by implication) organisations must foster creativity to achieve
creative project concept design. Second, the dissertation highlights that
creativity is a process and not an event. Therefore, organisations must
be willing to devote sufficient time to the process and organisational
actors should understand that even major shifts are based on accruing a
multitude of seemingly inconsequential ‘creativities’ in a social process
of ‘creativitying’9. Third, that creative process relies on knowledge, and
the access to and discovery of knowledge is crucial fodder for project
concept design. Further, this dissertation goes on to point out that
the project concept design process can benefit from the availability of
concept design tools, and that while some of these tools are cognitive
and contribute primarily through facilitating knowledge transformations,
other tools are social and facilitate the flow and exchange of knowledges.
Finally, the dissertation outlines a number of factors that can impede
the project concept design process or limit the process’s ability to
benefit the subsequent project, such as using project concept design
to legitimise a foregone conclusion or pet project; unduly limiting the

9
Read more: I have a lot to thank Cummings, Bilton, and ogilvie (2015) for
formulating the idea and the terminology I’ve used to illustrate
the creative process.
 7

resources (time, resources, abilities, access) available to the process; not

guarding against the process’s ability to go haywire or act as a vehicle
for individuals’ ambitions; misconstruing the relationship and interplay
between project concept design and detailed planning; and, finally, the
complex relationship between hidden goals and project concept design.
By discussing facilitators and inhibitors of project concept design, the
dissertation is able to contribute to project concept design practice and
offer depth and nuance to the theoretical discussions regarding project
concepts and project concept design.

––––––––––

This ‘kappa’ or introductory essay aims to contextualise and tie together

insights from the three enclosed essays. To that end, this – the first
chapter – has briefly outlined the focal phenomenon and made explicit
which aspects of that phenomenon this dissertation will prioritise, as well
as given a sneak peek into some of the dissertation’s key contributions.
The next chapter presents the literature and existing theorisations, by
presenting the prior literature on project concepts and regarding the
wider context of the phenomenon by discussing the Study of Projects as
a scientific field.

The third chapter focuses on methods. It briefly discusses methodology

in relation to the Study of Projects and project concepts before detailing
the methodological approach used in the enclosed essays. Subsequently,
in the fourth chapter, the enclosed essays are summarised with an eye
to what purpose they aim to serve and what contributions they make. In
the fifth and final chapter, I return to examining the research questions
outlined above, and discuss in detail the conclusions that this dissertation
allows one to draw regarding project concepts, the project concept design
process, and its significances.

The three enclosed essays are then presented in the appendix. The first
essay, which has not yet been published, is offered without copyediting
or layout, and will be excluded from the online repository version of this
thesis. Essays 2 and 3 are offered in final published format (including
formatting and copyediting), courtesy of their publishers: Technology
Innovation Management Review and Roskilde University Press.

Full references for Essays 2 and 3:

Essay 2: Buttler, P. J. (2018). A Practice Method for Studying Creative
Communities. Technology Innovation Management Review, 8(11),
22-31. [1197]. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1197.
Essay 3: Buttler, P. J. (2015). Hidden goals in projects: A qualitative
exploratory study of their occurrence and causes. In J. Pries-Heje, & P.
Svejvig (Eds.), Project Management Theory Meets Practice (pp. 61-
72). Roskilde University Press.
8
 9

2 PRESENTING EXISTING THEORY

The focus of this dissertation is on project concept design – the act
of fashioning project concepts. Hence, a discussion of the literature
and existing theories related to these topics must necessarily include
whatever literature exists related to project concepts and project concept
design. Project concept design is also related to projects in general and
specifically to the front-end of projects. Hence, the literatures and
theories on project concepts can be understood to be one of many sub-
topics within the Study of Projects.

But project concepts are not merely a neutral sub-topic of the Study of
Projects. Instead, as will be subsequently argued, introducing the focal
phenomenon of project concepts into the field of the Study of Projects is
tantamount to calling for a broadening of the customary understanding
of the scope of the Study of Projects, while simultaneously questioning
some of the assumptions that have traditionally underpinned the field.
Therefore, understanding the position occupied by the literature on
project concepts necessitates seeing it in light of the state of the art of
the Study of Projects as a whole.

2.1 Discussing the history and current state of theorising

regarding projects
A better understanding of history might create an improved understanding
of the difficulties in creating, shaping, and managing projects (Söderlund &
Lenfle, 2013)

A scientific discipline’s history influences the present and future of the

discipline10. Not only are what subjects that have been studied (and
how) a historical fact, this accrued inertia influences our present-day
toils in many ways. For instance, when one collates a literature review,
its contents will be determined by history. The research gaps one may
be seeking (in order to fill them) are also a result of history. Moreover,
although a researcher’s endeavours (in their field) are partially guided by
the history of that field, researchers are also affected by historical events
outside their fields, for example through the availability of established
theories and research philosophies (e.g., institutional theory, temporary

10
Read more: For broader discussions as to why the Study of Projects should
show an interest in its history, see Söderlund & Lenfle, 2011;
Söderlund & Lenfle, 2013
 10

organisation, the practice turn11), the development of particular methods

(e.g., grounded theory, Design Science Research, observation through
video shadowing12) as well as by what one could refer to as societal
megatrends (decentralisation, globalisation, climate change, sars-cov-
213). Therefore, knowing a discipline’s history helps one to understand
the discipline’s present and to prepare for the future14.

From engineering management to project management

Following the PMI’s definition of a project as “a temporary endeavor

undertaken to create a unique product, service or result” (Project
Management Institute, 2008:5), it is obvious that such ‘projects’ have
been around for ages. While seeing the construction of a pyramid as an
exemplar of projects in ancient times is quite common15, one should not
assume that projects were uncommon during the antiquity or the Middle
Ages (Morris, 2013a). Admittedly, most of these ancient projects were of
a lesser stature than those whose remains still grace us today16: whether
the temporary endeavour was the digging of a new village well, extending
the abbey’s wine cellar, or organising the yearly caravan to the market
town, the kinds of endeavour we would today refer to as projects were
very much commonplace, and the skills to direct such ventures were
very much part and parcel of the respective master tradesmen (master
stonemasons or caravan masters).

11
Read more: For literature on these, see e.g., Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Meyer
& Rowan, 1977; Lundin & Söderholm, 1995; Packendorff, 1995;
Whittington, 2006; Jarzabkowski & Spee, 2007; Golsorkhi et al.,
2010; Vaara & Whittington, 2012
12
Read more: For literature on these, see e.g., Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Glaser,
1978; Hevner & Chatterjee, 2010; Gregor & Hevner, 2013; Gylfe,
2017; Holton & Walsh, 2017
13
Read more: All the mentioned megatrends (and many more) have had an
impact on the Study of Projects, see e.g., Schneider, 1995; Barber,
Tomkins & Graves, 1999; Bresnen, Goussevskaja & Swan, 2004;
Lee-Kelley & Sankey, 2008; Aarseth et al., 2017; Ika et al., 2020;
Müller & Klein, 2020
14
Read more: For more detailed discussion of the history of the Study of
Projects, see e.g., Söderlund, 2004b; Whitty & Schulz, 2007;
Lenfle & Loch, 2010; Morris, 2010; Morris, 2011; Engwall, 2012;
Lenfle, 2012; Garel, 2013; Hughes, 2013; Morris, 2013a; Padalkar
& Gopinath, 2016
15
Read more: See e.g., Geraldi et al., 2008; Lalonde, Bourgault & Findeli, 2010;
Morris, 2011
16
Elaboration: The following remaining structures are often mentioned as
results of early projects: The Great Pyramids, Stonehenge, the
Coliseum of Rome, the Great Wall of China
 11

Interestingly, one might argue that the early industrial society, with
its emphasis on mass production, economies of scale and attending
hierarchical command structures, is the one distinct historical era
during which temporary endeavours were relegated to a marginal
role. Industrialisation’s novel approaches to industry and economics
posed new, special challenges and what we today know as Management
and Organization Studies was established to help address these novel
challenges. It is therefore no surprise that pre-WWII management
science had no love lost for and little to offer the management of
temporary endeavours. Due to management science’s indifference, the
onus of developing a doctrine for managing these temporary endeavours
fell to engineers. The overall management and directing of large
engineering ventures (whether they be intercontinental railroads, dams,
or luxury liners) became a specialised sub-field of engineering: that of
engineering management17.

Many sources credit World War II and the subsequent Cold War
megaprojects (e.g., Manhattan project, Atlas, Polaris, etc.) for laying
the foundations for project management, and while such accounts
often cite specific armament design projects as loci for ground-breaking
developments in project management, these accounts should be taken
with a truckload of salt. Subsequent detailed re-investigations of many
of these projects have not only failed to find support for earlier claims
but show a quite different picture18. Contemporary revisiting of these
landmark projects shows, instead, that the novel approach that came to
be known as “project management” was not so much about new methods
of managing and co-ordinating the planning and implementation of
vast, complex endeavours, often utilising leading-edge technologies,
but instead was premised on an increasing desire by the parties
financing such endeavours to be able to direct, monitor and – when
needed – intervene (See Lenfle & Loch, 2010). Amid the Cold War arms
race, an approach able to successfully produce one-off results while

17
Note, please: The engineering management of the industrial era (that I am
here referring to) is related to but not identical to the eponymous
modern academic discipline.
18
Read more: For instance, the so called ‘Manhattan project’ is often credited
for having had a pivotal role in the development of project
management. This link is in fact dubious as the Manhattan
project clearly deviated from what is (today) seen as the project
management approach (see Lenfle & Loch, 2010; Morris, 2011;
Lenfle, Le Masson, Weil, 2016)
 12

simultaneously promising a semblance of order and control19 – in other

words a system for controlling engineering management – looked like
the perfect tonic (e.g., Morris, 2013a).

Importantly, projects and project management did not originate from

within the realms of academia or as an offshoot of Management and
Organization Studies20. The development of project management as
a management discipline was, in the post-war decades, a very local,
even parochial affair, with major corporations developing their own
approaches to controlling these temporary endeavours21, and major
public spenders (such as the US DoD) codifying their own approach
to managing the procurement of projects (Lenfle & Loch, 2010). These
many local practices started coalescing into something akin to a collected
discipline only later – largely driven by practitioners and professional
associations.

The simultaneous diffusion of projects and project management from

their original domains (construction, shipbuilding, military projects,
etc.) to cover basically all professional activities, likewise happened at
the behest of managers and business administrators and was supported
by professional associations keen on increasing their influence.
Consequently, actors within the discipline took a very early initiative for
the developing and marketing of their trade, specifically in the form of
professional organisations22. These professional organisations have taken
on the task of defining a curriculum (in the form of so-called Bodies of
Knowledge), and have held a central role in the professional development
of their membership (see e.g., Ono, 1995), while also holding a central
position in facilitating and directing the diffusion and exchange of
discipline-specific knowledge through conferences and journals. In

19
Elaboration: As Lenfle and Loch (2010) argue, modern PM approaches have
less to do with heightening project efficacy or efficiency and are
more based on appeasing managers’ and buyers’ craving for
control and predictability.
20
Note, please: The Study of Projects was also not developed entirely without
academic influences as many of the fundamental pieces (e.g.,
systems analysis, precedence diagrams, resources scheduling,
etc.) were adapted straight out of academia, but their diffusion
and mode of utilisation was not driven by scholarly interests
(Read more in Morris, 2010)
21
Read more: See e.g., Morris, 2011; McCurdy, 2013; Morris, 2013a.
22
Elaboration: Central professional associations were founded early in the
development of the discipline (IPMA, 1965; PMI, 1969; APM,
1972). See also Morris et al., 2006
 13

short, for a very long time, the development of the discipline had been
conducted without the active participation of a scientific interest and
the purpose of research and publishing regarding the discipline was
predominantly prescriptive (not descriptive) (Turner, Pinto & Bredillet,
2011).

Hence, unsurprisingly, the field of project management has within

academia long been notorious for being ‘light on theory’, even ‘theory-
free’. This general sentiment takes many forms and is variously expressed
as: “Descriptive empirical research grounded in theoretical problems
is rare; academics often seem as eager as the practitioners to provide
straight answers, elegant models and universal truths.” (Packendorff,
1995:325); “[the Study of Projects] suffers from a scanty theoretical
basis and lack of concepts” (Shenhar, 2001:394); “the current conceptual
base of project management continues to attract criticism for its lack
of relevance to practice” (Winter, Smith, Morris & Cicmil, 2006:638);
“There are no commonly accepted paradigms that are leading the
perception and understanding of project management. There are no
central theories that are underlying the discipline.” (Shenhar & Dvir,
2007: 95); “No single part of the theoretical foundation can be judged
adequate.” (Koskela & Howell, 2002:11).

From project management to the Study of Projects …

Starting in the 1990s, the earlier equilibrium has been shaken: PM

Journals no longer publish articles that lack citations23, several
ambitious academic research programmes24 have (either directly or
tangentially) re-examined some of the discipline’s basic assumptions and
fundamentals25, and many contributions have heavily criticised the state

23
Read more: See e.g., Betts & Lansley, 1995; Turner, Pinto & Bredillet, 2011.
24
Read more: To name some examples: IMEC (International Program in the
Management of Engineering and Construction) (see Miller &
Lessard, 2001a & 2001b); ‘Rethinking Project Management:
Developing a New Research Agenda’ (see Winter, Smith, Morris
& Cicmil., 2006; Atkinson, Crawford & Ward, 2006; Cicmil et al.,
2006); and the Concept Research Programme (see concept.ntnu.
no and Williams et al., 2010)
25
Read more: During the last 20 years, a number of prominent papers and
books have been published, featuring titles combining words like
‘rethinking’ or ‘reconstructing’ with ‘project management’ (e.g.,
Winter, Smith, Cooke-Davies & Cicmil, 2006; Andersen, 2008;
Sauer & Reich, 2009; Morris, 2013a; Svejvig & Andersen, 2015;
Jacobsson, Lundin & Söderholm, 2016).
 14

and fundaments of the Study of Projects26. I refer to this shaking of the

previous equilibrium as an ‘unsettling’ because the field was no longer
comfortable and established27.

At the same time, business schools and other institutions of higher

learning have awoken to the significance of projects as a way of
conducting business and of arranging work: degree and postgraduate
programmes in project management have proliferated 28 and so have
the demand for and the supply of scientific research into project-
related issues. Partially in tandem with this, new scientific journals
have entered the field and the existing journals have changed their
approach significantly: While PMJ and IJPM29 used to publish short,
mostly anecdotal pieces written by private practitioners for marketing
purposes30, today both journals maintain academic standards and have
ambitions to continue to improve their scientific credentials (Turner,
2010). Finally, one more indicator of the unsettling is that the traditional
term ‘project management’ is gradually falling out of favour and being
replaced with less managerially oriented, less deterministic terms such
as ‘project studies’, ‘the Study of Projects’, and the like.

… through increased pluralism

The last two decades have therefore shown a discipline very much
different from earlier times. Not only has the Study of Projects been
approached using novel approaches31 – even some approaches that are

26
Read more: See e.g., Lundin & Söderholm, 1995; Packendorff, 1995; Atkinson,
1999; Williams, 1999; Pender, 2001; Shenhar, 2001; Engwall,
2003; Söderlund, 2004a&b; Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006: Winter,
Smith, Morris & Cicmil, 2006; Lenfle & Loch, 2010; Söderlund,
2011a; Hällgren, 2012; Mullaly, 2014.
27
Note, please: Pinto and Winch (2016), in a tribute to the achievements of
P.W.G. Morris, use the term ‘unsettling’ to describe Morris’ effect
on the Study of Projects. By using the same term, I too salute
Morris’ life’s work.
28
Read more: See e.g., Turner & Huemann, 2001; Pant & Baroudi, 2008;
Walker, 2008
29
Terminology: PMJ: Project management journal; IJPM: International Journal
of Project Management
30
Read more: See e.g., Turner, Pinto & Bredillet, 2011. For a review, see Betts &
Lansley, 1995.
For examples, see e.g., Hastings, 1995; Johns, 1995; Pitagorsky,
1998.
31
Read more: See e.g., Green, 2006; Whitty & Schultz, 2007; Nogeste, 2008;
Blomquist et al., 2010; Blomquist & Lundin, 2010; Whitty, 2010;
Fuller, Dainty & Thorpe, 2011; McKenna & Metcalfe, 2013; van
der Hoorn, 2016a, Petter & Carter, 2017
 15

explicitly philosophy-derived32, but there has also been a significant

increase in critical scholarship33, as well as various attempts at sweeping
reconceptualisation through approaching projects from new directions34.
Some researchers refer to this renaissance of scholarly interest as a ‘third
wave’ in the Study of Projects (Morris, Pinto & Söderlund, 2012), while
some even characterise the shift as a scientific revolution35 in the Kuhnian
(Kuhn, 1970) sense. In the following paragraphs, three of these initiatives
will be discussed.

One of these attempts at reconceptualisation is the ‘practice turn’ as it

applies to the Study of Projects. The ‘practice turn’ is a phrase referring to
the increased attention towards practice evident in social sciences since
the 1980s (Schatzki, 2001; Whittington, 2006). In this context, ‘practice’
denotes two separate, yet connected foci. First, and in contrast to the
great majority of social science as well as Management and Organization
Studies, practice research is interested in the grassroots: it focuses on
actors and what they do and tries to understand actors and their doings
in light of the actors’ environments. Second, ‘practice’ tries to enfold the
individual (micro) and the society (macro) as an interconnected field
where individuals and societies reinforce and shape each other over time.
By doing so, practice research does not focus on one to the detriment of
the other, but instead acknowledges the need for embracing both. In so
doing practice research is not only interested in practice (in the sense of
‘happening in reality’) but also in praxis (concrete, situated action, e.g.,
ways in that people face challenges, deal with hiccups and co-construct
their everyday reality), practices (routines, instruments, and discourses
developed out of praxis), and practitioners (individuals implementing
and co-constructing practices in their everyday praxis). In the wake of
the ‘practice turn’, practice research has made significant inroads into
many sub-disciplines of Management and Organization Studies36.

32
Read more: See e.g., Sewchurran, 2008; Yeung, Chan & Chan, 2012; de
Bakker, Boonstra & Wortmann, 2012; Metcalfe & Sastrowardoyo,
2013; Floricel et al., 2014; van der Hoorn & Whitty, 2015; Geraldi
& Söderlund, 2016; Rolfe, Segal & Cicmil, 2017; Floricel &
Piperca, 2017
33
Read more: See e.g., Hodgson, 2002; Hodgson & Cicmil, 2006, 2007;
Lindgren & Packendorff, 2006; Marshall, 2006; Cicmil &
O’Laocha, 2016
34
Read more: See e.g., Rand, 2000; Rämö, 2002; Manning, 2008; Blomquist
& Lundin, 2010; Drouin & Jugdev, 2013; Winch, 2014, van der
Hoorn, 2016b
35
Read more: See e.g., Bredillet et al., 2013; Floricel et al., 2014
36
Read more: See e.g., Jarzabkowski & Spee 2007; Orlikowski, 2010; Vaara &
Whittington 2012
 16

The Study of Projects has not been at the forefront of adopting practice
research, but neither has the practice turn bypassed the Study of
Projects. While projects-as-practice research was not unheard of prior
to 200637, since the prominent 2006 call for more research into the
actuality of projects (Cicmil et al., 2006), there has been a significant
increase in projects-as-practice research38. Then again, even if projects-
as-practice has become accepted as one valid approach to studying
projects, it remains a relatively marginal approach. Hence, we still know
comparatively little about the “actuality of project-based working and
management” (Cicmil et al., 2006:675).

Another attempt at reconceptualisation projects and their management

has been centred around viewing project management in light of
Goldratt’s Theory of Constraints (also: TOC) (Goldratt, 1990). As noted
by Geraldi and Lechter (2012), many of the core notions and mental
constructions used in project management today are direct descendants
of scientific management, and its tendency to envision management as
an instrument of linear optimisation. Against this backdrop, applying
the theory of constraints to projects (also known as critical chain project
management, CCPM) – which, instead of optimising each part separately
focuses on optimising the entire process – can be seen as a distinct and
influential departure from the mainstream39. Starting in 2000, CCPM
and TOC have been the focus of increasing scholarly attention within the
Study of Projects40.

Drawing on the approach and literature on critical management studies,

and drawing inspiration from the so-called ‘Scandinavian School of
Project Studies’ (e.g., Leyborne, 2007), several researchers have taken
the initiative towards ‘making projects critical’ (Hodgson & Cicmil,
2016). While the boundaries of this initiative are not easy to delineate, a
common thread seems to have been the beginning of a dialogue with the
instrumental, functionalist mainstream through using an agenda that did

37
Read more: See e.g., Boddy & Macbeth, 2000; Blackburn, 2002; Pitsis et al.,
2003.
38
Read more: See e.g., Hällgren & Wilson, 2008; Manning, 2008; Hällgren &
Söderholm, 2011; Oksman, 2013; Floricel et al., 2014; van der
Hoorn & Whitty, 2017; Buchan & Simpson, 2020
39
Read more: See e.g., Lechler, Ronen & Stohr, 2005; Yang & Fu, 2014; Luiz et
al., 2019
40
Read more: For further literature discussing the theory of constraints in
projects, see e.g., Rand, 2000; Steyn, 2001; Yeo & Ning, 2002;
Trietsch, 2005; Zwikael, Cohen & Sadeh, 2006; Gill, 2008; Long
& Ohsato, 2008; Ordoñez et al., 2019.
 17

not shy away from painful questions and that saw projects not as a value-
neutral exercise in optimisation but as a practice that must deal with
issues such as power, politics, exploitation, ethics, equality, morality, and
values 41. This initiative has further played a pivotal role in engendering
the subsequent ‘rethinking’ movement.

Summarising recent developments

As part of the unsettling, researchers have started approaching projects

in novel ways, questioning or re-examining some of the taken-for-granted
premises42 as well as questioning long-established assumptions of
projects as a rational, meritocratic, honest, and value-free management
technique. Questions such as those regarding ethical aspects of projects43,
the relationship(s) between gender and projects44, the effect(s) of
projects and project managers on employee well-being45, even projects’
relationship to exploitation46, corruption and fraud47 have received some
attention. In the previous era dominated by prescriptive contributions,
such research would have been an unthinkable heresy.

41
Read more: For some seminal contributions in this direction see e.g., Kreiner,
1995; Lundin & Söderholm, 1995; Packendorff, 1995; Hodgson,
2002; Hodgson & Cicmil, 2006; Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006;
Hodgson & Cicmil, 2008; Ika & Hodgson, 2014; Packendorff &
Lindgren, 2014; van der Hoorn & Whitty, 2015; Lloyd-Walker,
French & Crawford, 2016
42
Read more: See e.g., Snider & Nissen, 2003; Winter, Andersen, Elvin &
Levene, 2006; Modig, 2007; Olsson, 2007; Lenfle, 2012; Garel,
2013; Jacobsson, Burström & Wilson, 2013; Maier & Branzei,
2014; Ojansivu & Alajoutsijärvi, 2015; Bakhshi, Ireland & Gorod,
2016
43
Read more: See e.g., Loo, 2002; Helgadóttir, 2008; Corvellec & Macheridis,
2010; Bredillet, 2014; Lopez & Medina, 2015; Biedenbach &
Jacobsson, 2016; Klein, 2016; Lohne et al., 2017; Ljungblom &
Lennerfors, 2018
44
Read more: See e.g., Buckle & Thomas, 2003; Thomas & Buckle-Henning,
2007; Legault & Chasserio, 2012; Henderson, Stackman & Koh,
2013; Pinto, Dawood & Pinto, 2014; Pinto, Patanakul & Pinto,
2017; Greer & Carden, 2021
45
Read more: See e.g., Turner, Huemann & Keegan, 2008; Turner, Lindgard &
Francis, 2009; Gallagher, Mazur & Ashkanasy, 2015; Walker &
Lloyd-Walker, 2016; Darling & Whitty, 2019
46
Read more: See e.g., Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006; Hodgson & Cicmil, 2008;
Ballard & Tommelein, 2012; Scott, 2012; Mesly et al. 2013;
Molloy & Chetty, 2015
47
Read more: See e.g., Tam, 1999; Sonuga, Aliboh & Oloke, 2002; Sichombo
et al., 2009; Osei-Tutu, Badu & Owusu-Manu, 2010; Molloy &
Chetty, 2015; Locatelli et al., 2017; Damoah et al., 2018
 18

Nevertheless, while many endeavouring researchers have approached

some of the blind and sore spots within the Study of Projects, their
contributions have yet to have had a significant impact on the overall
understanding of projects: the bulk of attention is still directed
towards making projects fulfil their promise of flexibility, timeliness
and efficiency. On the one hand, numerous studies have highlighted
the previously hidden sins in and of projects, and the collective moral
neutralisation (Kvalnes, 2014) endemic to the Study of Projects
throughout the 20th century no longer goes unquestioned. Yet, on the
other hand, these critical contributions remain marginal48.

Crucially, since the unsettling, there is an increasing willingness within

the Study of Projects to acknowledge that a lot of work – detailed as well
as general; central as well as tangential – still remains to be done. Against
this background, the following chapter will discuss the project front-end
(and its relationship with the Study of Projects), before discussing the
extant literature on project concepts.

2.2 Examining the literature on the project front-end

The previous chapter has discussed the history of the Study of Projects
and contemporary approaches in the Study of Projects. Simultaneously,
the previous chapter has not paid any special attention towards the
literature regarding “Project concepts, project concept design, and other
topics affecting the front-end of projects” – topics that are central to this
dissertation. To that end, this section investigates how literature on the
Study of Projects understands the project front-end, and what role (in
that context) project concepts are seen to be playing.

The (missing?) link between parent organisations and projects

Irrespective of whether one wishes to envision projects as temporary

organisations (e.g., Lundin & Söderholm, 1995; Packendorff, 1995),
organisational units (Gaddis, 1959), or as temporary endeavours
(e.g., Project Management Institute, 2008 & 2017), it is obvious that
projects are not intended to be permanent, or are at least expected to
be even less permanent than the so-called ‘permanent organisations’ or

48
Elaboration: None of the topics mentioned above (gender, exploitation, well-
being, etc.) have reached the point of being significant enough
to have been among the 43 focal trends identified in the Study of
Projects (during 2001–2019) by Wawak and Woźniak, 2020.
 19

‘parent organisations’49 that projects exist to serve (Söderlund, Hobbs &

Ahola, 2014; Winch, 2014). All organisations have a beginning, and all
organisations either have had or will have an end. One difference is that
in the case of projects, longevity is not associated with success, quite
the opposite.

Although projects and parent organisations are in some ways separate,

they are also (and must be) linked. Projects are set up for the purpose of
getting something done: to produce a product, service, event, knowledge,
or other result. Projects receive their purpose (and resources) from
parent organisations because, independent of whether a project’s purpose
is understood as being to produce a result according to specifications,
in time and within a budget50, or whether one would like to see that the
project has a mission (e.g., Andersen, 2008), that triple constraint or
project mission is in turn derived from serving the parent organisation’s
needs. Therefore, the project mission or triple constraint is linked to
organisational imperatives51. Similarly, whether parent organisation(s)
judge it sensible to separate the project and give it extensive autonomy or
whether they think it necessary to keep the project more integrated in the
day-to-day activity or the parent organisation, there are always overlaps
between projects and parents – from IT support to payroll, company
policy toward diversity, and so on.

Therefore, there are several levels of links between projects and parents.
Furthermore, while one might consider some of these links to be
irrelevant, even nuisances, others are undoubtedly crucial to the ability
of the project to produce something of value – even to the existence
of the project. Moreover, while some of these links are predominantly

49
Terminology: Parent organisations are defined as organisations that contribute
to the project by offering funds, manpower, or equivalent
resources.
50
Elaboration: The so-called “triple constraint” or “iron triangle” of cost,
schedule and performance is still in widespread use in both in
practitioner-oriented and academic literature (e.g., Catanio,
Armstrong & Tucker, 2013; Garton & McCulloch, 2004; Norrie
& Walker, 2004; Schwalbe, 2006; Tonnquist, 2016; Webster &
Knutson, 2006)
51
Terminology: This dissertation systematically uses the term ‘organisational
imperative’ to denote whatever transitory goals or stable values
organisations may have, around the achievement of which the
organisation’s activity is structured. Therefore, while goals
set in an organisational strategy are a typical example of an
organisational imperative, the phrase ‘organisational imperative’
also encompasses stable values, such as ‘profit’ or ‘equality’.
 20

important at the beginning or the end of a project, other links are

important throughout the project. This dissertation will focus on the links
at the beginning of the project.

Even though the links at the beginning of a project are self-evidently

important, it is similarly clear that they are relatively under-appreciated
in scholarship. It is therefore important to understand why that is so.
This dissertation’s understanding is that the primary reason for why
the links between parent and project organisation have not received
attention is historical – that for a prolonged period of time project
scholarship had a very narrow view on the temporal scope of projects
(e.g., Söderlund, 2004b; Morris, 2011). For example, many early accounts
see projects starting from a ‘customer’s specification’ (e.g., Gaddis, 1959;
Baumgartner, 1963; Lock, 1968) and ending with the handover of the
specified result, and simply pay no attention to whatever preceded those
specifications or what happens after the handover. At the same time,
project scholarship was focused strongly on finding the failure and
success factors of projects from within them52. In particular, there was
a strong focus on the project manager and their personality, traits and
skills53, as well as methods for controlling project work54 and optimising
the project (internally) (Söderlund, 2004b).

Even today, there is no clear consensus regarding the degree to which

activities preceding project formalisation are part of the Study of Projects
or are within the remit of project managers. While a majority of recent
books on projects include the front-end phase, even emphasise its
significance55, there are also representations that omit the phase entirely
(e.g., Schwalbe, 2010), see the front-end as a minor prelude to actual
planning, akin mostly to requesting clarifications (e.g., Maylor, 1996),
or describe the start of projects by developing a ‘project charter’56 (e.g.,
Project Management Institute, 2008 & 2017).

52
Read more: See e.g., Pinto & Slevin, 1987; Belassi & Tukel, 1996; Munns &
Bjeirmi, 1996
53
Read more: See e.g., Gaddis, 1959; Posner, 1987; Parkin, 1996; Hauschildt,
Keim & Medcof, 2000
54
Read more: See e.g., Avotos, 1983; Gough-Palmer, 1983
55
Read more: See e.g., Cleland 1994; Taylor 2004; Kerzner 2009; Gustavsson
2019
56
Note, please: Investigating what the PMBoK refers to as developing a project
charter, one notices that the PMI’s conceptualisation of the
activity/process uses the results of the project front-end as
inputs. Hence, the project front-end would fall outside the PMI’s
view of a project’s temporal scope.
 21

While – throughout most of the discipline’s existence – it may have been

defensible to focus on the stages between formalisation and handover
(to the detriment of everything else), that defence is no longer tenable.
The Study of Projects can no longer continue to exist in a vacuum: In
Engwall’s (2003:789) words: “No project is an island”. Lumbering project
managers with an already defined project and telling them to “make it
happen” (Richardson, 2015:4), seems – frankly – ludicrous. Instead,
what happens between project formalisation and handover must be
thoroughly linked to the project’s history and context57, and the Study of
Projects must be prepared to expand upstream to embrace activities that
precede project formalisation58.

Re-engendering and conceptualising the link – the

project front-end

One approach to trying to fill that relative vacuum and explore the
missing links between parent organisations and projects has been centred
around the construct of a ‘project front-end’59 and attendant calls for the
Study of Projects to pay more attention to it. While one can understand
the project front-end as a timespan, or as a project phase, I find it most
fruitful to understand the project front-end as something notional.

The project front-end tries to notionally encapsulate all that precedes

project formalisation but is directly pertinent to the project. It embodies
the gaps, while trying to sustain the links. Centrally, the front-end
also tries to deal with the uncertainty (scant information, temporal
distance) and solution ambiguity inherent in the starting of projects.
Unsurprisingly, decisions made during the project front-end are generally
seen to have a major impact on projects’ trajectories and their ability to
offer benefits60.

57
Read more: See e.g., Lundin & Söderholm, 1998; Grabher & Ibert, 2011;
Morris, 2013b
58
Read more: For similar calls, see e.g., Abdul-Kadir & Price, 1995; Barton,
2002; Atkinson, Crawford & Ward, 2006; Morris, Pinto &
Söderlund, 2011; Morris, 2013a
59
Read more: See e.g., Artto, Lehtonen & Saranen, 2001; Morris, 2009; Hjortsø
& Meilby, 2013; Andersen, Samset & Welde, 2016; Artto, Ahola &
Vartiainen, 2016
60
Read more: See e.g., Miller & Hobbs, 2005; Samset, 2009; Williams &
Samset, 2010; Edkins et al., 2013; Andersen, Samset & Welde,
2016; Samset & Volden, 2016; Aaltonen, Ahola & Artto, 2017;
Alfredsen Larsen, Karlsen & Andersen, 2020; Alfredsen Larsen et
al., 2021
 22

Hence, the project front-end is simultaneously not part of the project

(as it precedes the existence of the project as a formalised entity) and is
a crucial part of the project (in part as without the front-end, the project
would never become a project; in part as whatever happens in the parent
organisation(s) as part of the front-end is already geared towards the
project). Notionally, the project front-end (phase)61 subsumes (what
used to be known as) the project’s concept phase62, initiation phase, pre-
planning phase63 and exploratory64 phase.

The notional project front-end starts when an organisational actor

decides that the potential for a project should be explored, and it
ends with formal approval and formalisation of the project (or,
alternatively, with a no-go decision). Given that the front-end might be
prolonged65, some scholars have sought to structure and sub-divide the
front-end phase66.

61
Read more: Sometimes, and especially in R&D, NPD, and innovation project
literature, the phase is also referred to as the ‘fuzzy front-end’.
See e.g., Burström, 2012; Thomas, George & Buckle-Henning,
2012; Kock, Heising & Gemünden, 2016
62
Read more: The terms ‘concept phase’ and ‘conceptualisation phase’ (e.g.,
Lansiti, 1995; Burström, 2011; Rolstadås et al., 2015) and
‘conceptual design phase’ (e.g., Abdul-Kadir & Price, 1995;
Kerzner, 2009; Julian, 2016) are sometimes used synonymously
with ‘front-end phase’ while sometimes the term is used to denote
that part of the front-end that deals with project concepts (and
not with e.g., contracts, financing, etc.)
63
Read more: Also, pre-project phase and pre-project planning phase. See e.g.,
Miller & Hobbs, 2005; Wang & Gibson, 2006; Zhu, Jiang & Yu,
2020
64
Read more: The phrase ‘exploratory phase’ occurs in scholarship mostly
referring to an early phase of a research venture but is at times
also used when discussing projects in general. See e.g., Lampel,
2001; Turner et al., 2014; Melese et al., 2017
65
Read more: Several authors (e.g., Hall, 1982; Morris & Hough, 1987; Miller
& Lessard, 2001a; Miller & Hobbs 2009; Andersen, Samset &
Welde, 2016) describe project front-ends that lasted several
years.
66
Read more: For some suggested sub-divisions within the front-end phase, see
e.g., Rosen, 2004; Andersen, 2009.
 23

Similarly, several suggestions have been offered as organising ideas for

the project front-end, among them project benefits realisation67, project
value management68 , and project concepts69, and each of these, in their
own way, try to idealise and theorise the project front-end, and offer
their own ways to mentally construct the parent-project gaps and links.
While these theorisations (project benefits realisation, project value
management, project concepts) are quite different, they each use a
central notion (‘benefit’, ‘value’, or ‘concept’70) to make sense of and order
the front-end and link organisations imperatives and organisational
wherewithal71 with projects. In this ordo ab chaos role, these notions

67
Read more: For literature on project benefits realisation, see e.g., Breese,
2012; Breese et al., 2015; Serra & Kunc, 2015; Keeys & Huemann,
2017; Terlizzi, Albertin & de Oliveira Cesar de Moraes, 2017;
Zwikael & Meredith, 2019; Svejvig & Schlichter, 2020
68
Read more: For literature on project value management, see e.g., Thiry,
2001; Male et al., 2007; Bowen et al., 2010, Maniak et al., 2014;
Martinsuo & Killen, 2014; Gillier, Hooge & Piat, 2015, Martinsuo,
2020
69
Read more: For some further literature on project concepts, see e.g., Neal,
1995; Floricel & Miller, 2001; Miller & Hobbs, 2005; Joham,
Metcalfe & Sastrowardoyo, 2009; Williams, 2009; Smith &
Winter, 2010; Williams & Samset, 2010; Shiferaw, 2013; Akbar &
Mandurah, 2014; Rolstadås et al., 2015; Samset & Volden, 2016;
Volden, 2019, Picciotto, 2020
70
Note, please: While this description is not wholly accurate (as the terms
are sometimes used synonymously, even haphazardly), I will
nevertheless summarise the differences between the ‘benefits
realisation’, ‘value management’, and ‘project concepts’ as
follows:
Whereas Benefits realisation focuses on identifying the central
products/results (benefits) and pays attention to their coming
to be, Value management often focuses on the instrumental,
quantifiable value of these benefits. Therefore, one could
characterise one to focus more on instrumental, monetary
yield, whereas the other is more focused on production. Project
concepts – in contrast – focus on a more conceptual, even
abstract level, and while project concepts do thereby not similarly
lend themselves to instrumental applications, they offer a
significantly broader scope and applicability.
Even so, all three have in common that they – in their own way –
facilitate the conceptual structuring of the project front-end.
For a related discussion, see Eskerod, Ang & Andersen, 2018
71
Terminology: This dissertation systematically uses the term ‘organisational
wherewithal’ to signify the totality of resources (personnel,
abilities, material, finances, etc.) and processes that are available
to (or can be made available to) the project.
 24

become tools for interpreting the relationship between parent and project
organisations and offer potential links between the Study of Projects and
Management and Organization Studies.

2.3 Reviewing existing theorisation regarding project

concepts and project concept design

Given that Essay 1 contains, among other things, a literature review

of project concepts, this dissertation will here summarise the existing
literature mainly in relation to the project front-end and the Study of
Projects.

As is made evident in Essay 1, ‘project concept’ is a term used by several

scholars to refer to various ‘ideas for a project’. These ‘ideas for a project’
may be of limited scope and pertain only to one aspect of a project72,
or they may be the project equivalents of grand theories, aiming to
encapsulate the entire rationale behind why the project was started and
enfold the idea of an entire project73. Independent of scope, a ‘project
concept’ denotes something that pre-exists identifying or naming them
as such74.

Project concepts are mostly discussed in relation to the project front-

end75, and given that ideas precede deliberate action (and the front-
end precedes projects), this is not surprising. While there seems to be
agreement that such initial ‘ideas for a project’ are often the original
impetus that commences the front-end76, the relationship between
project concepts and the project front-end is not that simple. Instead,
various forms of deliberate project concept design constitute a central

72
Read more: See e.g., Wells, Wardman & Whetton, 1993; Floricel & Miller,
2001; Cohen & Palmer, 2004; Miller & Hobbs, 2005; Kenward &
Monnickendam, 2006; Skibniewski & Vecino, 2012; Rawlins &
Westby, 2013),
73
Read more: See e.g., Randle, 1960; Scott & Yang, 1991; Ernst, 2002; Cooke-
Davies; 2009; Miller & Hobbs, 2009; Morris, 2009; Næss, 2009;
Williams, 2009; Xie & Zhang, 2011.
74
Elaboration: The point is to emphasise that – unlike several project related
tools or concepts, such as ‘work breakdown structures’ – project
concepts exist independently of there being a word or term for
them.
75
Read more: See e.g., Lansiti, 1995; Buganza, Dell’Era & Verganti, 2009;
Morris, 2009; Hjortsø & Meilby 2013; Stawasz & Stos, 2016;
Welde & Odeck 2017
76
Read more: See e.g., Randle 1960; Ernst 2002; Samset 2009; Mang & Reed
2012; O’Toole 2013; Helm et al. 2016; Abrell & Karjalainen 2017.
 25

part of the front-end. Some of these forms of project concept design are:
systematic searching for new project concepts – project concepts to act
as alternatives to already existing project concepts and to complement
existing project concepts77; probing existing project concepts to develop
them further78; selecting (using a wide range of methods) a set of
project concepts to move forward with79. While the extant literature
acknowledges that project concepts are purposefully created (i.e.,
‘designed’) the focus of that literature is not on action (project concept
design) but on the result (project concepts).

But while these forms of project concept design were here presented in an
order (new concepts, developing existing concepts, selecting concepts),
the extant literature rarely offers such clarity. Instead, indices are
presented haphazardly, and most contributions focus predominantly on
one of these forms. Further, some sources describe design activities that
follow a top-down approach, while others detail a bottom-up method. 80

One significant element raised in the literature is the importance of fit

between project concepts and the realities (technical, economic, other)
that the project or aspects of that project should interact with. In the
literature, this is especially highlighted in discussions regarding the so-
called ‘business case’ of the project 81, but is also often linked to specific
key criteria of projects, such as stakeholder needs, environmental issues
or societal aspects that also need to fit the project’s environment 82. At the
same time, some scholars highlight that project concepts need not only

77
Read more: See e.g., Astorg et al. 2007; Shedletsky, Campbell & Havskjold
2009; Williams, Terpenny & Goff 2009; Börekçi, Kaygan &
Hasdoǧan 2016.
78
Read more: See e.g., Heidenberger & Stummer 1999; Ernst 2002; Hagen
2009; Wilford & O’Brien 2016; Welde & Odeck 2017
79
Read more: See e.g., Smith-Daniels & Smith-Daniels, 2008; Andersen, 2009;
Scheibehenne & von Helversen, 2009; Williams, Terpenny &
Goff, 2009; Wright, Bolger & Rowe, 2009; Pettitt & Westfall 2015
80
Read more: See e.g., Diaz et al., 1998; Whittle, Stange & Hanson, 2007; van
der Heijden, 2009; Bochner & Storey, 2011; Schubert et al., 2011;
Al-Faresi et al., 2013; Börekçi, Kaygan & Hasdoǧan, 2016
81
Read more: See e.g., Ernst, 2002; Cooke-Davies, 2009; Miller & Hobbs,
2009; Williams & Samset, 2010.
82
Read more: See e.g., Kubal, 1996; Jaafari & Manivong, 1999; Gransberg et al.,
2013; Banihashemi et al., 2017
 26

fit with realities, but also with each other83. Even so, while the literature
contains indications of the importance of fit, the treatment of the topic
is not comprehensive, nor does it comment on how fit can be achieved.

Another important aspect to note is that the literature not only depicts the
initial project concept (the initial idea for a project) as the starting point
of the project front-end 84, but also sees project concept design as having
a clear role in facilitating the shift from the project front-end to the next
project phase. The literature repeatedly describes project concepts as
facilitating a thorough up-front evaluation of a project’s viability and the
role project concepts therefore have in enabling decisions on whether a
project should move forward or be discarded85. Therefore, not only do
initial project concepts initiate the project front-end, once those initial
project concepts have been developed sufficiently they also initiate the
project proper (or show that the project should be discarded).

Considering the overall relationship between the project front-end,

project concepts and project concept design, it is obvious that there is
a broad range of project concept design practices that are undoubtedly
crucial to the project front-end. Even so, the project front-end also
contains activities that either merely support project concept design or
are largely unrelated to project concept design86. Furthermore, while
project concept design is crucial to the project front-end, there are several
indications in the literature that point towards provisions for project
concepts to be evaluated, changed, and adjusted beyond the front-end87.

83
Read more: See e.g., Smith-Daniels & Smith-Daniels, 2008; Andersen, 2009;
Hagen, 2009; Skibniewski & Vecino, 2012
84
Read more: See e.g., Scott & Yang, 1991; Neal, 1995, Morris, 2009; Næss,
2009; Xie & Zhang, 2011.
85
Read more: See e.g., Randle, 1960; Grundy, 2001; Cohen & Palmer, 2004;
Morrison & Brown, 2004; Miller & Hobbs, 2005; Hagen, 2009;
Armour, 2012; Tsai & Chen, 2013; Volden & Samset, 2017; Zorzal
et al., 2017; Matthies & Coners, 2018.
86
Elaboration: Some typical front-end activities such as market studies, focus
group interviews, business intelligence may be both relevant and
pertinent to project concept design (without, however, being
directly part of it), while other activities (such as preliminary
negotiations with potential subcontractors) are only tangentially
related.
87
Read more: See e.g., Lansiti, 1995; Miller & Lessard, 2001a; Olsson, 2006;
Buganza, Dell’Era & Verganti, 2009; Hagen, 2009; Miller &
Hobbs, 2009
 27

Therefore, while project concept design makes up a central part of the

entire project front-end, the notions of a project front-end and project
concepts (and project concept design) are not one and the same.

Pondering the relationship of the Study of Projects and project

concept design and project concepts does illuminate two worthwhile
considerations. First, it is clear that discussions on project concepts and
project concept design do feature in the kinds of outlet that can – by all
standards – be seen as part of the Study of Projects. Simultaneously,
it is also evident that discussions regarding project concepts (as ideas
for a project) and their designing is by no means limited to the Study
of Projects and that, indeed, a significant if not major part of that
discussion is being conducted in literatures only tangential to the
Study of Projects. And while it is indeed understandable that safety
or environmental notions of oil exploration projects are discussed in
contributions targeted at petrochemical engineering audiences88; or
that project concept design issues are discussed in design-focused
outlets89 – this (together with the Study of Projects’ previously narrow
understanding of projects’ temporal scope) can have contributed to the
relatively late entry of project concept-related aspects on the agenda of
the Study of Projects.

Second, it is similarly evident, that a majority of central mental models

and theorizations of how projects progress do not include the notion of
project concepts or project concept design. Instead, some descriptions
even disregard everything that precedes project formalisation, downplay
the significance of the front-end, or paint a picture of the front-end that
entirely omits the complexities of designing project concepts.

2.4 Summarising the shortcomings of extant theory on

project concepts and project concept design

Chapter 2.1 offered a brief condensation of the trajectory to date of

the Study of Projects, and chapters 2.2 and 2.3 extended on that by
discussing how research and theorisations on the project front-end
and project concepts have developed. While these chapters have not

88
Read more: See e.g., Al-Faresi et al., 2013; Pettitt & Westfall, 2015; Wilford &
O’Brien, 2016.
89
Read more: See e.g., Shedletsky, Campbell & Havskjold, 2009; Williams,
Terpenny & Goff, 2009; Schubert et al., 2011
 28

uncritically summarised extant theorisations but have also offered a

running commentary on relevant key points, I will start by summarising
those problematisations that are relevant going forward.

First, for mainly historical reasons, the traditional temporal scope

of project management and therefore the initial scope of the Study of
Projects has not included whatever happens before project formalisation.
This has led to (previously) pre-formalisation activities not having been
considered as part of the remit of the Study of Projects and leads (even
today) to the entirety referred to as the project front-end still not being
unanimously considered as part of either a project manager’s remit or
the Study of Projects.

Second, while in some circles the project front-end has become accepted
as an integral part of (or at the very least as an overture to) the project,
in other circles any mention of a project front-end is seen as a challenge
to the claim that ‘professional’ project management is as an inherently
correct and sufficient discipline90. This tension and the resulting less-
than-uniform inclusion of the project front-end into the scope of projects
and the Study of Projects continues to hamper systematic and rigorous
investigation of the project front-end.

Finally, very few contributions have focused specifically on project

concepts or project concept design. As a result, the literature that goes
beyond anecdotal evidence is relatively scarce. The little that there is
mostly contents itself with connecting a few dots and does not aim to
produce a picture. Hence, to the best of my knowledge – and except
for this dissertation and the enclosed essays – no serious attempts at
theorising project concepts have yet been made. Therefore, no single
piece or easily manageable collection of the existing literature allows one
to draw sufficient conclusions on the questions asked by the research
questions: What are project concepts and what forms do they take?
Who designs project concepts and how do they do it? How can project
concepts positively affect the subsequent project? What kinds of factor
can facilitate or impede successful project concept design?

90
Read more: For related discussions, see e.g., Hodgson, 2002; Cicmil
& Hodgson, 2006; Morris et al., 2006; Hodgson & Muzio,
2011; Pellegrinelli, 2011; Legault & Chasserio, 2012; Bredin &
Söderlund, 2013; Konstantinou, 2015; Hodgson & Paton, 2016;
Gemünden & Aubry, 2017; Miterev, Engwall & Jerbrant, 2017;
Picciotto, 2020.
 29

3 CONTEMPLATING METHODS
Science, I’d argue, is actually better and more convenient than a miracle,
because you don’t spend the next 2000 years worshipping the scientists, you
can be like ‘thanks.’ (Oliver, 2018)

In this chapter, I will be contemplating issues related to research

methods. The purpose of an open and frank discussion on methods is
to help the reader make an informed judgment regarding validity; to
help the reader judge “How do we know when we have specific social
inquiries that are faithful enough to some human construction that we
may feel safe in acting on them, or, more important, that members of
the community in which the research is conducted may act on them?”
(Lincoln, Lynham & Guba, 2018:242)

To that end, a key element of this chapter is to explicate the research

methods applied in the essays. However, as the essays each discuss one
or more parts of a wider phenomenon, and as the essays each try to
contribute to the discussion related to that wider phenomenon, it is not
only important how one conceives those parts, but also how one envisions
that wider phenomenon to be. In plain terms, one’s understanding
of a topic such as project concepts needs to be in tune with one’s
understanding of projects.

Hence, I will start this chapter by offering my understanding of what

projects are, and what implications that has for attempts to study
projects. Subsequently, I will do the same for the project front-end and
for project concepts. Thereafter, I will briefly detail the research methods
used in each of the essays, before finishing with a brief reflection.

3.1 Deliberating the phenomena – wide and narrow

Discussing projects as the object of study

Historically, the Study of Projects has progressed from a relatively narrow

‘definition’ of projects to a wider ‘characterisation’ of projects. While
this shift has admittedly allowed many more ventures and structures
to be referred to as projects and while this can be seen as leading to
‘conceptual colonization’ or ‘epistemological emptying’ (Rehn, 2019), it
has also allowed ambiguity to re-enter the scene, and I argue that this is
fundamentally a good thing.
 30

Organisations may have many images and be seen, studied, and

understood through several perspectives (Morgan, 2006), and projects
may be studied from several images, perspectives or ‘schools’ (Söderlund,
2002; Bredillet, 2004; Winter & Szczepanek, 2009; Turner et al., 2010).
An organisation or a project thereby can be (or can be seen as) many
things. Furthermore, projects are never just projects. Instead, that a
venture or structure is a ‘project’, is always only one aspect of it, and the
more narrow or strict a definition of ‘project’ we adopt, the blinder (or
more unwilling to see) we become of its other aspects. The less absolute
our definition of ‘project’, the more we allow for case-by-case variation
and the more we are ready to recognise contingent elements.

It all boils down to whether we see the purpose of the Study of Projects
(and Management and Organization Studies at large) to be that of
furthering understanding or that of prescription91. If understanding is the
main goal, we should be fundamentally willing to see a phenomenon from
as many viewpoints as can help inform our understanding of it. In this
mode of study, a project is a project but not only a project. Approaching
a phenomenon as a ‘project’ is sensible if treating it as such helps to
broaden our understanding of that phenomenon. Science that is aimed
at understanding does not monopolise or colonise, nor does it lead to
‘epistemological emptying’. If I want to study an urban reorganisation
as a project, that does not preclude someone else from studying it as a
case in political science, nor a third from studying it as related to social
movements. On the contrary, approaching a phenomenon from several
angles and using diverse approaches should be welcomed, and the results
from using the varied perspectives should be studied, compared and
pondered.

While this dissertation is not so much interested in studying projects (as

such), most of its focal topics (project concepts; project concept design;
the project front-end; project (concept design) practice; hidden goals in
projects) are strongly related to projects. Therefore, it is also necessary
to anchor the discussion of these topics by offering a characterisation of
projects that support furthering practice/process-oriented research into
projects, project concepts and the project front-end.

91
Note, please: For a similar discussion, see March, 1997.
 31

In line with the rationale given above, the following are common,
research-relevant characteristics of projects92. I start by quickly itemising
these characteristics below, and will expand upon them and their
implications for practitioners and researchers in subsequent paragraphs:

1. Projects are artificial creations that exist due to a decision to

form them.
2. Projects are formed to produce a non-routine benefit, in order to
satisfy an organisational imperative.
3. Projects are not intended to be permanent.
4. Projects are in flux.
5. Projects are governed only by human laws.
6. Projects have organisation.
7. Projects involve multiple parties.

Projects are artificial and do not exist in nature. Being artificial, projects
have been made by someone or something (see Simon, 1996). This begs
the question: who or what decided ‘let’s have a project’? Limiting this
discussion to organisational projects, projects are commonly understood
as being begun by ‘organisations’. But as Cyert and March (1963)93 noted,
organisations are not unitary, organisations do not have goals, and,
therefore, organisations do not start projects. Instead, organisations
could more accurately be described as coalitions (or coalitions of
coalitions), wherein processes such as goal-setting and decision-making
are based on consensus. Hence, decisions to form projects are inherently
made by people – singly or in ‘coalitions’ – thereby highlighting the
significance of human agency, group dynamics, and the potential agendas
of organisational actors.

Decisions to form a project are inherently linked to an expected ‘benefit’.

That ‘benefit’ might be a product, a service or the accumulation of
knowledge, even merely to keep people busy. Importantly, such ‘benefits’
ability to serve the organisation(s) rely on their ability to satisfy (or help

92
Note, please: This approach to characterizing projects has some commonality
to the Wittgensteinian approach of seeing and seeking family
resemblances (Wittgenstein, 1958: §65–71).
93
Read more: For a contemporary take on ‘coalitions’ in organisations, see
Mithani & O’Brien, 2021.
 32

satisfy) an organisational imperative or ‘good’. This aspect of projects is

extremely significant to our discussion on project concepts and project
concept design.

Importantly, if that ‘benefit’ was of a routine or repeated nature, it would

likely be more efficiently taken care of by a permanent organisation.
Therefore, projects are ventures aspiring towards unique and non-
routine ‘benefits’ and not intended to be permanent94. As a result, the
fundamental limitation of projects is consummation: once the expected
benefit has been accomplished and the organisational imperative has
been satisfied (or is no longer relevant), the project is at an end.

Moreover, project organisations are far from changeless during their

existence. From starting out as the brainchild of a small number of
people, the size, composition and day-to-day activities of the project
organisation typically change extensively and repeatedly throughout
the life of the project organisation. Therefore, projects as organisations
are not only non-permanent with respect to their actual existence, but
they are also non-permanent with respect to their size, composition, and
activities. Projects are in constant flux.

Projects being artificial creations, they are also governed only by human
laws. This has two important implications: first, while projects’ physical
end results will need to obey the laws of their intended realm (gravity,
material properties, information processing, etc.), the projects themselves
are artificial. Accordingly, projects need only obey human laws, such
as communication rules, codes of conduct and accounting principles.
Second, while these human laws are typically partially inherited from
the participating organisations, they also must be tailored to the needs
of the project and the participating organisations.

Projects also have organisation, especially once they have progressed

beyond inception. Some of that organisation (one might also call it
‘structure’) is imbued by the above-mentioned human laws, whereas
other types of organisation are intended for structuring information
processing and decision-making as well as the flows of inputs, such
as information or materiel. But projects also have another form of

94
Elaboration: The issue of permanence/temporariness of projects is often
discussed, and while no organisations are strictly permanent, the
point is that projects are more temporary (organisations) than
others, because projects are valued all the more, the quicker they
have achieved what they were formed to do.
 33

organisation, namely selective separation. By formalising a project,

the undertaking is being partially disconnected from the rest of the
organisation, while preserving those links that are considered necessary
and beneficial. Having both internal organisation and separation, seeing
projects as organisations in their own right is also sensible.

Based on these six first premises, projects correspond to Simon’s (1996)

definition of the artificial in that they are brought forth by humans, lack
reality (although they may imitate appearances of natural things), and
can be characterised through functions, goals, and adaptation. Simon
(ibid:5 [emphasis added]) goes on to note, that “Artificial things are
often discussed, particularly when they are being designed, in terms of
imperatives as well as descriptives”. Even so, the continued discussion
of projects necessitates mentioning one final premise, namely the multi-
party nature of projects.

Projects come in many forms – from internal projects to external

projects; from projects with one buyer and one supplier to projects that
have more than one of either or both; from single, minor projects to
projects with subprojects or programmes made up of projects95; from
projects with subcontractors to those where the buyer is not fully
independent – even to projects that have designated intermediaries. With
the sole exception of an exceedingly simple internal project, it is obvious
that projects involve multiple parties, at minimum a buyer (client) –
supplier (contractor) dyad.

Beyond these parent organisations there are often third parties and
stakeholders –individuals and coalitions – who have a stake in the project
or whose collaboration and consensus or (at least) non-obstruction is
desirable, even necessary for the project. Given that the fundamental
interests of even the project’s parent organisations are not perfectly
aligned, projects are more often than not the focal point of divergent
interests and divided loyalties. Likewise, even in the case of simple,
internal projects, assuming that the project would not be the focal point

95
Please note: The Study of Projects differentiate between projects,
programmes (also referred to as programs), and [project]
portfolios. Programmes are typically conceived of as groups of
interdependent projects that together form a larger whole (e.g.,
Pellegrinelli, 1997; Lycett, Rassau & Danson. 2004), whereas
[project] portfolios are sets of projects that – while certainly
competing for scarce resources – are functionally largely
independent.
 34

of competing interests is an unsafe approach. Therefore, seeing all

projects as being of a multi-party nature is not only descriptive of a vast
majority of projects, but it also helps unearth underlying tensions.

That projects involve multiple parties adds significant nuance to points

one to six. For instance, projects do not exist only because one party
(a buyer) has decided to form them, but also because other parties
(supplier(s)) have decided to participate. Likewise, while the project
exists to produce a result that the initiating party (the buyer) desires,
the project now also needs to satisfy the desires of the other parties. As
a result of this, the actuality of each project is contingent not only on
the human laws and the object of the project, but also upon the desires,
abilities, and traditions of all participating parties and coalitions.

Furthermore, while a project may indeed be an organisation in and of

itself, and have its own structures and rules, projects also depend on
their parent organisations for direction and resources, and are therefore
neither independent nor self-sufficient. Rather, projects mostly exist
as shared appendages of their various parent organisations (i.e., the
dominant coalitions within those organisations). While these shared
appendages are a force pulling the parent organisations closer together,
the converse is similarly possible: that if parent organisations grow more
distant, the project will be torn apart.

Noting implications for research into projects

Based on these characteristics, a combination of four critical issues is

likely to impinge on research into all matters connected with projects:
temporality, organisation(s), human agency, and latent conflict.

Specifically, projects are transitory organisations that depend on and

overlap other organisations, implying that any research into projects
needs to be aware of time, organisations, organisational imperatives,
and organisational cultures. While being organisations, projects are
also dependent on human agency – the motives, rationales and actions
of human beings. Importantly, human agency impacts projects in four
ways: First, as the project owes its existence to human decision-making.
Second, as fashioning the project’s result – whether tangible or intangible
– is dependent on humans and on their participation – voluntary,
forced, or bought. Third, as human agency injects an element of
nondeterminism into all projects, and, fourth, as human agency is critical
to individuals’ ability to project and judge (see page 39). Finally, projects
are characterised by (and researchers should be aware of) tensions and
 35

the potential for conflict – both on the macro- and/or organisational

level (due to the inherently different organisational imperatives of
involved organisations), the meso-level (due to the conflicting interests
of various coalitions – within and without projects), and on the micro-
or interpersonal level due to the various personal motives and values of
participating individuals.

Even if one would not fully subscribe to the view of projects as

temporary organisations, using an epistemology that would see projects
as organisations is sensible due to two factors: first, epistemologically
projects are similar to other organisations: both are characterised by the
interplay of the micro (individual and interpersonal), the meso- (groups
and coalitions and their interactions), and the macro (organisations and
their dealings). Second, adopting an organisational epistemology towards
projects does not lead to a discontinuity at the boundaries of projects, but
instead allows one to fluently look beyond those boundaries (on to the
other organisations in the project’s environment) using the same lens.

Even so, although projects and organisations are (epistemologically)

similar, there are also three important qualifiers: First, while
organisations in general typically aim for longevity, projects mostly
aim for brevity, thereby unavoidably influencing the overall perspective
within and towards projects. Especially, with a project (organisation)
progressing from inception to conclusion within a relatively short
lifespan, one should expect things to be liable to occur very rapidly.
Second, project organisations tend to be smaller – not only temporally
or in scope – but also in size (number of actors) and in inertia. The
lower number of actors and limited inertia (compared to less temporary
organisations) further contribute to projects often shifting very quickly.
Third, while no organisation is without conflict, projects are arguably
even more conflict-prone due to their aim of satisfying several sets
of diverging interests96, and doing so in a short time span and in an
unstable environment. Finally, the significance of the temporal aspect
implies that an ontology of becoming is likely to reveal more than an
ontology of being. Consequently, a practice/process approach is likely
to allow for conclusions that would be entirely opaque to more static
research approaches.

96
Elaboration: Conflicts in projects can either be carry-overs from the parent
organisation (long-latent conflicts catalysed by the project into
flaring up) or can also be project-born.
 36

Considering the project front-end as the object of study

[This] study found […] that one of the golden axioms of program management
remains true — namely, that most unsuccessful programs fail at the beginning.
(Meier, 2008:59)

When a project is formed to pursue an endeavour seen worthwhile by

an organisation’s decision-makers, the project’s activities are being
partially separated from the rest of the organisation: the project is given
an own hierarchy, different from that of the parent organisation(s); the
project utilises a method of work co-ordination different from the parent
organisation(s); the project follows a set of rules different from those of
the parent organisation(s) and so on – thereby causing gaps between the
project and the parent organisation(s). At the same time, for the project
to be able to serve the needs of the parent organisation(s), various flows
(communication, feedback, direction, resources, and other inputs and
outputs) need to link the project to the parent organisation(s).

Issues related to these gaps and links can be understood as tripartite

succession: gaps and links before and during the starting of the project;
gaps and links during conducting of the project; gaps and links during
and after the dissolving of the project. As those gaps and links embody
the relationship between project and parent organisations, and as a)
parent organisations change and adapt to circumstances, and b) project
organisations adapt to parent organisations and are in constant flux
(mostly related to their progress towards consummation), so too those
gaps and links are not stable and unchanging. Even so, there are three
aspects to the front-end of projects that are significant to research –
whether the researcher should focus only on the project front-end or
whether they should focus on activities related to those gaps and links
(such as project concepts and project concept design).

First, in all but the simplest contexts97, the starting of a project is

distinguished by the relatively scant availability of actionable, relevant
information. While information is accumulated as the project progresses
(either through deliberate fact-finding or through simply having to deal
with the subject matter and environment), many initial decisions must
be made on an exceedingly flimsy factual basis98.

97
Terminology: The term simple context is here used in accordance with the
typology outlined by Snowden and Boone (2007). Simple
contexts are characterised by all pertinent aspects being known,
and cause-and-effect relationships being stable and known.
98
Read more: See e.g., Samset, 2009; Williams & Samset, 2010; Shiferaw, 2013.
 37

Second, given that the starting of the project is (temporally) maximally

removed from the point when the project’s result is brought to bear on
reality, the amount of environmental change to be expected prior to
deployment is at its highest. These two together conspire to result in
projects often being started under a cloud of uncertainty.

Third, the project’s inertia is at its lowest point, very few costs have yet
been sunk, path-dependence is at its low-water mark, and commitments
to follow a specific course of action are at their minimum99. Therefore,
the starting of projects also ideally offers the widest range of options
available and project decision-makers and project concept designers,
allowing projects to mature into very different, yet equifinal100 forms. This
also means that there might even be ambiguity about the type of solution
the project should try to produce101.

As a result, the front-end of projects is not only characterised by a

scantness of information, temporal distance and solution ambiguity, but
also by an often very high rate of change (both within the proto-project102
and in the relationship between proto-project and parent organisations).

Emphasising implications for research into projects front-ends

This has several further implications for research. First, building a

comprehensive picture of the project front-end will likely necessitate
the researcher being able to observe both the proto-project as well as

99
Note, please: Although path dependence and public commitments are at a low
point, this does not mean that project starting decisions would
be free of such issues. As noted by e.g., Flyvbjerg (2009), the
very lack of a project’s inertia in combination with a scant basis
of known data may also make project starting very vulnerable to
path dependence, lock-in, and forms of escalation (see e.g., Staw
& Ross, 1989). See more also in essay 1.
100
Terminology: A problem or need can often be satisfied through various,
different, yet (partially) equifinal (having same result) solutions.
For example, ‘shelter from rain’ can be achieved by a roof, a cave,
or an umbrella.
101
Note, please: While some see such alternative but equifinal solutions mainly as
a way to offer alternative nuances (e.g., Meuchel, 2000; Grundy,
2001), others call for deliberate fundamental diversity (even
radical divergence) among alternative solutions (Næss, 2009;
Williams & Samset, 2010) at the early stages of projects.
102
Terminology: This dissertation uses the phrase ‘proto-project’ to indicate
the nascent, often loose organisation that conducts the project
front-end activities before the project (and thus the project
organisation) have been formalised.
 38

those elements of the parent organisation(s) that are central to the proto-
project. Second, as the proto-project is likely to evidence significant
change – in terms of organisation, purpose, tasks and participants – in
the timespan of the front-end, the researcher will need to be focused
on change and using a research set-up that is not dependent on the
benevolence of a single actor or party.

Third, as the project front-end is likely to be characterised by scant

information, high uncertainty and solution ambiguity, two key aspects are
likely to be significant: one, as this is the stage where the future direction
of the project is likely to be decided, politics and strategic behaviour are
more than likely to be involved, meaning that, even when the political
aspects are not at the core of the researcher’s agenda, the research
design would do well to plan for a higher-than-normal occurrence of
politics; two, the researcher’s research design should not be focused on
an assumed outcome (for the project or project front-end) but should
instead be prepared to go with the flow and be prepared to – at very short
notice – retarget its focus when something unexpected but interesting
happens.

Contemplating implications of project concepts and project

concept design as the object of study

I will not repeat this dissertation’s understanding of what project

concepts are (the topic has already been addressed in the introduction
and in the literature section and will be thoroughly discussed starting
on page 57). Instead, I will discuss some key implications for research:
The central potential pitfalls in building or selecting a research method
for project concepts are threefold: the first pitfall lies in the duality of
project concepts, the other is contingent on the flux and lack of potential
plenitude of project concepts, while the third has to do with human
agency.

The first pitfall is the duality of project concepts: tacit and explicit, private
and shared. These two aspects are linked, but at the same time they are
so different that their research methods unavoidably diverge. Such a
situation would be troublesome because, if one focuses on one aspect
of the duality, the other aspect would be largely bypassed. Furthermore,
while one might see the explicit project concepts as ‘poor copies’ of the
‘true’ tacit mental models (and would therefore want to focus on the tacit
aspect), this would place undue focus on the individual facet of project
concept design. Simultaneously, even while the explicit may indeed be
 39

a ‘poor copy’ of the original, it is the explicit version of a project concept

that informs and inspires other participants, making both aspects
equally crucial.

The second pitfall concerns timing: when should one study a project
concept? As project concepts have no point of plenitude, and with project
concepts potentially developing significantly during a project’s front-end
(and beyond), selecting any specific point at which to study the project
concept is precarious. Moreover, any research approach based on a
snapshot would risk missing out on the history of what came before,
and the future developments.

The final pitfall – human agency103 – is not only related to the

unpredictability of research subjects, but is also a key component of
creativity (thereby being significant to design) and crucial to individuals’
ability to project results and to evaluate or judge trajectories and
outcomes104. Thereby human agency (especially the abilities to project

103
Terminology: In the context of this dissertation, I use the term human
agency referring to the abilities (real or believed) of humans as
individual/independent actors to:
a) analyse/make sense of their situation;
b) design alternatives/project probable future developments;
c) evaluate potential avenues and future outcomes (including
the effects of personal preferences) and act (and argue) on their
behalf.
104
Elaboration: Human agency is one of those concepts that – while often
referred to as if it was a pithy, clear concept – is a somewhat
more complicated mental construct (see e.g., Emirbayer &
Mische, 1998).
Emirbayer and Mische (1998) identify three constitutive
elements of human agency: an iterational element; a projective
element; and a practical-evaluative element. In their description
the iterational element is based on the individual’s selective
reactivation of their past patterns of thought and action, thereby
helping stabilise and order their identities and ‘social universes’
(i.e., act as foundation for their perception of self in relation to
other).
More interestingly Emirbayer’s and Mische’s description of the
projective and practical-evaluative elements are directly relevant
to project concepts and project concept design, as the projective
and practical-evaluative elements of human agency are described
as: “Projectivity encompasses the imaginative generation by
actors of possible future trajectories of action, in which received
structures of thought and action may be creatively reconfigured
in relation to actors’ hopes, fears, and desires for the future.[…]
The practical-evaluative element […] entails the capacity of
actors to make practical and normative judgments among
alternative possible trajectories of action, in response to the
emerging demands, dilemmas, and ambiguities of presently
evolving situations.” (1998:971 [emphasis in original])
 40

and evaluate/judge), is sine qua non for the ability to trace futures105
and ideate or design project concepts. Furthermore, human agency
is underpinned by the assumption that individuals and individual
viewpoints matter, and that actors are therefore liable to act (and justified
in acting) according to their own understanding of a situation. Hence, any
research design into project concept design needs to fully appreciate the
significance of the individuals (and their key characteristics) involved.

One solution to these pitfalls is to ‘zoom out’ (spatially and temporally),

until both aspects of the duality and the flow fit into the same frame,
seeing the tacit mental models and overt design artefacts as embedded
in the (social, continuous) praxis of project concept design. Such a
practice-focused research method106 would not focus merely on idea
creation (concept inception) or the codified results of a social mediating
process, but would instead embrace both as parts of an interconnected
field, thereby studying the fruits of labour in combination with the labour
that produces them. Adopting a practice-approach to studying project
concepts and project concept design not only allows for the connecting of
project concepts (tacit and explicit) with project concept design, but also
connects the grassroots-level activities (designing, navigating, coping) of
individuals with the wider structures within which those activities take
place.

105
Note, please: The Study of Projects is divided regarding characteristics of
‘the future’, especially whether the projecting of a future is
fundamentally possible (See Flyvbjerg, 2016; Flyvbjerg &
Sunstein, 2016; Ika, 2018; Love, Ika & Ahiaga-Dagbui, 2019. See
also Kreiner, 2020 for a summary of this debate).
106
Elaboration: Within practice research it is (according to Orlikowski, 2010)
possible to identify three different streams of practice research:
practice as phenomenon; practice as perspective; practice as
philosophy:
Practice as phenomenon is interested primarily in practice in
the form of ‘what people actually do’ and there is an emphasis
on distinguishing ‘actual happening’ from the researchers’ and
subjects’ representations of events.
Practice as perspective utilises ‘practice theories’ as a lens to
study both the routine, lived character of the social as well as the
manner in which lived routine produces and reinforces social
structures.
Practice as philosophy tries to look beyond individuals and
societies, and instead construes practices as constitutive of social
reality and as determining for both individuals and societies.
(Orlikowski, 2010)
 41

‘Zooming out’ and trying to embrace the entire practice (praxis, practices,
practitioners) of project concept design is, however, not without some
categorical risks. The most obvious risk with zooming out leads to an
entirety that is simply too extensive and/or prolonged to be followed.
This is an especially pressing concern with major endeavours, in
temporally prolonged processes, and in geographically distributed
projects, where there might be more loci of project concept design than
available researchers. But even when neither duration nor distribution
is problematic, there is also the risk of losing sight of important details
and interactions.

Whenever one is inspecting/observing practice, there is the risk of

looking at the wrong parts of what is happening. If one were to inspect
only the ‘product returns’ counter at any department store, one would
unavoidably get only a partial and thereby skewed picture of that
department store’s customer interactions. Being able to build a picture or
map of the totality of a practice is therefore a precondition for being able
to successfully zoom out. To be able to keep a keen eye on those details
that are relevant, one needs a mental map of what to expect.

As mentioned, one of the contributing essays (essay 2) in this dissertation

details one such research methodology. As I shall describe the main
points of that method in chapters 3.3 and 4.2, and discuss some of its
limitations in chapter 3.5, I will continue this discussion there.

3.2 Discussing the methods of Essay 1

The central premise underlying Essay 1 is the understanding that there

already exists much knowledge about project concepts and project
concept design, but that this knowledge is scattered and fragmentary
and is not notionally integrated. Hence, the essay approaches its goal
based on using an integrative literature review. Integrative literature
reviews combine the approach of using the existing literature as empirical
data, with the main aim to ‘integrate’ the existing pieces and be able
to ‘synthesise’ new insights, develop new frameworks, and offer new
theorisations (Torraco, 2005; Snyder, 2019; Elsbach & van Knippenberg,
2020). Hence, integrative literature reviews are based on two steps. First,
they try to gather and peruse sufficient literature, and, second, aim to
utilise suitable methods for generating integrative insights.

In the case of Essay 1, one central aim was to aim for high reliability and
replicability with regards to the gathering of the literature. Therefore,
the gathering of the literature was done using the search and screening
 42

principles of a systematic literature review (Briner and Denyer, 2012;

Fisch and Block, 2018), based on two complementary (Green, Johnson
and Adams, 2006; Osei-Kyei and Chan, 2015) databases: Ebsco and
Scopus. Thereafter, the body of literature was further extended using
‘snowball accretion’ (Ahola et al., 2014; Winkler, 2018), before being
screened using explicit criteria for inclusion/exclusion. These steps
generated a significant body of literature (112 texts) from a broad range
of sources.

The generating of insights in an integrative literature review is usually

described as a combination of critical analysis with creative synthesis
(Elsbach & von Knippenberg, 2020). As the author aimed at generating
insights, even ‘conceptual leaps’ (see Klag and Langley, 2013), Grounded
Theory was chosen for facilitating creative synthesis107.

3.3 Discussing the methods of Essay 2

As Essay 2 develops a method (instead of applying a method), it makes

more sense in discussing the applicability of that method in relation to
project concepts and project concept design (instead of discussing how
the essay arrived at its conclusions).

The research method detailed in Essay 2 (In short: “PMSCC”) is a

practice-oriented research method that focuses on the everyday,
social, and creative micro-interactions (‘creativities’) that take place
in socially facilitated creative and problem-solving work. PMSCC’s
understanding of its focal phenomena are based on the theories outlined
by Polanyi (1966) and built upon by Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995), Tsoukas
(2005) and Nonaka & von Krogh (2009). PMSCC builds on two core
activities: following the interaction-map and constant triangulation.
The interaction-map is a notional map of the likely loci of meaningful

107
Elaboration: Grounded Theory (GT) is typically seen as a method to deal
with empirical (not literature) research, and the author’s
suspicion is that this conception is based on original grounded
theory’s relative disdain towards studying existing literature
in preparation for fieldwork (see Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
Simultaneously, as also grounded theory research typically
converts accounts of the empirical (whether those are gathered
through interviews, observations, etc.) into textual data, that
is then worked on using the GT toolkit (constant comparison,
various types of coding, memoing, one-upping, etc. See
Glaser, 1978; Dey, 2004; Holton & Walsh, 2017), there are no
fundamental reasons as to why data that is textual from the onset
could not act as the basis for GT-driven theorisation.
 43

interactions and creativities that aims to help the researcher be where

things are likely to happen and make sense of what they are observing.
Constant triangulation highlights that researchers should not only
observe, but also interview/discuss and study documents and design
artefacts, to gain a deeper understanding and to pre-empt unwarranted
conclusions. PMSCC is, broadly, an ethnographic research approach
combining observation with interviews and the study of design artefacts,
suitable for use by embedded outside researchers as well as inquisitive
insider practitioners.

The underlying idea of PMSCC was originally developed for the

multimodal (observation, interviews, documents) investigating of project
concept design practice. The fact that it is (in the published, enclosed
form) framed as a method for studying ‘creative communities’, was done
to increase the contribution’s appeal and applicability, and because the
day-to-day creative interactions are sufficiently similar irrespective of
whether the creative community is designing project concepts, making
architectural plans, or designing an advertising campaign.

That PMSCC has been used in a research project and has managed to
produce very detailed and valuable data that agrees with theorisations on
the subject (extant theorisations as well as those developed in Essay 1),
gives much credence to the research method and the detailed activities
outlined in it.

3.4 Discussing the methods of Essay 3

The underlying premise of Essay 3 lies in trying to approach the topic

of hidden goals in projects. While goal clarity is regularly touted as
important in the Study of Projects, that same literature contains
anecdotal evidence of goals that are referred to as ‘hidden’, ‘tacit, or
‘covert’ goals (subsequently ‘hidden goals’). After a thorough search
through online databases, it was evident that hidden goals are a real
but under-researched phenomenon, and that none of the existing
attempts at explaining hidden goals were based on more than single,
anecdotal cases. In summary, the existence of hidden goals could not
be satisfactorily explained using existing research. Investigating hidden
goals would therefore necessitate accessing new empirical evidence
through interviews with professional project managers.

As it was deemed highly likely that hidden goals would not be a subject
easy to broach, even less so in cases where people would themselves have
been hiding goals, the paramount goal of the interview setup was to a)
 44

find project managers with extensive experience, and b) construct an

interview setting in which the informant would not only be likely to trust
the interviewer’s discretion, but would also assume that the interviewer
had understanding of the informant’s past actions. The interviews
were therefore set up in such a way as to allow broaching the subject of
hidden goals in a roundabout way, and only a) after having discussed
other matters related to project goal setting, and b) the interviewer
and informant having developed a rapport – an aspect aided by the
interviewer’s background in project management. An added advantage
of also collecting other data related to project goal setting was to allow
for internal triangulation between divulged incidents of hidden goals and
the rest of the interview.

In sum, 13 interviews were conducted in a semi-structured fashion. They

lasted 94 minutes on average. The average professional experience of the
informants was 14 years, and the informants covered all central sectors
(public and private; buyer and contractor; IT, construction, and other
industries). The interviews were subsequently transcribed, translated
and coded using thematic coding, and the analysis of that data allowed
the formulation of a typology of hidden goals.

3.5 Reflecting on methods

Earlier in this chapter, I discussed what I see as the fundamental

characteristics of the contexts (projects, the project front-end,
project concept design) of the three essays. Thereafter I described the
methodological choices made in each of the essays. While I consider each
of the essays’ methods to be in line with the fundamental characteristics
of the context, and, furthermore, consider each of the adopted approaches
to be in line with academic convention, I want to be the first to mention
that each selected approach has its weak points as well.

Essay 1 approaches the question of project concepts by trying to integrate

the existing literature to synthesise new theorisations. Given the results
of the research process (see Essay 1), the selected approach can be
deemed justifiable. The approach taken to the gathering of the literature
is fully in line with ‘best practices’ and even achieves a high level of
replicability, and the integrative synthesis conducted is underpinned by
thoroughly documented and widely used qualitative research methods.
While it is therefore easy to defend the methodological approach taken to
investigating the literature, that approach is neither the only possible one,
nor is it beyond reproach (something also acknowledged in the essay).
The obvious question – given the dissertation’s affinity with practice
research – is whether empirical/ethnographical research in proto-
 45

projects, studying project concept design using a method such as the one
detailed in Essay 2, would not also have been a suitable approach? And,
indeed, in many situations it might indeed be suitable, especially when
one focuses on theorising based on single cases or multiple cases within
one organisation. But should one aim to gain a context/organisation-
independent understanding, functional research considerations –
especially negotiating access – might dissuade from such an approach.
It did in my case.

Essay 2 sets out to document what it argues to be a viable research

method for studying creative communities, including (but not limited to)
project concept design teams. While the quality of the data gathered using
the approach (as indicated in the vignettes) speaks for the applicability
of the research method, two questions beg to be asked: Why focus a
method to study project concept design practice on social creativity? Why
reinvent the wheel? Why not use DSR? I will reflect on these in turn.

The approach taken in the method detailed in Essay 2 – to study project

concept design predominantly as an arena of social, creative problem-
solving – is partially based on the sincere belief that every project concept
design process is likely to evidence creative, social problem solving.
Moreover, creativity and social interactions are liable to be opaque
unless explicitly focused on. Hence, this method is likely to have broader
applicability than – for instance – basing one’s research on seeking
cases where project concept design can be seen as yet another garbage
can (Cohen, March & Olsen, 1972), as an instance of hegemony (in the
Gramscian sense), or as an interplay of habitus and social capital (a ’la
Bourdieu).

Another critique108 is that the method outlined in Essay 2 offers little

novelty, especially when considering Design Science Research – an
existing and established research methodology. Design Science Research
(in short: DSR) is a relatively new family of methods that traces its
roots back to Simon’s 1969 book “The Sciences of the Artificial”109.
DSR positions itself as a counterweight to natural sciences/behavioural
sciences-based research, claiming that natural science-derived
approaches take the world as given, thereby making natural science-
derived approaches unsuitable for studying novel ways of solving

108
Elaboration: I faced this critique both during and after publication of Essay 2.
109
Note, please: Given that this dissertation also utilises Simon’s conception of
‘the artificial’ – both in its understanding of what a project is, and
in relation to the role of designers and act of designing – one can
see both methods/approaches as broadly related.
 46

problems or addressing needs. DSR promises to help alleviate this

problem by formulating a research approach that allows for the iterative,
continuously improving simultaneous creation of science and design
artefacts (Hevner & Chatterjee, 2010:xi–xii). In other words, where
natural sciences focus on analysis, design science (or engineering) focuses
on synthesis (Simon, 1996:4), often with a keen eye on developing real-
life improvements (Baskerville, Kaul & Storey, 2015). DSR has become a
generally accepted research approach of increasing legitimacy (Gregor &
Hevner, 2013), especially within the field of Information Systems study.
While DSR would therefore seem to offer an established alternative,
there are some key differences between DSR and the method outlined
in Essay 2 that make DSR – in many situations – less suitable. First,
DSR is focused on utility (usefulness) (Gill & Hevner, 2011) making DSR
rather oriented towards results, not process. Second, while DSR tries
to study design processes with an eye on theory building and does so
with strong attention towards relevance and rigor (Hevner et al., 2004),
the approach’s main attention is directed towards the macro-level and
typically disregards the micro. Finally, DSR-based research is very
strongly focused on single projects, and often depends on making the
project that is the focus of research into a dual-purpose project (Venable,
Pries-Heje and Baskerville, 2016).

Essay 3 sets out to study the phenomenon of hidden goals in projects

by interviewing practitioners. Given that hidden goals are unlikely to
appear in written records, approaching hidden goals by seeking out
individuals’ experiences is undoubtedly the correct approach. Also, the
interview set-up did allow for accounts on hidden goals as well as post-
facto rationalisations to be divulged. These rationalisations moreover
‘rang true’ with the rest of the interviews.

Problematically, relatively few of the accounts detailed recent

experiences, and as the interviewer did not want to reveal that exploring
hidden goals was their prime interest (which could have led to informants
feeling hoodwinked), the interviewer could therefore not dig deeper into
the accounts. The accounts, and especially the explanations offered, could
not therefore achieve thoroughness, nor could any information on the
relative occurrence of hidden goals be gleaned. Hence, while making a
valuable contribution to the Study of Projects, the research also raised
several questions that could not be answered by interviewing singular
project managers (such as whether a goal that the informant was hiding
stayed hidden, or whether the counterpart guessed it anyway). Therefore,
a thorough investigation into hidden goals is also likely to necessitate
other research approaches (both narrower and even broader) than used
in this exploratory foray.
 47

4 SUMMARISING THE ESSAYS

4.1 Summing up Essay 1: “Project concepts – bridging the
strategy–project gap”

The purpose of essay 1 is to formulate a comprehensive description of

the notion of ‘project concepts’ (as ‘ideas for a project’) – what project
concepts are, how they are formed, and through what mechanisms, if any,
they positively influence the subsequent project. The rationale for the
essay is based on the consideration that, although the available literature
on project concepts typically proposes that project concepts significantly
support a project’s ability to be successful, it offers very little detail on
the nature and origin of project concepts. Nor does this literature offer
arguments as to why project concepts would have such positive effects.

The essay approaches its task using an integrative literature review.

Although the literature lacks a comprehensive and coherent treatment
of project concepts, there exists a sufficiently large number of scattered
and fragmentary accounts and descriptions that allow for their
integration and synthesis. In detail, the essay relies on a combination of
methods: The research starts according to the principles of a systematic
literature review for identifying (explicit search criteria and snowball
accretion) and selecting relevant publications (explicit criteria for
inclusion and exclusion). The result is a set of 112 publications for
subsequent analysis.

The analysis uses the tools of grounded theory (constant comparison,

coding procedures, memoing, raising/one-upping, etc.) to facilitate
interpretation and theorisation, thus allowing for synthesising and
integrating the literature.

The essay makes three contributions. First, it shows that project concepts
are characteristically dualistic (they exist both as tacit mental models
and as explicit descriptions), while also being multiplicities (project
concepts are compounds of other concepts) made up of a plethora of
detailed concepts. That project concepts are dualistic multiplicities offers
a deeper understanding of project concepts, and supports future theory
building, while understanding project concepts as multiplicities allows
for the conceptual creation of logical structures among project concepts.

Second, the essay finds project concepts to be applications of ideas,

thereby making ideation the genesis of project concepts. These concepts
are then socially iterated using both divergent and convergent thinking.
 48

By illustrating the origins of project concepts and emphasising the design

process, the essay supports an understanding that can be utilised in the
practitioner realm and among scholars looking at design practice.

Third, the essay argues that all projects have project concepts, and that
project concepts cannot thereby – by themselves – have a positive effect
on project efficacy. Instead, it argues that these positive effects on project
efficacy and efficiency are based not on project concepts, but on project
concept design – the concerted, up-front, conceptual consideration of
the project. Specifically, the essay postulates that project concept design
may benefit project efficacy and efficiency through three mechanisms:
a) concept alignment (project-internal notional alignment; aligning
the project with organisational imperatives; aligning the project with
organisational resources); b) concept meshing (making sure various
detailed project concepts fit together); and c) evaluation (allowing for
an informed early judgment of project viability). This way, the essay
not only finds backing for the claim that project concepts can support
project effectiveness and efficacy, but also exhibits those mechanisms
through which that positive effect can take place. These contributions
have significant potential for practitioners and for scholars in project
management and Management and Organization studies. All in all, Essay
1 makes a significant contribution to our collective knowledge of project
concepts, the processes that design them, the benefits they can bring
projects, and the organisations that employ projects.

Essay 1 is single-authored and – to date – remains unpublished. Being

single-authored does not mean I did not receive a lot of help and
comments on the essay. First, I would like to thank Liikesivistysrahasto
for its perseverance and patience. Second, I want to thank Frank den
Hond and Mikko Vesa for several rounds of detailed comments on the
essay. Mikael Laakso and Janne Tienari also offered encouragement
and suggestions, and I thank them for every moment of their time. An
early version of this essay was presented at the HELAM 2019 workshop,
and I thank my discussants as well as the other participants for their
encouragement and comments.
 49

4.2 Recapitulating Essay 2: “A Practice Method for Studying

Creative Communities”

Essay 2 starts by arguing that existing approaches to studying creativity

and innovation are predominantly based on a retrospective approach,
place too much emphasis on key individuals (to the detriment of
collaborative creativity) and assume that creativity is an event (instead
of a process). This way, the essay argues, our collective understanding
of creativity and innovation will unavoidably be skewed and partial. In
contrast, this essay portrays creativity not as a singular event (creativity)
but as a process made up of myriad creative micro-interactions
(‘creativities’) structured in a social dynamic (‘creativitying’). To support
process-oriented, micro-aware research of creative and innovative
activities, the essay develops a research method that is in line with
studying creativity as a social, dynamic process.

The essay is a methodological article as it presents the outline of a

research method and is based on two main sources. First, the theoretical
approach of the essay is based on the original foundations as outlined by
Polanyi (1966) and Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) (and further developed
on by Tsoukas (2005) and Nonaka & von Krogh (2009)). Second, the
methodological considerations are grounded in the author’s previous
ethnographic fieldwork in studying micro-level interactions during
innovation projects, thereby lending the proposed method real-world
relevance. Accounts of two such innovation projects are presented as
vignettes in the article.

This essay contributes in several ways. First, the essay makes a solid
argument that creative and design activities are typically iterative
processes (rather than being a linear process or made up of singular,
clear ‘Eureka’-like moments), that the goals of such processes are
emergent (rather than pre-determined), and that these processes are
composed of a myriad of minuscule and seemingly haphazard acts and
micro-interactions. Second, the essay proposes a workable process-
oriented research method to support investigating a range of creativity-
related phenomena, including project concept design. Finally, the essay
argues for the relevance of a growing body of literature that maintains
that social phenomena are rooted in and manifested through everyday
practices (what people do) – a point that should not be lost on the Study
of Projects.
 50

Essay 2 was published in the November 2018 issue of Technology

Innovation Management Review. I thank Liikesivistysrahasto for
the scholarship that financed my bread and butter for the duration of
developing the method and writing the essay. The writing of this essay
was in part facilitated by the paper development workshop supervised
by Prof. Janne Tienari at Hanken in 2018. My thanks to Janne and the
other workshop participants.

4.3 Synopsising Essay 3: “Hidden goals in projects – a

qualitative exploratory study of their occurrence and
causes”

The project management literature generally sees clear goals as

highly important for project success and classifies ambiguous goals
as a significant risk factor for projects. Simultaneously the project
management literature contains (mostly anecdotal) evidence of goals
that are ‘hidden’, ‘tacit’, or ‘covert’ (subsequently ‘hidden goals’), but
without either elaboration or theorisations to account for their existence.
As projects exist to fulfil the goals of their participant parties, and as goals
cannot affect the actions of people unless they are aware of the goals,
hidden goals are puzzling: do they really exists, and if so, why?

This essay sets out to study the phenomenon and formulate an

explanatory framework to understand why they exist and how they may
affect projects.

Essay 3 combines a detailed search of the academic literature on the

occurrence of hidden goals in relation to projects with a qualitative
study of professional project managers’ views on the understanding
of hidden goals. To gather a broad base of professional experience, 13
semi-structured interviews were conducted among experienced (median
experience: 14 years) project managers in the private and public sectors,
and in several industries. The interviews (average length 94 minutes)
were subsequently transcribed before being analysed using thematic
coding. The result is a framework that systematises the reasons why
project goals remain or are being kept hidden.

The essay makes several contributions. First, it formulates an explanatory

framework for the phenomenon of hidden goals based on six mechanisms
that lead to a goal remaining of being kept hidden. Three of these are
mechanisms for intentionally holding goals hidden. The other three
are knowledge- and communication-related mechanisms through
which project goals inadvertently remain hidden. Significantly, all three
 51

knowledge- and communication-related mechanisms also indicate steps

that organisations can take to alleviate the issues. Regarding intentional
mechanisms, the essay highlights the fact that intentional goal-hiding
need not be a nefarious act. Instead, it shows that the rationales for
intentional goal-hiding can also be based on legal necessities and
good intentions.

Second, based on the interviewees’ familiarity with hidden goals,

the essay concludes that hidden goals are by no means an infrequent
occurrence, and postulates that hidden goals are a potential contributing
factor in projects’ results turning out in a way that the involved parties
– in the end – are not fully satisfied with.

Third, through solidly documenting the existence of hidden goals (as

project-related), the essay questions the prevalent assumptions and
descriptions that paint a picture of project management as a rational,
valuation-free exercise in optimisation.

This single-authored essay was published in the May 2015 as part of the
edited volume Project Management Theory Meets Practice (Edited by
Jan Pries-Heje and Per Svejvig; published by Roskilde University Press).
I would like to thank the Tre Smeder foundation and all the informants
who were willing to divulge their know-how on a potentially contentious
topic. Mikael Laakso and Juho Lindman also offered useful advice on
various versions of the manuscript draft. Thanks also to the editors and
the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.
52
 53

5 COMING TO CONCLUSIONS
This dissertation has focused on exploring project concept design.
Focusing on project concept design is justified, on the one hand, by
claims made by some scholars that projects could accrue significant
benefits from attention to project concepts. Some of these claims see
project concepts as influencing a project’s ultimate success or failure110,
with some even going as far as stating that failing to design a project’s
concept destines the project to fail111. Simultaneously, other accounts link
project concepts to projects’ likelihood to be finished to specification, on
time, and within the project budget112.

On the other hand, as stated in the introduction, that same literature does
not offer a collected description of what project concepts are, does not
offer an account of how project concepts come into being nor of aspects
that support or inhibit project concepts coming into being, and does not
even offer a convincing explanation for how project concepts could yield
any of the proposed benefits.

Project management has a somewhat lacklustre track record in being able

to accomplish projects that would satisfy the central parties’ expectations
(reliably and in a replicable fashion). Hence, any approach, tool or
method that promises an improvement in project managements’ ability
to overcome its obstacles deserves scholarly attention. The fact that this
specific promise seems largely to lack backing does not lessen the need
for scholarly attention; it merely changes it.

This dissertation encompasses an approach to some of the fundamentals

of project concepts and project concept design. In doing so, the
dissertation looks to contribute to our collective understanding of project
concepts and project concept design. These conclusions are structured as
follows. First, I briefly discuss some key characteristics of participating
in scientific endeavours within a field such as the Study of Projects. This
discussion has a role in underpinning the subsequent conclusions and in
discussing some key limitations.

110
Read more: See e.g., Randle, 1960; Ernst, 2002; Miller & Hobbs, 2005;
Williams & Samset, 2010
111
Read more: See e.g., Smith & Winter, 2010; Hjortsø & Meilby, 2013
112
Read more: See e.g., Wheelwright & Clark, 1992:40; Al-Sedairy, 1994:143;
Krishna, Moynihan & Callon, 2009:11; Stamatiadis et al.
2010:292; Wilford & O’Brien, 2016:1
 54

Next, combining the enclosed essays and the discussion offered in the
summary chapter (kappa), I summarise the key contributions that this
dissertation makes. This summary is structured in accordance with
the dissertation’s overall research questions, and elaborates on the
dissertation’s contributions in some detail.

Thereafter, the following two chapters discuss the implications of those

contributions for practitioners and for academia. To avoid duplication,
these discussions are relatively brief and extensively refer back to the
contributions discussed earlier.

5.1 Thinking about science in the realm of the social and

artificial, especially in the Study of Projects
At present, social science is locked in a fight it cannot hope to win, because it has
accepted terms that are self-defeating. We will see that in their role as phronesis,
the social sciences are strongest where the natural sciences are weakest: just
as the social sciences have not contributed much to explanatory and predictive
[epistemic] theory, neither have the natural sciences contributed to the reflexive
analysis and discussion of values and interests, which is the prerequisite for an
enlightened political, economic, and cultural development in any society, and
which is at the core of phronesis. (Flyvbjerg, 2001:3)

A widely popularised idea of science and scientific progress is based

on the existence of some immutable, foundational truths that are then
built on by a multitude of scientists, who each contribute by adding
their own ‘bricks’, until – one day – one has a fantastic edifice where all
remaining holes are intentional. This ideal type113 of scientific progress is
based largely on hard natural sciences, and, while it offers an attractive
narrative, it is fundamentally unsuitable for any and all scientific
disciplines that cannot have immutable truths, and therefore cannot have
‘natural laws’.

Projects and organisations are social and artificial, and therefore obey
(if anything) only the ‘laws of (hu)man’, and they are liable to change
and mean different things to different interpreters. Thus, there can be
no universal or immutable truths about projects114, and it is therefore
dubious whether the Study of Projects should aspire to formulate law-

113
Note, please: I refer to it as an ‘ideal type’, because even natural sciences’ tends
to be more messy and less straightforwardly incremental.
114
Note, please: I am, off course, aware of the arguments set forth by proponents
of positivist social science (e.g., Donaldson, 2005), but argue
that the endeavour to formulate hard, universal laws can only
be counterproductive as long as respondents can lie, situational
specificity is high, individuals have agency, and can use that
agency to act counter to predictions. For similar arguments, see
Flyvbjerg, 2001; Bredillet, 2010.
 55

like, universal principles. This does not mean that the Study of Projects
(or economics, or pedagogics, or sociology, etc.) is inherently futile. It
simply means that scientific progression necessitates three ‘adjustments’.

First, social science (and social scientists) should banish the notion
that the purpose of their activity is limited to producing theories that
can explain and predict accurately. That is the domain of hard natural
sciences, and social science should not try to compete with natural
sciences on natural science’s terms. This would be a losing proposition
as, in such a comparison, the social sciences will always seem pre-
paradigmatic and immature. Instead, social science should play on its
strengths: by including constructs such as values, interests and ethics in
their consideration of actors, actions and events into a reflexive, inclusive
understanding of the social world. While social science may contribute
to the development of techne and episteme, it should consider whether
its paramount goal should be that of phronesis115.

Second, the impossibility of any immutable truths means that

fundamental assumptions cannot be taken for granted and need –
instead – to be made explicit. In other words, when discussing sub-topics
such as project fast-tracking116, diversity and other issues stemming
from a multicultural project setting117, or ‘sustainability’118 with regards
to projects119, not only does one need to define one’s focal sub-topics
(fast-tracking, diversity, sustainability etc.) and their respective notions;

115
Read more: Flyvbjerg, 2001:2–3 defines the terms episteme, techne and
phronesis as follows (and this is the sense in which I use the
terms in chapter 5):
• episteme: analytical, scientific knowledge (epistemic science
aims to explain and predict; focused on instrumental rationality)
• techne: technical knowledge, know-how (techne-science aims to
develop specific skills/abilities; focused on technical rationality)
• phronesis: practical, contextual wisdom (phronetic science aims
at reflexive analysis, encompassing multiple values; focused on
value-rationality)
116
Read more: See e.g., Ibbs, Lee & Li, 1998; Pena-Mora & Park, 2001; Kim,
Kang & Hwang, 2012
117
Read more: See e.g., Miller et al. 2000; Gassmann, 2001; de Bony, 2010
118
Note, please: The term ‘sustainability’ is parenthesised because – as an
investigation of the cited sources shows – the term is regularly
used denoting two quite distinct meanings, which in itself
emphasises why the explication of concepts is crucial.
119
Read more: See e.g., Klakegg, 2009; Chang, 2013; Aarseth et al. 2017;
Carvalho & Rabechini, 2017; Cerne & Jansson, 2019
 56

one would also do well to explicate what one conceives of as a ‘project’,

one’s central notion (fast-tracking, diversity, sustainability, etc.), and the
scholarly context to which one intends to contribute. 120

Third, and specific to projects, real-world ‘projects’ evidence much

variation. If we have already accepted that epistemic knowledge should
not be the project scholar’s lone goal, the variance evidenced by projects
(projects always being anchored in a specific situation) also hampers
the formalisation and subsequent dissemination of a generalisable skill-
based knowledge (techne). Given that experience with construction
project management hardly prepares one for the management of IT
projects (and vice versa), there can hardly be one ‘art’ of projects121.
Instead, in line with Flyvbjerg (2001), and Morris (2014), aiming for
practical wisdom (phronesis) presents the social scientist (including the
project scholar) with a feasible avenue towards relevance. As noted by
Morris (2014), phronesis in the case of project scholarship could take
several forms, including the anchoring of research in practice, even
mentorships between practitioners and scholars.

In sum, even if social science were not a suitable field for epistemic
science, and even though projects exhibit marked variance, this does
not mean that one could not pursue meaningful scientific activity in
such a field. However, it would imply that one would do well to refrain
from focusing solely on the development of ‘best practices’, or on tools
for the project artisan, or on formulating laws that aim for predictive
capabilities. Instead, project scholars should try to interact with and
engage with their field (not only observe it from a comfortable distance),
and the Study of Projects should focus on contributing to the phronetic
abilities of its scholars and practitioners.

How does that apply to this dissertation? The objective of the research
reported upon in this dissertation is neither to offer any absolute
certainties, produce quantifications, nor offer normative guidelines.
Instead, the dissertation’s central purpose is to furnish the scholarly
community with a broader conceptual base regarding project concepts,
all with the goal of a) supporting future research (whether oriented
towards techne, episteme or phronesis) into project concepts and project

120
Read more: For an expansion of this train of thought, see Söderlund, 2011b).
121
Read more: See e.g., Shenhar, 2001; Engwall, 2003; Dvir, Sadeh & Malach-
Pines, 2006; Müller & Turner, 2010.
 57

concept design, thereby, hopefully, also aiding in future developments

regarding the project front-end and the Study of Projects in its entirety;
and b) aiding scholars and practitioners in their phronetic endeavours.

5.2 Establishing overall contributions

This chapter summarises the key contribution of the dissertation and the
enclosed essays. Because the proposed contributions are numerous, they
are structured in accordance with the dissertation’s research questions.
The relationship between the overall contributions presented in the
subsequent chapters and the findings detailed in the enclosed Essays is
illustrated in Table 1 below.

Table 1: The relationship between contributions related to the research

questions and the enclosed essays

RQ1: What are project concepts and what forms do they take?

Project concepts are ideas for a project

The shortest possible description of what project concepts are is that

project concepts are ideas for a project. A concept122 is a mental model,
an object of thought, a general notion, or an idea of something that
has been formed through mental combination or intuiting. A project

122
Elaboration: Concept (noun) 1. A general notion or idea; conception. 2.
An idea of something formed by mentally combining all its
characteristics or particulars; a construct. 3. A directly conceived
or intuited object of thought (Webster’s, 1996)
 58

concept is an idea, or a concept, for a project. Such project concepts may

be designed through deliberate pondering (mental combination) or in a
more serendipitous manner (intuiting).

Project concepts – these ‘ideas for a project’ – may be concerned with

what kind of result the project is supposed to create. They may be notions
of what actually, really is the problem the project is supposed to help
solve, or they may be schemes outlining how the project may produce
a fiscal benefit. They may be related to how it would make sense to
structure the project’s internal division of labour and responsibility. They
can be notions of how the project’s governance would best be structured,
or they might be concerned with notions of hazard and risk and how
these may affect the project.

These examples highlight an aspect to project concepts that needs to

be explicitly addressed, namely that – just as one project may generate
many ideas – any project may be the locus of a lot of project concepts.
Furthermore, while some of these project concepts pertain only to an
aspect of the project, other project concepts may aim to enfold the
rationale for the entire project.

Another important aspect of project concepts is that two or more ideas

may be equifinal (produce the same primary result) yet necessitate
different approaches, assume different inputs, and produce diverging
externalities. Therefore, selecting among equifinal alternative
project concepts often implies choosing among approaches, inputs
and externalities.

The duality of project concepts

To understand the notion of project concepts and to make sense of the

literature on project concepts, it is crucial to see that project concepts
have two forms of existence. On one hand, project concepts may exist as
overt artefacts, such as documents, sketches, models, charts, illustrations,
or even prototypes. On the other hand, project concepts exist as private
mental models, tacitly being processed and worked on within the minds
of individuals.

Moreover, these two forms (overt and tacit) of project concepts are not
separate but intimately connected. The tacit and overt forms of project
concepts are part of a continuum, two sides of the same coin: an overt
project concept is always preceded by a tacit project concept, while
learning of an overt project concept allows individuals to start tacitly
 59

processing that information. The dual existence of project concepts and

the social interactions between individuals and the dual forms of project
concepts can be understood using Polanyi’s theory on tacit and explicit
knowledge (1966), and Nonaka’s and Takeuchi’s theories on social
knowledge transformations (1995).

According to this understanding, project concepts correspond to tacit

knowledge when they are personal mental models, whereas when they
have been codified and shared, project concepts are consistent with
explicit knowledge. Importantly, both forms are equally crucial for
projects: tacit project concepts need to be made explicit, because only
in explicit form can project concepts inform others and act as a basis
for concerted activity. On the other hand, as all thinking happens in the
tacit realm, any further development of existing explicit project concepts
depends on the tacit mode. Therefore, all activity that aims at developing
project concepts necessitates constant transformations: transformations
between persons and between tacit and explicit forms of project concepts.

The multiplicity and structure of project concepts

To include this breadth of potential reaches of project concepts, this

dissertation uses the three-tier structure proposed in Essay 1, dividing
project concepts into particular project concepts, intermediate project
concepts, and overarching project concepts. The meaning and roles of
these three will be illustrated using a bottom-up project concept design
process (and related terms), while acknowledging that project concept
design is not limited to bottom-up processes (for a discussion on this,
see Essay 1).

Particular project concepts are concepts (ideas) that apply to one

particular aspect of a project. Projects have numerous particular project
concepts, as for every significant aspect of the project there must be at
least one project concept. ‘At least one’, because every diverging notion
of how to set up an aspect of the project constitutes another particular
project concept.
 60

It is highly significant to note that two or more particular project concepts

regarding the same aspect of the project always compete against each
other, as it is likely that only one will be realised123. Furthermore, any
two (or more) particular project concepts regarding different aspects
of a project may be compatible or incompatible. Some incompatible
(particular) project concepts may be reconcilable, whereas others may
be irreconcilable.124

Intermediate project concepts are compounds that enfold two or more

particular or intermediate project concepts. In a fashion similar to that
of compounded mental models (that can be successfully compounded
only if the constituent mental models are compatible and relevant125),
lower-level project concepts cannot be successfully compounded into
a higher-level project concept unless they, too, are compatible and
relevant126. Intermediate project concepts thereby act as a central
method of identifying the incompatibility of constituent project concepts.
Depending on the scope and nature of the project, the number of layers
of intermediate project concepts will differ.

123
Elaboration: Competing (particular) project concepts can sometimes be
combined (so that the resulting combined concept enfolds the
central idea of both original concepts), but if they cannot be
combined, at least one of them will not be realised.
124
Terminology: incompatible (but reconcilable) project concepts means that the
project concepts do not fit together in their current form, but they
can be reconciled, either through modification of one or the other
project concept, or through the introduction of further, mediating
project concepts.
irreconcilable project concepts signifies incompatible project
concepts that cannot – by any means – be made to coexist,
therefore typically necessitating that one of the concepts is
discarded in its entirety or replaced with an alternative project
concept that does not suffer the same handicap.
125
Read more: See e.g., Johnson-Laird, 1983:410–422
126
Elaboration: It is possible to compound concepts that are not compatible
and relevant, but that compounding would not be successful,
and there are situations where a lack of compatibility and
relevance is not self-evident. The finding and ironing out of such
incompatibilities and irreconcilables often necessitate significant,
purposeful conceptual work, and this ‘conceptual work’ is part of
the activity this dissertation refers to as project concept design.
 61

An127 overarching project concept is similar to intermediate project

concepts in that it aims to enfold two or more lower-level project
concepts, but differs from intermediate project concepts in that it cannot
be further compounded without transcending the scope of the project. In
the context of a project, an overarching project concept is an aggregate
of the totality of a specific set128 of particular and intermediate project
concepts that cover all the myriad aspects of a project, and attempts
to enfold all that project’s disparate particular and intermediate project
concepts within a single, notional whole.

Project concepts’ links to perceived reality and imperatives

Thereby, this multi-level structure of project concepts – from a myriad of

particular project concepts, linked by one or more levels of intermediate
project concepts into an overarching project concept – constitute the idea
of the project in its entirety – from the smallest detail to the grandest
scheme. And while it is undoubtedly crucial that the various neighbouring
levels of project concepts are compatible and relevant, that demand does
not end at the boundary of the project concept. Instead, it is significant to
note about particular project concepts and overarching project concepts
that they should be connected to what is perceived as organisational
reality.

In a typical project, a particular project concept will most likely be an idea

that implies that someone will need to act in relation to something and
may even go as far as defining how and why that act is to be undertaken.
In a bottom-up approach, this implies that teams will formulate
particular project concepts that are within the skills and resources
(perceived to be) available to them129.

127
Note, please: The phrase here ‘An overarching project concept …’ is deliberate
and significant, because any two divergent sets of particular
project concepts constitute different overarching project
concepts.
128
Note, please: The phrase ‘specific set’ is here used to denote that those involved
in the super-compounding process select which of the alternative
lower-level concepts they include in this proposed overarching
project concept.
129
Elaboration: In a top-down approach, particular project concepts may be the
source of team members’ consternation and protestations when
they feel that the demands placed on them by the particular
project concept is not in line with their resources and abilities.
 62

At the same time, for the ensuing project to be able to produce benefits
for the involved parties, an overarching project concept also needs
to be linked to perceived organisational realities – not on the level of
organisational resources – but on the level of organisational imperatives.
In other words, overarching project concepts need to be compatible with
management’s views on what demands the organisation’s context places
on the organisation – now and in the future.

RQ2: Who designs project concepts and how do they do it?

The dissertation’s results with regards to this question are structured

in three parts. The first part discusses the assertion that the creating/
fashioning/generating of project concepts corresponds to the term
‘designing’. The second part summarises the dissertation’s key outcomes
with regards to the project concept design process. The third part
discusses the designer(s) vis-à-vis the design process. The related point
of tools used in the design process is addressed as part of the conclusions
to research question 4.

Why refer to it as ‘design’?

Historically and traditionally, it has been the task of the science disciplines to
teach about natural things: how they are and how they work. It has been the
task of engineering schools to teach about artificial things: how to make artifacts
that have desired properties and how to design. […] The intellectual activity
that produces material artifacts is no different fundamentally from the one that
prescribes remedies for a sick patient or the one that devises a new sales plan
for a company or a social welfare policy for a state. Design, so construed, is the
core of all professional training; it is the principal mark that distinguishes
the professions from the sciences. Schools of engineering, as well as schools
of architecture, business, education, law, and medicine, are all centrally
concerned with the process of design. (Simon, 1996:111 [emphasis added])

Whether we are setting learning goals for a university course or

planning its grading scheme; whether we are sketching the visuals of
a consumer convenience or determining its intended functionality;
whether we are outlining an organisation’s pay-for-performance scheme
or contemplating how to make that organisation’s culture more openly
disposed towards change … we are “concerned with how things ought
to be, with devising artifacts to attain goals” (Simon, 1996:114) – we are
designing.
 63

Based on the above, there is little doubt that what people are doing,
whenever they are coming up with ideas for how to arrange one or
another aspect of a project, corresponds to designing project concepts.
Therefore, this dissertation refers to all the human activities leading to
the fashioning of project concepts as ‘project concept design’.

The project concept design process

That project concepts are ideas for a project leaves little doubt that
idea generation is a crucial element of the process, but it is worthwhile
distinguishing between spontaneous ideation (having an idea without
really seeking one) and deliberate ideation (developing ideas based on a
perceived need for them), as well as between divergent ideation (seeking
novel, alternative ideas, even when there are already ideas available) and
convergent ideation (rejecting, refining or amalgamating existing ideas).

While the position of the project concept designer(s) vis-à-vis the

project initiators is likely to impact whether the project concept design
process starts with spontaneous or deliberate ideation (are the designers
looking for a solution to a problem or a problem to apply their solution
to?), all project concept design processes combine spontaneous and
deliberate ideation. While creative, imaginative individuals cannot avoid
spontaneously having ideas, the entirety of a project concept design
process is likely to be weighted towards deliberate ideation, especially
when considering that the multiplicity of project concepts and the links
between various levels of project concepts will necessitate a fair amount
of deliberate pondering.

Accounts on project concept design (and on creativity and innovation)

tend to portray the creative process as a two-stage process, wherein
the team of creatives first engages in divergent thinking/creativity to
thereafter shift to convergent thinking/creativity, ending up with the
single best idea. And while the same is likely to apply to project concept
design as a whole – simply because the process starts out with too few
ideas and needs to end with a limited number of alternative, honed
designs – the depiction of the design process as one divergent stage
followed by a convergent stage is likely to be overly simplistic.

First, one needs to consider that a project’s concepts are not one problem,
satisfied by one solution, based on one idea, but are a multi-layered,
interconnected structure of problems, solutions and ideas; that each of
these project concepts affects related project concepts, and that the level
of design progress throughout that structure is unlikely to be uniform.
 64

Similarly, whenever one project concept is changed, that change is

liable to necessitate a new divergence–convergence process in related,
affected project concepts. Therefore, while one aspect of a project may
have reached the point where the team has shifted from divergence to
convergence, another aspect may still (or again) be in the divergent
phase, and, therefore, it is likely that – at any time of the project concept
design process – both divergent and convergent ideation are taking place
in different aspects of the process.

Second, it is not sufficient for a project’s levels of concepts (particular,

intermediate and overarching) to be internally compatible, but also to be
compatible with perceived organisational imperatives and organisational
wherewithal. This leads to the project concept design process being
under pressure to be both a top-down process (aligning overarching
project concepts and its constituents to organisational imperatives)
and a bottom-up process (aligning particular project concepts and its
compounds to the organisation’s wherewithal). Hence, the overall project
concept design process is unlikely to be either exclusively a top-down
process or entirely a bottom-up process.

Finally, as ideas and project concepts have neither a natural point

of plenitude (you can always continue designing) nor a point of
unambiguous pareto efficiency, the project concept design process also
has no obvious point at which it is ready or finished. At the same time as
some designers will always want to keep improving on one or another
aspect of the project concept, there will be other forces that will want to
finalise the project concept and move forward with the project. As a result
of this tug-of-war between optimising and satisficing in combination with
other aspects of the design process, there are distinct iterative elements
to the project concept design process.

Who designs project concepts?

This is a question not fully answered by any of the three essays in this
dissertation. The only definite conclusion this dissertation can offer is
that project concepts are designed by people130.

130
Note, please: That project concepts are designed by people is an obvious
point, but still a point worth reiterating, because there is a long-
standing tendency in the Study of Projects to avoid discussions
on what one could call the fundamental questions regarding a
project: Who decide(s) to start the project? Who decide(s) what
the project is aimed at and what it is to achieve? Who decide(s)
whether the project will be judged successful? Who will do all the
work?
 65

There are, however, some noteworthy indications forwarded in the

essays. First, this research seems to indicate that there are very few
limits to which ‘people’ can participate in the design of project concepts,
as the literature shows that significant input (in the form of design
objectives, design constraints, and as ideas on how to satisfy these) can
come from a multitude of sources and directions, including every level
of the organisation (from top management to factory floor sweepers),
stakeholders, clients, competitors, and civil society. While this conclusion
does in no way indicate anything substantial on the relative frequency
of significant inputs from, for example, civil society, it does indicate that
project concept designers should be prepared for such inputs and keep
communication channels open.

Second, an absolute majority of indicators131 points towards project

concept design being a group effort. While this majority of indicators may
be biased, the notion of project concept design having a tendency towards
being a group effort is in line with projects being characteristically cross-
disciplinary132, and typically utilising personnel with various expertise
to better be able to address problems spanning intra-organisational
boundaries or inter-organisational silos. It would therefore be logical
for the designing of such projects’ project concepts to rarely be a task
suited to a solo designer. Instead, ideally, project concept design would
be a process with several, even numerous participants, often selected
with an eye towards covering all the relevant expertise and representing
all crucial stakeholder groups (internal and external), in the hope of
being able to come up with a design that is not only practicable but also
acceptable to stakeholders.

Third, while there are some indications that point to a person or group
typically acting as ‘lead’ for the project concept design effort, there are
too few published accounts that illustrate the internal structure of the
design effort to allow for meaningful conclusions. Also, while there are
cases where it is evident that there is a clear and even strict boundary
between those who participate in project concept design and those who

131
Elaboration: I am aware of accounts of single-person project concept design,
but none of the included essays encompass such accounts,
therefore I cannot draw any conclusions on the matter.
132
Read more: Many early, seminal texts (e.g., Gaddis, 1959; Baumgartner,
1963:6; Lock, 1968:6), as well as numerous later studies (e.g.,
Huemann, 2010; Brady & Hobday, 2011; Müller, Pemsel &
Shao, 2015) and theoretical papers (e.g., Knight, 1976; Ford
& Randolph, 1992) highlight the cross-disciplinary nature of
projects.
 66

are kept at arm’s length, there are also accounts of projects where no
clear boundary exists. It is therefore unclear whether one can generally
assume that the people participating in the design effort can be classed
as a team or even as a group, and whether such efforts typically employ
interpersonal organisation, is also a subject for further study.

Finally, while the accounts perused make no explicit comments on the

stability of participation, there are several indications that point towards
people and groups becoming part of the project concept design effort
after the beginning of the effort and/or leaving the effort before it is
finished. Those few accounts that comment on the rationales and timings
of these shifts in participation are too scattered to allow any meaningful
speculation. Therefore, while stable participation cannot be assumed,
insufficient evidence exists on the reasons and mechanisms for joining
or leaving the design effort. This, too, opens up some interesting future
questions (see also 5.4).

RQ3: How can project concepts positively affect the

subsequent project?

This research question arises from the fact that, while the literature that
discusses project concepts regularly asserts that project concepts have
remarkable potential to benefit the ensuing project and its chances of
success, that same literature offers very little explanation for why project
concepts benefit the subsequent project. This chapter draws together
the dissertation’s conclusions with regards to how project concepts can
positively affect the subsequent project.

This dissertation finds that project concepts (ideas for a project) are an
essential part of projects and that all projects have project concepts.
Therefore, project concepts cannot by their mere existence benefit
subsequent projects or make the projects especially likely to succeed.
On the other hand, this dissertation and its enclosed essays find ample
evidence to support the conclusion that project concept design has
pronounced potential to beneficially affect the subsequent project and
significantly improve the project’s chances of serving the needs of its
parent organisations and stakeholders (which is tantamount to success).
This dissertation argues that this positive effect is based on several
mechanisms that are not mutually exclusive. These mechanisms are
subsequently referred to as concept alignment, concept meshing, concept
articulation, concept consideration, and concept evaluation. All these are
discussed in detail below.
 67

Concept alignment

In its simplest form, concept alignment refers to each project concept

needing to align (be compatible and relevant) with concepts both on the
concept level above and on the level below. As already discussed, project-
internal concepts typically exist in a structure of at least three levels: the
level of particular project concepts (at least one concept for every non-
trivial aspect of the project); the level of overarching project concepts
(one notion to enfold the totality of the project); as well as at least one
level of intermediate project concepts that act as links and co-ordination
between concepts on a lower and higher level. Within the scope of
the project, alignment refers to particular project concepts needing
to align with the corresponding intermediate project concepts, while
intermediate project concepts further need to align with an overarching
project concept.

In the project’s environment, there are two further levels: one that
contains conceptualisations of the project’s wider environment
(understandings of the organisation(s); their market(s) and trends that
affect them; and notions of organisational imperatives), and another that
contains an understanding of the organisation’s wherewithal – available
resources and abilities as well as organisational processes. See Figure 2
in Essay 1 for illustration.

The function of concept alignment is to try to ensure that the project

being embarked upon is designed in such a way as to a) align an
overarching project concept with notions regarding the project’s
wider environment, especially including organisational imperatives;
b) align the project-internal concept levels in such a way as to be
mutually supporting; and c) align particular project concepts with the
organisation’s wherewithal in order to make sure the myriad aspects of
the project can be accomplished.

Regarding alignment beyond the project (with organisational imperatives

and the organisational wherewithal), I want to make a few observations,
because neither of these is as straightforward as they might seem. As
noted in Essay 1, this mechanism of aligning project concepts with
organisational imperatives can take two somewhat different forms:
‘fundamental strategic alignment’ occurs when the key rationale for the
project and its project concept being designed stems from organisational
imperatives; ‘accommodating strategic alignment’ happens when a
project must adjust its project concepts to organisational imperatives
other than those that caused the project to be started. These forms of
 68

strategic alignment and their implications are especially consequential

when one considers the implications for those projects that are of
especially long duration, and how retaining alignment in such situations
may necessitate fundamental adjustment of project-internal levels
of concepts.

Relating to the alignment of particular project concepts with the

organisational wherewithal, one should consider the potential offered
by the temporal element of projects: while it is only natural that – in a
bottom-up-process – designers will try to achieve alignment between
particular project concepts and organisations’ existing resources and
abilities, one should also be able to envision such alignment between
particular project concepts and future resources, abilities and processes.
This is especially significant in such projects that, due to their size
and importance, have the ability to act as a catalyst for enhancing the
organisational wherewithal.

While achieving comprehensive alignment is far from an easy feat,

this dissertation argues that the extent to which alignment is achieved
determines the potential for project effectiveness. Furthermore, the
dissertation argues that alignment also contributes to project efficiency.

Concept meshing

If one were to refer to concept alignment as vertical fit, concept meshing

would best be characterised as lateral fit. Meshing refers to concepts
fitting not only between levels of concepts, but also within levels of
concepts. In some cases, the need for meshing is obvious (e.g., between
a problem concept and a solution concept), but in other cases a lack of
meshing may entail added work as one concept pulls the project in one
direction, while another concept pushes the project in another. While
it is conceivable that a project’s level of meshing would be so dismal
as to make the entire project unviable, it is likely more common that
a lack of meshing leads to projects that suffer technical difficulties, or
turn out to necessitate redesign and rework, thereby leading to delays
and budgetary problems. The level of meshing thereby directly affects a
project’s efficiency.

While concept alignment and concept meshing have numerous

commonalities, there are many reasons for treating them as separate.
First, alignment and meshing do not go hand in hand, and it is possible
for a project concept design to achieve a high level of alignment, while
still suffering significant problems in meshing. Another key differentiator
 69

is that reaching alignment and achieving meshing are often dependent

on different skills and therefore also taken care of by different experts:
while achieving alignment necessitates business and management
knowledge, achieving meshing necessitates, first and foremost, subject-
matter expertise (e.g., technical skills).

Concept articulation

Articulation in turn refers to the project concept design process’s ability

to aid the collective and comprehensive explication and development of
ideas, assumptions, understandings, and rationalisations133. While Essay
1 already argued that the entire process of project concept design can
be understood in accordance with Nonaka’s and Takeuchi’s theories on
organisational knowledge-creation, articulation – as a function of project
concept design – refers not only to how project concept design allows
individuals opportunities to externalise, explicate and share what they
think they know on a tacit level, but also to the process’s ability to – on
a collective level – fashion shared articulations regarding facets that are
conceived as crucial for the project. As further discussed in Essay 2, and
repeatedly emphasised by Polanyi (1966), articulating tacit knowledge is
not an easy or straightforward affair. Instead, explicating tacit knowledge
often necessitates the repeated and iterative use of concepts, models,
analogies, metaphors, and hypotheses (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995:64).

Articulation therefore refers not only to project concept design’s ability

to unearth important, tacit knowledge, but also to the collective, verbal
and symbolic process through which designers build a consensus of the
fundamental aspects regarding the focal projects: ‘How do we understand
the current situation?’; ‘What future situation should we strive for?’; and
‘What approaches do we have to bridge that gap?’

133
Note, please: The process I here describe as “articulation” has similarities with
what is often referred to as sensemaking. For instance, Weick,
Sutcliffe and Obstfeld (2005:409 [emphasis added]) describe
sensemaking as “Sensemaking involves turning circumstance
into a situation that is comprehended explicitly in words and
that serves as a springboard into action.”. But what I refer
to as articulation does not embody the entire spectrum of
‘sensemaking’ but is instead focused on the social articulation
or externalisation of individual understandings, concepts and
experiences.
 70

Articulation is not and need not be a straightforward, hurdle-free

process. As Essay 2 discusses and exemplifies, only obvious solutions
and solutions that do not necessitate significant creativity can be arrived
at quickly and without pause for thought. On the contrary, one could
make the argument that the more difficult and complex the articulation
process is, the more likely it is that any results produced by that process
will be of non-routine consequence.

As such, articulation not only feeds into the concept design process (as, in
effect, any overarching project concept should align with the articulation-
derived consensus regarding the current situation and the desired future
situation), but also has a crucial function in helping to uncover hidden
goals. Given that a thorough concept design process – especially when it
is further set up to include viewpoints from clients and key stakeholders
– will likely look at the key questions from several angles, it is obvious
that such a thorough and inclusive project concept design process is
more likely to uncover ‘unaware goals’, more likely to recover ‘lost goals’,
and more likely to help find expressions for goals that would otherwise
remain ‘tacit goals’. Furthermore, one can assume that a thorough and
insightful project concept design process could make it somewhat more
difficult to deliberately hold a goal hidden, but one should not expect the
process to unearth all deliberately hidden goals. The issue of hidden goals
will be further discussed in the next subchapter.

Concept articulation has a potential, pervasive effect on concept

alignment, concept meshing, and concept consideration, thereby
positively contributing to project effectiveness and project efficiency.

Concept consideration

Consideration refers to the merit to be had from being forced to consider

several options, weigh their pros and cons and – in general – being
forced to consider the challenge the project is intended to address in a
broad sense.

There is significant evidence to suggest that the fundamental challenge

– the challenge that a project is initiated in order to surmount – can
often be addressed in several different ways, and that these different ways
may even be radically different. This is related to the notion of partial
equifinality – that while a prime requirement can be achieved in several
different ways, those different ways will entail different secondary effects
and externalities.
 71

The ability to ideate and flesh out more than one potential project
concept set thereby not only opens the door for choosing among equally
well-considered alternatives, but also changes the role (in the decision-
making process) of those secondary effects and externalities. No longer
are decision-makers in a situation where they can deceive themselves
into seeing those secondary effects and externalities as unavoidable
incidentals or as ‘the cost of doing business’. Instead, decision-makers
will then be able to see that they are not merely choosing among
‘different strokes’, but are actively participating in shaping the future
of the project’s environment. Furthermore, there are indications that
situations where two solutions, maybe even two teams, vie to have
their solution adopted, have positive effects, ranging from improved
motivation for each team keeping the other honest by double-checking
the opposition’s projections.

Hence, if one can assume that there are significant advantages to be

gained from having to consider among more than one fully fleshed-
out option, this raises the question of whether it would not be in some
cases beneficial for decision-makers always to demand at least two,
significantly different, fully designed alternative project concepts from
which to choose. While such a requirement would undoubtedly increase
the cost and/or duration of a design process, it would be easy to argue
that there are types of project where such an added expense would be
an expense well spent. This latter consideration is especially pertinent
in projects that have a wide scope of influence or can be expected to
have long-term effects, in projects that are liable to have significant
consequences for a large number of people and organisations, and in
projects that from the onset seem to have one obvious solution that would
need to be challenged.

Similarly, in situations where only one solution is offered for decision-

makers’ deliberations, the zero-alternative (not to commence the project)
should be treated as if it were an equal alternative and the solution should
equally be fleshed-out – instead of assuming that all decision-makers are
aware of the current situation and the secondary effects and externalities
of things remaining as they are. Through broadening the search for the
best solutions, concept consideration enhances project effectiveness.

Concept evaluation

Related to consideration, thorough project concept design also

contributes to subsequent projects by enabling a higher quality of up-
front evaluation of projects (than would be possible without thorough
 72

project concept design). Herein, evaluation can either signify the

appraisal of a single project’s technical and economic feasibility based on
findings and considerations accrued during the project concept design, or
it can signify comparison and selection among prospective projects based
on comparing the economic merits and technical feasibility of projects
based on their respective project concept designs. Moreover, depending
on key characteristics of the project, evaluation can include criteria other
than technical and economic, such as social responsibility appraisals,
environmental impact assessments, and resilience analyses.

The point is that thorough project concept design has the potential to
unearth a great many facts and aspects of a project, thereby helping to
somewhat alleviate the traditional bane of project management practice:
the scant availability of actionable data at the time when the future
course of the project is being decided. While the rational evaluation or
comparison of mere fancy ideas is effectively impractical, evaluating
project concept designs is less impractical by far, especially when that
project concept design has been conducted throughout in the knowledge
that one of the purposes of designing is to facilitate evaluation. This
is the key reason why public spenders in particular are increasingly
implementing regimes on front-end governance134. Hence, concept
evaluation contributes to project effectiveness and project efficiency.

RQ4: What kinds of factor can facilitate or impede successful

project concept design?

The conclusions being offered here aim to collect the key takeaways of
the dissertation with regards to the research question, instead of aiming
to cover the research question in its entirety.

Project concept design – a creative process

Project concept design is by nature indeterminate. One cannot logically

deduce project concepts from other concepts, and while some activities
evidence patterns that could be described as analysing and synthesising,
these processes are far from the eponymous as applied in a chemistry lab.
Instead, the mental processes responsible for the designing (inventing,
adjusting, modifying, comparing, negotiating) of project concepts rely
extensively on creativity.

134
Read more: See e.g., Miller & Hobbs, 2005; Hagen, 2009; Næss, 2009; Zorzal
et al., 2017.
 73

This means that for any project concept design to be successful, the
participating individuals will need to a) have creative capabilities, and
b) dare to use them. While all people have creative potential, some have
more experience of being creative, and these people are likely to be the
heavy lifters in project concept design. This does not, however, mean that
less seasoned creatives would not have a central role to play, especially
considering that – as noted in Essay 2 – those people who are outsiders
to the creative process often bring the scarcest (and therefore, most
valuable) knowledge base to the table.

However, in a wider view, the centrality of creativity also emphasises that

successful project concept design is linked to organisational (macro and
meso) culture. Many creative ideas are ‘bad ideas’ and, even of the ideas
that are not ‘bad’, only some will have an impact on the overall creative
process that is project concept design. Problematically, if individuals
start self-censoring their idea output based on fear of failure, push-
back or derision, the creative engine that successful project concept
design relies upon will be starved of inputs. Therefore, individuals’
creative expression (or lack of it) together with an organisational culture
supportive of creative daring (or lack of it) are a crucial facilitating factor
(or hindrance) for successful project concept design.

Concept design tools – cognitive and social

Given that project concept design is a social process and a creative

process aiming to accumulate knowledge135 , the tools used in project
concept design can roughly be divided into physical and social tools and
culture, cognitive tools and access.

The cognitive tools involved are especially those that facilitate various
knowledge transformations. The process of externalisation can be
supported by metaphors, analogies and other forms of conceptual
thinking, as well as the production of sketches, models, mock-ups, and
prototypes, whereas internalisation is assisted by pondering mental
constructions and the manipulation of tangible artefacts. Similarly, while
socialisation can be supported through colocation, collaboration, and
working on tasks together, combination can be aided through collected
work with explicit knowledge: breaking down, particularizing, and
operationalizing concepts as well as compounding them.

135
Elaboration: Herein, ‘knowledge’ should not be seen as equating to truth or
fact. Simply that the participants have gathered enough of an
understanding that they feel confident to move forward.
 74

As many concept design activities are related to something physical and

tangible, and as many cognitive tools are supported by visualisations and
mock-ups, it helps to allow concept designers unfettered access to such
implements that facilitate the physical aspect of concept design.

At the same time, project concept design needs to be supported by social

tools, such as group discussions, workshops, brainstorming sessions,
retreats, co-location, even apprenticing designers to experts. What is
noteworthy is that, while there undoubtedly is a social element to project
concept design, many designers will also need time to think, sketch, and
whittle away in solitude without being disturbed.

Generating new ideas and finding novel solutions unavoidably produces

a large share of failed experiments. A crucial prerequisite, therefore, is
either to have a culture that offers support for experimentation and a
tolerance for failure or, as noted in Essay 2, affordances that people can
use to circumvent the more toxic elements of a culture.

A final important ‘tool’ for project concept designers is to have access to

data and to people (current users, prospective clients). While concept
designers may be experts in finding novel applications and solutions, for
those to match the needs of project owners, users and end-users, concept
designers also need access to people as well as to a wide range of data
sources. While there are obviously some cases where management will
have a legitimate interest in keeping some aspects of a project secret,
management should understand that designers know best what designers
need to know to be able to do their job as well as possible.

Impediments

It must be noted that project concept design is by no means a panacea. As

has been discussed above, project concept design is inherently an activity
that is entirely dependent on the creativity, imagination and thinking
of individuals. And just as authors may suffer writer’s block, designers
may also fail to have an idea – even when the idea in hindsight seems
perfectly obvious. On the other hand, when several people participate
in project concept design, the risk of ideas simply not being had is
significantly reduced.
 75

But there is also a bigger, more ominous risk than merely not having
a valuable idea, and that risk is directly connected to the nature of the
thought processes in question. That nature is best illustrated by Fred
Brooks’ poetic expression:
“[…] there is the delight of working in such a tractable medium. The
programmer, like the poet, works only slightly removed from pure thought-
stuff. He builds his castles in the air, creating by exertion of the imagination.
Few media of creation are so flexible, so easy to polish and rework, so readily
capable of realizing grand conceptual structures.” (Brooks, 1995:7)

Importantly, while Brooks writes to describe the joy of computer

programming, I argue that this description corresponds perfectly to the
designing of project concepts: just like computer code, project concepts
are also only slightly removed from pure thought-stuff, project concept
design also allows building castles in the air, project concepts are also
flexible, while what every concept designer aims to do is to realise ‘grand
conceptual structures’.

Importantly, there is one crucial difference: while the programmer

can easily get rapid feedback that shows whether their code will work,
the designer is not so lucky. The designer instead can easily convince
themselves that their project concept is an effective representation
of an aspect of reality, and the designer may even be able to convince
their fellow designers of the same. Problematically, whether the project
concept was an accurate representation will only become obvious very
much later, and at significant cost.

While some authors have argued that the project concept design
phase is susceptible to many forms of biases and errors of thought,
including “premature closure, lock-in, path dependence, anchoring,
overconfidence, group think” (Flyvbjerg, 2009:160), they have typically
not identified the reason for concept design’s susceptibility. I argue that
the reason for this is based on the seeming tractability of project concepts
– that one can more easily become convinced of the brilliance of one’s
idea than one can become persuaded by others of its weaknesses.

Herein, it must be said that project concept designers are not only
susceptible to the ills of wishful thinking (believing what they want to
believe), but also to honest mistakes: Just like anyone who has tried to
think four chess moves ahead only to find that one has miscalculated
the positions of pieces two moves hence, concept designers may also
make mistakes when trying to foresee the ‘movement’ of complex
organisational pieces into the future.
 76

What, then, can be done to avoid or alleviate these risks? As noted in

Essay 1, there are several well-known recipes. Some of these recipes
are the same as those used whenever the inviolability of a decision-
making process and the quality of decision-making is paramount,
such as added transparency and accountability, the systematic use of
outsider opinion and reference-class forecasting. Other recipes are more
concept design-specific such as valuing the process over the end-result,
developing working methods to support designers, the deliberate initial
diversification of solutions, and demanding several alternative project
conceptualizations for consideration.

In sum, while there are certainly risks in project concept design, most
of those risks can be guarded against, and the remaining level of risk
is minuscule compared to the risks accrued by not having a deliberate
project concept designing process. Problematically, that is exactly what
too often happens.

Misunderstood relationship between design and planning

As noted (see starting on page 20), the development of the Study

of Projects has long been troubled by the question of when projects
start and, by extension, at what point management becomes project
management (and when project managers continue from where other
managers left off). While many of the functions related to initiating/
starting projects are outside the purview of project managers, and while it
is equally clear that detailed planning is the domain of project managers
(and their planning teams), the functional and temporal position of the
project concept design process in relation to ‘initiating’ and ‘planning’ is
anything but clear.

Hence also, there are clear indications of confusion regarding the

relationships between project concept design and projects’ detailed
planning. Not only is it clear that a significant portion of the Study of
Projects and textbooks in project management assume that project
concept design precedes project formation, and that a) project concept
design has been conducted in advance of formalising a project charter,
but also that b) project managers therefore need neither bother
themselves with concept design (in general) nor ask themselves why
their project is doing what it is. As noted, many comprehensive books
on project management do not consider concept design at all.
 77

On the other hand, there are also ample indications that (general)
management thought rarely pays attention to matters related to project
concepts. While it is plain to see that any organisational changes
demanded by changes in organisational strategy are likely to be realised
through one or another form of project, strategy and management
thought is only lately showing an interest in the practicalities of strategy
implementation.

In effect, project concept design is often orphaned by ambiguous

ownership of the process. As a result of that ambiguity, project concept
design is liable to be overlooked and forgotten. While this means that – at
worst – project concept design is left entirely undone, more typically it
means that project concept design is done in a rush, and with insufficient
and unsuitable personnel resources. When that happens, project concept
design is likely to be a form of concept planning patchwork – reverse-
engineering project concepts based on the demands of planning, rather
than forward-designing sets of project concepts to serve the needs and
wants of the involved parties.

For a project concept design process to take place and be able to

contribute to the subsequent project, the participating organisations
need to be aware of the potential value to be gained from project concept
design, assign it sufficient resources, and give it a role where it can fulfil
its potential.

The role of project concept design

One significant aspect that has the potential to greatly influence the
project concept design process and the ability of that process to serve the
subsequent project is the role that the project concept design process is
seen to have and is given. For a project concept design process to be able
to support the subsequent project and aid in engendering a successful
project (see page 66), the project concept design process should be
allowed to inspect all the relevant details (such as organisational
imperatives and wherewithal), and it should be furnished with sufficient
resources to scout out several radically different alternative overarching
project concepts, and then, finally, either to settle on one such concept
or help organisational decision-makers in approaching the conundrum.

Fulfilling such a demanding and complex role necessitates not only

competence and experience, but also the project concept designers
being given significant leeway and sufficient time and other resources
 78

to a) gain sufficient knowledge of the project’s contexts, and b), align,

mesh, articulate, consider, and evaluate all the various alternative
project concepts.

Therefore, if project concept designers are merely given the task of

fleshing out one solution that a project sponsor has already set their
sights on, or if the project concept design process is merely implemented
to add legitimacy to a foregone conclusion by concocting fiction to
support that conclusion, the project concept design process will not be
able to support the creation of a subsequent, successful project. Instead,
it will then only reinforce the original project concept – “regardless of
how inept it might turn out to be” (Samset, 2009:18).

Hidden goals

Finally, there is a rather complex relationship between hidden goals and

the project concept design process. First, while this dissertation argues
that project concept design is good at uncovering hidden goals – very
good for some hidden goals, less good for those that are deliberately
held hidden – the fact remains that hidden goals – independent of
reason and rationale for them being hidden – have a negative impact
on concept designers’ ability to produce a set of project concepts that is
technologically feasible, economically viable, and serves the interests of
the involved parties.

One interesting consideration – as commented on at length in Essay

3 – is that a goal that is being deliberately held hidden but is crucial
to the project’s ability to serve organisational needs, is likely to have
a placeholder – a ‘covering goal’ – a goal that is not true but that will
necessitate something from the project that is sufficiently like the
demands implied by the goal that is being held hidden. The existence
of such covering goals has two effects: first, they lessen the risk of the
concept design process uncovering the hidden goal. Second, as the
covering goal or goals can rarely have the exact same implications (for
the concept design process and the ensuing project) as the goal being
deliberately hidden (as this would increase risk of discovery), any
deliberately hidden goal is likely to have minor to moderate negative
effects on the concept design process and on the ability of the project’s
results to serve those hidden, but very real goals.
 79

Therefore, while all the hidden goals that the project concept design
process is not able to uncover will burden the concept design process and
taint the project’s final result, one could argue that intentionally hidden
goals are less likely to have a significant effect, if a suitable covering goal
has been established to serve largely the same function.

5.3 Identifying implications for the profession

The key conclusions of the dissertation discussed in the previous

chapter have the potential to significantly contribute to professional
practices – project concept design practices, project management
practices, management practices, as well as in-house research practices.
Nevertheless, as the primary audience of this text comprises academics,
these implications will not be discussed at length.

The contributions to professionals made by this dissertation pertain to

several areas. First, this dissertation offers a structured and nuanced
description of what project concepts are (dualistic, multiplicity), that
they form structures wherein concepts should be mutually compatible,
and that they should be linked to organisational imperatives, and
organisational wherewithal. Considering the custom of heretofore
referring to all ideas for a project – without regard for their aspect or
scope – as project concepts, the proposed structure and vocabulary
can inform discussions and decision-making related to project concept
design. While some people who professionally manage projects
and design project concepts are tacitly or explicitly aware of these
characteristics of project concepts, I believe that the nuanced description
of project concepts offered in this dissertation may still offer novelty
and facilitate insight. Even more so, for those professionals (including
managers and in-house researchers) who have not yet had a firm grip on
project concept design, the conclusions of this dissertation may be quite
eye-opening. Furthermore, the structured definition of project concepts
may make it easier for those who professionally deal with project
concepts to explain them to key stakeholders (such as management).

Second, the dissertation sheds some light on several aspects of the project
concept design process. For instance, it emphasises issues related to
participation in the process and that project concept design is a process
and not a singular act, and, further, that the process should not be
expected to proceed linearly or entirely in step. These results can be of
help to organisational management that is trying to set up procedures
 80

for project concept design, for project managers and concept designers
in trying to communicate their work to management, and for in-house
researchers who are trying to investigate project concept design.

Third, this dissertation offers a comprehensive explanation for project

concept design’s potential to lead to improvements in projects’ success
chances. This explanation acts as a rallying cry for a systematic
implementation of project concept design processes, and is of relevance
to practice in a broad range of positions, from the designer and the
project manager to top management and in-house researchers. Moreover,
the dissertation identifies five key mechanisms (alignment, meshing,
articulation, consideration, and evaluation) through which project
concept design can benefit the organisation, also aids in the evaluation
and (re)structuring of organisations’ project concept design processes.

Fourth, the dissertation discusses some aspects that have the potential
to facilitate or impede successful project concept design. This list –
while significantly incomplete – can nevertheless benefit organisational
actors on all levels – both when their intent is to improve existing project
concept design processes as well as when their key interest is to evaluate
the quality of a specific project concept design process.

Finally, the dissertation makes two further contributions that have

the potential to significantly impact professional practice. First, the
dissertation raises the issue of hidden goals, and how they can affect
projects in general as well as the project concept design process.
Second, the dissertation offers a practice-/process-oriented research
methodology, eminently suitable for in-house researchers’ attempts
to study and improve existing project concept design (and other
creative) processes.

5.4 Discerning implications for academia

This dissertation (and the contributions it makes) has several

implications for theory –direct and indirect. Further, the dissertation
also highlights some areas for future research.

First, while the literature has long ascribed various results to ‘project
concepts’, prior to this dissertation no-one has offered a clear, detailed
description of what project concepts are. The structured, nuanced
description offered herein has the potential to significantly inform
future research and future researchers, and can contribute to some
theory-building regarding project concepts. Likewise, the beginnings of
 81

a vocabulary for project concepts and project concept design coined in

this dissertation can act as a basis for future discussion and theorisation.
Further, and largely based on the above, this dissertation also has
significant potential to contribute to existing discussions regarding the
project front-end.

More widely – considering not only project concepts and the project
front-end but the entirety of the Study of Projects – this dissertation and
its contributions regarding project concepts and project concept design
have the potential to influence our current understanding of projects,
as well as participating in redefining the scope of the professional
management of projects and the academic Study of Projects. As all
projects have project concepts, and as a project’s project concepts define
what the project will accomplish and whether that accomplishment will
satisfy expectations, it is painfully obvious that projects, managers of
projects, and scholars of projects cannot afford to disregard project
concepts and project concept design.

Even more widely, it is equally arguable that project concepts – given

that they need to be thoroughly and systematically aligned with
organisational imperatives and with the organisational wherewithal,
are too significant for organisational management to ignore. Given the
long-standing myopia in Management and Organization Studies towards
the grassroots-level implementation of various one-time endeavours –
ranging from strategy projects to organisational change projects – an
extension of Management and Organization Studies in the direction of
the project front-end, project concepts, and project concept design would
not come amiss.

In a more indirect manner, this dissertation has some further

implications. First, given the extreme contextuality of project concept
design in combination with key aspects of project concepts (especially
contingency, indeterminacy, duality, lack of plenitude), practice/process-
ontologies and ethnographical research methods seem to be the obvious
approach to conducting empirical investigations into project concept
design, and – by extension – many other key actions and decisions in
projects that share some or all of those key aspects.

However, potentially the most significant indirect implication of this

dissertation comes from the centrality of project concepts to the entire
endeavour. Many project management tools – ranging from Gantt-
charts to Earned Value Management or the Critical Path Method – have
evidenced that they have a significant potential to improve project teams’
 82

ability to conduct successful projects. While this dissertation argues

that project concept design also has the ability to significantly improve
projects’ chances of success, project concepts and project concept design
are not add-on tools to aid in the management of projects. Instead,
project concepts are literally essential to projects: not only do all projects
have a project concept, in some respects the entire actual project is
nothing more than the endeavour to realise that project concept. In fact,
having project concepts may well be the only essential aspect that all
projects have in common.

Extending those areas for further research highlighted in the essays, this
dissertation also raises a number of areas deserving of research.

First, and although this dissertation contains some research into

the actuality of project concept design (the vignettes in Essay 2), the
dissertation remains largely conceptual. Hence, fleshing out and
extending the dissertation’s description of project concept design
and extending the dissertation’s description of project concepts will
necessitate further empirical research into project concept design.

One key shortcoming of the dissertation (vis-à-vis its research questions)

is that it was not sufficiently able to elucidate on or comment on the
question “Who designs project concepts and how do they do it”.
Questions regarding concept design team composition, persistence and
internal structure (as well as comparing various approaches to these
issues) remain largely unanswered and would offer a tempting target
for future empirical research. Likewise, while the dissertation was able
to – on an abstract level – discuss the design process and identify some
concept design tools (cognitive and social) relevant to project concept
design, the picture is far from complete and does not yet offer sufficient
evidence to be able to offer practitioners anything approaching a
definitive guide.

Another area wherein there is significant potential to extend the findings

(and hence, contributions) of this dissertation is within the question
of facilitators and inhibitors to project concept design, as the current
conclusion is mainly based on the literature (inhibitors) and only slightly
extended through empirical research (facilitators). Herein, also, empirical
research would help extend the understanding arrived at by this work.

Finally, and as an explicit tribute to Peter Morris and his lifetime

contribution to the Study of Projects:
 83

Project and programme management are ‘doing’ disciplines. Supporting such

a type of work requires project management to change as a discipline. It needs
a culture more biased to practice. Academics working in project management
would benefit from embracing this culture shift towards practice. Coaching,
oriented around practical issues, possibly provided by appropriately trained
academics, could be of value not only to those being coached (the project
executives) but also, and this is the added bonus, to those doing the coaching
(the academics in need of greater exposure to the management issues faced by
people managing projects). (Morris, 2014:151 [emphasis added])

If I have one regret regarding this dissertation, it is that it has remained

so conceptual and so distant from studying practice. This regret is all the
more poignant for two reasons: First – as the reader must have noticed
– I have great respect for practice research, and I argue that the Study
of Projects still suffers from a relative lack of practice-oriented research
and practice-derived theorisations. Second, given that project concepts
are important, but project concept design is even more important, project
concept design really would deserve and benefit from practice-oriented
research. I hope, however, that my work to some extent helps future
researchers pick up the baton and run with it.

In sum, further theoretical and empirical work on project concepts and

project concept design, as well as work exploring the relationship of the
above-mentioned with the Study of Projects and the field of Management
and Organization Studies is welcome.
 84

REFERENCES
Aaltonen, K., Ahola, T. & Artto, K. (2017). Something old, something
new: Path dependence and path creation during the early stage
of a project. International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 749–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2017.03.004

Aarseth, W. et al. (2017). Project sustainability strategies: A systematic

literature review. International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 1071–1083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2016.11.006

Abdul-Kadir, M.R. and Price, A.D.F. (1995). Conceptual phase

of construction projects. International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp.387–393. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0263-7863(96)81776-5

Abrell, T. and Karjalainen, T-M. (2017). The Early Stage of Internal

Corporate Venturing: Entrepreneurial Activities in a Large
Manufacturing Company. Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol.
25, No. 1, pp. 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218495817500017

Ahola, T., Ruuska, I., Artto, K., and Kujala, J. (2014) What is project
governance and what are its origins? International Journal
of Project Management, Vol. 32, No. 8, pp. 1321-1332. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.09.005

Akbar, H. and Mandurah, S. (2014). Project-conceptualisation in

technological innovations: A knowledge-based perspective.
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 32, No. 5,
pp. 759–772. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.10.002

Alfredsen Larsen, A.S., Karlsen, A.T. and Andersen, B. (2020).

Hospital project front-end planning: Current practice and
discovered challenges. Project Leadership and Society, Vol. 1,
p.100004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2020.100004.

Alfredsen Larsen, A. S., Karlsen, A. T., Andersen, B. and Olsson, N. O.

E. (2021). Exploring collaboration in hospital projects’ front-end
phase. International Journal of Project Management, In press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2021.04.001.
 85

Al-Faresi, F.A., Bond, D.J., Majeed, M.A., and Al-Naqi, M.

(2013). Selection process for optimum sour field surface
production scenario – Minagish reservoir, Burgan Field.
Society of Petroleum Engineers – Kuwait Oil and Gas Show
and Conference, KOGS 2013, pp. 429–438. https://doi.
org/10.2118/167321-MS

Al-Sedairy, S.T. (1994). Management of conflict: Public-sector

construction in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 143–151. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0263-7863(94)90029-9

Andersen, B. (2009). Analyzing Information. Techniques and Analyses.

In Williams, T. M., Samset, K. and Sunnevåg, K. J. (Eds.) Making
Essential Choices with Scant Information. Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave. Pp. 301–330. ISBN: 978-0-230-20586-4

Andersen, B., Samset, K. and Welde, M. (2016). Low estimates

– high stakes: underestimation of costs at the front-end of
projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJMPB-01-2015-0008

Andersen, E. S. (2008). Rethinking project management: an

organizational perspective. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
ISBN: 978-0-273-71547-4

Armour, P. G. (2012). The Business of Software: The Goldilocks

Estimate. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 55, No. 10, pp.
24–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/1237736.2347745

Artto, K., Ahola, T. and Vartiainen, V. (2016). From the front end of
projects to the back end of operations: Managing projects for
value creation throughout the system lifecycle. International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 258–270.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.003

Artto, K.A., Lehtonen, J.-M. and Saranen, J. (2001). Managing

projects front-end: incorporating a strategic early view to
project management with simulation. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 255–264. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00082-4
 86

Astorg, J.-M., et al. (2007). PERSEUS – A nanosatellite launch system

project focusing on innovation and education. International
Astronautical Federation – 58th International Astronautical
Congress 2007, Vol. 12, pp.7814–7819.

Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: cost, time and quality,

two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other
success criteria. International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 337–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-
7863(98)00069-6

Atkinson, R., Crawford, L. and Ward, S.C. (2006). Fundamental

uncertainties in projects and the scope of project management.
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24, No. 8,
pp. 687–698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.09.011

Avotos, I. (1983). Cost-relevance analysis for overrun control.

International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 1, No. 3., pp.
142–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(83)90018-2

Bakhshi, J., Ireland, V. and Gorod, A. (2016). Clarifying the project

complexity construct: Past, present and future. International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34, No. 7, pp. 1199–1213.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.06.002

Ballard, G. and Tommelein, I. (2012). Lean management methods for

complex projects, Engineering Project Organization Journal,
Vol. 2, No. 1–2, pp. 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/21573727.2
011.641117

Banihashemi, S., Hosseini, R., Golizadeh, H., and Sankaran, S. (2017).

Critical success factors (CSFs) for integration of sustainability
into construction project management practices in developing
countries. International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 1103–1119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2017.01.014

Barber, P., Tomkins, C. and Graves, A. (1999). Decentralised

site management– a case study. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp.113–120. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00014-3
 87

Barton, R.T. (2002). The application of value management to the

development of project concepts. In Langford, D. A. and Retik,
A., (Eds.) The Organization and Management of Construction:
Shaping Theory and Practice: Volume Two: Managing the
Construction Project and Managing Risk. Pp. 115–123. https://
doi.org/10.4324/9780203477090

Baskerville, R. L., Kaul, M. and Storey, V. C. (2015). Genres of Inquiry

in Design-Science Research: Justification and Evaluation of
Knowledge Production. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp.
541–564. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26629620

Baumgartner, J. S. (1963). Project Management. Homewood, US:

Richard D. Irwin Inc.

Belassi, W. and Tukel, O.I. (1996). A new framework for determining

critical success/failure factors in projects. International Journal
of Project Management, Vol. 14, No.3, pp.141–151. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0263- 7863(95)00064-X

Berger, P. L. and Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of

Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London, UK:
Penguin Books. ISBN: 978-0-14-013548-0

Betts, M. and Lansley, P. (1995). International Journal of Project

Management: a review of the first ten years. International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 207–217.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)00001-7

Biedenbach, T. and Jacobsson, M. (2016). The Open Secret of Values:

The Roles of Values and Axiology in Project Research. Project
Management Journal, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 139–155. https://doi.
org/10.1177/875697281604700312

Blackburn, S. (2002). The project manager and the project-network.

International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20, No. 3,
pp. 199–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00069-2

Blomquist, T., Hällgren, M., Nilsson, A. and Söderholm, A. (2010).

Project-as-practice: In search of project management research
that matters. Project Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp.
5–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20141
 88

Blomquist, T. and Lundin, R.A. (2010). Projects – real, virtual or what?

International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 3,
No. 1, pp. 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371011014008

Bochner, B.S. and Storey, B.J. (2011). CSS success – A walkable street
and redevelopment tool. Institute of Transportation Engineers
Annual Meeting and Exhibit 2011, pp. 42–54.

Boddy, D. and Macbeth, D. (2000). Prescriptions for managing change:

a survey of their effects in projects to implement collaborative
working between organisations. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 297–306. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00031-9

Bowen, P., Edwards, P., Cattell, K. and Jay I. (2010). The awareness
and practice of value management by South African consulting
engineers: Preliminary research survey findings. International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 285–295.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.07.001

Brady, T. and Hobday, M. (2011). Projects and innovation – innovation

and projects. In Morris, P. W. G., Pinto, J. K. and Söderlund,
J., eds. The Oxford Handbook of Project Management, pp.
273–294. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, ISBN: 978-0-19-
965582-3

Bredillet, C. N. (2004). Theories and Research in Project

Management: Critical review and return to the future. Doctoral
thesis. Lille Graduate School of Management, France.

Bredillet, C.N. (2010). Blowing hot and cold on project management.

Project Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 4–20. https://
doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20179

Bredillet, C.N. (2014). Ethics in project management: some

Aristotelian insights. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 548–565. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IJMPB-08-2013-0041

Bredillet, C.N., Conboy, K., Davidson, P. and Walker, D. (2013).

The getting of wisdom: The future of PM university education
in Australia. International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 31, No. 8, pp. 1072–1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2012.12.013
 89

Bredin, K. and Söderlund, J. (2013). Project managers and career

models: An exploratory comparative study. International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 889–902.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.11.010

Breese, R. (2012). Benefits management: Panacea or false dawn?

International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 30, No. 3,
pp. 341–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.08.007

Breese, R., Jenner, S., Serra, C. E. M, and Thorp, J. (2015). Benefits

management: Lost or found in translation. International Journal
of Project Management, Vol. 33, No. 7, pp. 1438–1451. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.06.004

Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia, A. and Swan, J. (2004). Embedding

New Management Knowledge in Project-Based Organizations.
Organization Studies, Vol. 25, No. 9, pp. 1535–1555. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0170840604047999

Briner, R. B. and Denyer, D. (2012). Systematic Review and

Evidence Synthesis as a Practice and Scholarship Tool. In
Rousseau, D. M. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evidence-
Based Management, online edition. http://doi.org/10.1093/
oxfordhb/9780199763986.013.0007

Brooks, F. P. (1995). The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software

Engineering (anniversary edition). Boston, US: Addison-
Wesley. ISBN: 978-0-201-83595-9

Buchan, L. and Simpson, B. (2020). Projects-as-Practice: A Deweyan

perspective. Project Management Journal, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp.
38–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819891277

Buckle, P. and Thomas, J. (2003). Deconstructing project

management: a gender analysis of project management
guidelines. International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 385–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-
7863(02)00114-X

Buganza, T., Dell’Era, C., and Verganti, R. (2009). Exploring the

Relationships Between Product Development and Environmental
Turbulence: The Case of Mobile TLC Services. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 308–321.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00660.x
 90

Burström, T. (2011). Organizing boundaries in early phases of

product development. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 697–710. https://doi.
org/10.1108/17538371111164083

Burström, T. (2012). Understanding PMs’ activities in a coopetitive

interorganizational multi-project setting. International Journal
of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 27–50.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371211192883

Börekçi, N.A.G.Z., Kaygan, P., and Hasdoǧan, G. (2016). Concept

Development for Vehicle Design Education Projects Carried Out
in Collaboration with Industry, Procedia CIRP 50, pp. 751–758.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.109

Carvalho, M.M. and Rabechini, R., Jr. (2017). Can project

sustainability management impact project success? An empirical
study applying a contingent approach. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 1120–1132. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.018

Catanio, J. T., Armstrong, G. and Tucker, J. (2013). The Effects of

Project Management Certification on the Triple Constraint.
International Journal of Information Technology Project
Management, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 93–111. https://doi.org/10.4018/
ijitpm.2013100106

Cerne, A. and Jansson, J. (2019). Projectification of sustainable

development: implications from a critical review. International
Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.
356-376. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-04-2018-0079

Chang, C.-Y. (2013). A critical analysis of recent advances in the

techniques for the evaluation of renewable energy projects.
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 31, No. 7, pp.
1057–1067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.03.001

Cicmil, S. and Hodgson, D. (2006). New Possibilities for Project

Management Theory: A Critical Engagement. Project
Management Journal, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 111–122. https://doi.
org/10.1177/875697280603700311
 91

Cicmil, S. and O’Laocha, E. (2016). The logic of projects and the ideal
of community development. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 546–561. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IJMPB-09-2015-0092

Cicmil, S., Williams, T., Thomas, J. and Hodgson, D. (2006).

Rethinking Project Management: Researching the actuality
of projects. International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 24, No. 8, pp. 675–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2006.08.006

Cleland, D. I. (1994). Project Management: Strategic design and

implementation (2nd edition). Boston, US: McGraw-Hill. ISBN:
0-07-011351-3

Cohen, M. D., March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1972). A Garbage

Can Model of Organizational Choice. Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 1–25. https://doi.
org/10.2307/2392088

Cohen, M. W. and Palmer, G. R. (2004). Project Risk Identification and

Management. AACE International Transactions, IN11.

Cooke-Davies, T. (2009). Front-end Alignment of Projects – Doing

the Right Project. In Williams, T. M., Samset, K., and Sunnevåg,
K. J. (Eds.) Making Essential Choices with Scant Information.
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. Pp. 106–124. ISBN: 978-0-230-
20586-4

Corvellec, H. and Macheridis, N. (2010). The moral responsibility of

project selectors. International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 212–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2009.05.004

Cummings, S., Bilton, C. and ogilvie dt. (2015). Toward a New

Understanding of Creative Dynamics: From One-Size-Fits-All
Models to Multiple and Dynamic Forms of Creativity. Technology
Innovation Management Review, Vol. 5, No. 7, pp. 14–24. http://
doi.org/10.22215/timreview/910

Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm.

Englewood Cliffs, US: Prentice-Hall.
 92

Damoah, I.S., Akwei, C. A., Amoako, I. O. and Botchie, D. (2018).

Corruption as a Source of Government Project Failure in
Developing Countries. Project Management Journal, Vol. 49,
No. 3, pp. 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818770587

Darling, E. J. and Whitty, S. J. (2019). A model of projects as a

source of stress at work: A case for scenario-based education
and training. International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 426–451. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJMPB-01-2019-0003

de Bakker, K., Boonstra, A. and Wortmann, H. (2012). Risk

managements’ communicative effects influencing IT project
success. International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 444–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2011.09.003

de Bony, J. (2010). Project management and national culture: A

Dutch–French case study. International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 173–182. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.09.002

Dey, I. (2004). Grounded Theory. In Seale, C., Gobo, G., Gubrium,

J. F., and Silverman, D. (Eds.) Qualitative Research Practice.
London, UK: Sage. Pp. 80–94. ISBN: 1- 4129-3420-6

Diaz, P., et al. (1998). RAINBOW concept for the UMTS access
network. IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor
and Mobile Radio Communications, PIMRC, Vol. 1, pp. 429–
433. https://doi.org/10.1109/PIMRC.1998.733600

Donaldson, L. (2005). Organization Theory as a Positive

Science. In Knudsen, C and Tsoukas, H. (Eds.) The Oxford
Handbook of Organization Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press. Pp. 39–62 https://doi.org/10.1093/
oxfordhb/9780199275250.003.0002

Drouin, N. and Jugdev, K. (2013). Standing on the shoulders of

strategic management giants to advance organizational project
management. International Journal of Managing Projects
in Business, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJMPB-04-2013-0021
 93

Dvir, D., Sadeh, A. and Malach-Pines, A. (2006). Projects and Project

Managers: The Relationship between Project Managers’
Personality, Project Types, and Project Success. Project
Management Journal, Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 36–48. https://doi.
org/10.1177/875697280603700505

Edkins, A., Geraldi, J., Morris, P. and Smith, A. (2013). Exploring

the front-end of project management. The Engineering Project
Organization Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 71–85. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/21573727.2013.775942

Elsbach. K. D. and van Knippenberg, D. (2020). Creating high-impact

literature reviews: An argument for ‘integrative reviews’. Journal
of Management Studies, Vol. 56, No. 6, pp. 1277–1289. https://
doi.org/10.1111/joms.12581

Emirbayer, M. and Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American

Journal of Sociology, Vol. 103, No. 4, pp. 962–1023. https://doi.
org/10.1086/231294

Engwall, M. (2003). No project is an island: linking projects to history

and context. Research Policy, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 789–808.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00088-4

Engwall, M. (2012). PERT, Polaris, and the realities of project

execution. International Journal of Managing Projects
in Business, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 595–616. https://doi.
org/10.1108/17538371211268898

Ernst, H. (2002). Success Factors of New Product Development: A

Review of the Empirical Literature, International Journal of
Management Reviews, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 1–40. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1468-2370.00075

Eskerod, P., Ang, K. and Andersen, E.S. (2018). Increasing project

benefits by project opportunity exploitation. International
Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 11, No.1, pp.
35–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-07-2017-0089

Fisch, C. and Block, J. (2018). Six tips for your (systematic) literature
review in business and management research. Management
Review Quarterly, Vol. 68, No. 2, pp. 103–106. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11301-018-0142-x
 94

Floricel, S., Bonneau, C., Aubry, M. and Sergi, V. (2014). Extending

project management research: Insights from social theories.
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 32, No. 7,
pp. 1091–1107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.02.008

Floricel, S. and Miller, R. (2001). Strategizing for anticipated risks and

turbulence in large-scale engineering projects. International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 19, No. 8, pp. 445–455.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00047-3

Floricel, S. and Piperca, S. (2017). Project Management Between Will

and Representation. Project Management Journal, Vol. 43, No.
3, pp. 124–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281604700311

Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making Social Science Matter: Why social

inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 978-0-511-06886-7

Flyvbjerg, B. (2009). Optimism and Misrepresentation in Early Project

Development. In Williams, T. M., Samset, K. and Sunnevåg, K.
J. (Eds.) Making Essential Choices with Scant Information.
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. Pp. 147–168. ISBN: 978-0-230-
20586-4

Flyvbjerg, B. (2016). The Fallacy of Beneficial Ignorance: A Test of

Hirschman’s Hiding Hand. World Development, Vol 84, pp.
176–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.03.012

Flyvbjerg, B. and Sunstein, C.R. (2016). The Principle of the

Malevolent Hiding Hand; or, the Planning Fallacy Writ Large.
Social Research: An International Quarterly, Vol. 83, No. 4, pp.
979–1004. https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/649542

Ford, R. C. and Randolph, W. A. (1992). Cross-Functional Structures:

A Review and Integration of Matrix Organization and Project
Management. Journal of Management, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 267–
294. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800204

Fuller, P.A., Dainty, A.R.J. and Thorpe, T. (2011). Improving project

learning: a new approach to lessons learnt. International
Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.
118–136. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371111096926
 95

Gaddis, P. O. (1959). The Project Manager. Harvard Business Review,

May–June, 1959.

Gallagher, E.C., Mazur, A.K. and Ashkanasy, N.M. (2015). Rallying the
Troops or Beating the Horses? How Project-Related Demands
Can Lead to Either High-Performance or Abusive Supervision.
Project Management Journal, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 10–24. https://
doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21500

Garel, G. (2013). A history of project management models: From

pre-models to the standard models. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 663–669. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.011

Garton, C. and McCulloch, E. (2004). Fundamentals of Technology

Project Management. Lewisville, US: MC Press. ISBN: 978-1-
58347-053-4

Gassmann, O. (2001). Multicultural Teams: Increasing Creativity

and Innovation by Diversity. Creativity and Innovation
Management, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 88–95. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1467-8691.00206

Gemünden, H. G. and Aubry, M. (2017). From the Editors

Isomorphism: A Challenge for the Project-Based Organization.
Project Management Journal, Vol. 48, No. 5, pp. 3–8. https://
doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800501

Geraldi, J. and Lechter, T. (2012). Gantt charts revisited - A critical

analysis of its roots and implications to the management
of projects today, International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 578–594. https://doi.
org/10.1108/17538371211268889

Geraldi, J. and Söderlund, J. (2016). Project studies and engaged

scholarship. International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 767–797. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJMPB-02-2016-0016

Geraldi, J.G., Turner, J. R., Maylor, H., Söderholm, A., Hobday, M.,
Brady, T. (2008). Innovation in project management: Voices
of researchers. International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 586–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2008.05.011
 96

Gill, A. (2008). An effect-cause-effect analysis of project objectives

and trade-off assumptions. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 535–551. https://doi.
org/10.1108/17538370810906246

Gill, T. G., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). A fitness-utility model for

design science research. ACM Transactions on Management
Information Systems (TMIS), Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 1-24. https://doi.
org/10.1145/2499962.2499963

Gillier, T., Hooge, S. and Piat, G. (2015). Framing value management

for creative projects: An expansive perspective. International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 947–960.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.11.002

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity: advances in the

methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, US: Sociology
Press.

Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded

Theory. Hawthorne, US: Aldine de Gruyter. ISBN: 0-202-30260-
1

Goldratt, E. M. (1990). What is this thing called theory of constraints

and how should it be implemented? Great Barrington, US: North
River Press. ISBN: 978-0884271666

Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D. and Vaara, E. (2010).

Introduction: What is Strategy as Practice. In Golsorkhi, D.,
Rouleau, L., Seidl, D. and Vaara, E. (Eds.) Cambridge Handbook
of Strategy as Practice, pp. 1–20. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press. ISBN: 978-0-511-78969-4

Gough-Palmer, D. H. (1983). Integration of time and cost in the

planning and monitoring of the Hong Kong mass transit
railway project. International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-
7863(83)90006-6

Grabher, G. and Ibert, O. (2011). Project Ecologies: A Contextual

View on Temporary Organizations. In Morris, P. W. G.,
Pinto, J. K. and Söderlund, J. (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook
of Project Management (online ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press, pp. 175–198. https://doi.org/10.1093/
oxfordhb/9780199563142.003.0008
 97

Gransberg, D. D., Shane, J. S., Strong, K., and del Puerto, C. L.

(2013). Project Complexity Mapping in Five Dimensions for
Complex Transportation Projects. Journal of Management
in Engineering, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 316–326. https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000163

Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., and Adams, A. (2006). Writing narrative

literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade.
Journal of chiropractic medicine, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 101–117.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0899- 3467(07)60142-6

Green, S. (2006). The management of projects in the construction

industry: context, discourse and self-identity. In Hodgson, D. and
Cicmil, S., (Eds.) Making Projects Critical, pp. 232–251.Oxford,
UK: Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN: 978-1-4039-5085-8

Greer, T.W. and Carden, L.L. (2021). Exploring the gender wage
gap among project managers: A multi-national analysis of
human capital and national policies. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 21–31. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.09.004

Gregor, S. and Hevner, A. (2013). Positioning and Presenting Design

Science Research for Maximum Impact. MIS Quarterly, Vol, 37,
No. 2, pp. 337–355. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43825912

Grundy, T. (2001). Strategy Implementation through Project

Management. London, UK: Thorogood. ISBN: 1-85418-250

Gustavsson, T. (2019). Agile Project Management. Stockholm, SE:

Sanoma Utbildning. ISBN: 978-97-523-5743-9

Gylfe, P. (2017). Choreographing Strategy: An Exploration into

Middle Managers’ Embodied Interaction. Doctoral dissertation.
Helsinki, Finland: Hanken School of Economics. ISBN 978-
952-232-345-3 (PDF) Available at: https://helda.helsinki.fi/
dhanken/handle/123456789/168612

Hagen, K. P. (2009). Project Profitability from Society’s Point of

View. In Williams, T. M., Samset, K., and Sunnevåg, K. J. (Eds.)
Making Essential Choices with Scant Information. Basingstoke,
UK: Palgrave. Pp. 390–412.
 98

Hall, P. (1982). Great Planning Disasters. Berkeley, US: University of

California Press. ISBN: 0-520-04607-2

Hastings, C. (1995). Building the culture of organizational networking:

Managing projects in the new organization. International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 259–263.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)00029-P

Hauschildt, J., Keim, G. and Medcof, J.W. (2000). Realistic Criteria

for Project Manager Selection and Development. Project
Management Journal, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 23–32. https://doi.
org/10.1177/875697280003100304

Heidenberger, K. and Stummer, C. (1999). Research and development

project selection and resource allocation: a review of
quantitative modelling approaches. International Journal of
Management Reviews, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 197-224. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1468-2370.00012

Helgadóttir, H. (2008). The ethical dimension of project management.

International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26, No. 7,
pp. 743–748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.11.002

Helm, K.C., et al. (2016). Evaluating the impacts of different

interventions on quality in concept generation, ASEE Annual
Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, 2016-June

Henderson, L.S., Stackman, R.W. and Koh, C.Y. (2013). Women

project managers: the exploration of their job challenges and
issue selling behaviors. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 761–791. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IJMPB-06-2012-0033

Hevner, A. and Chatterjee, S. (2010). Design Research in Information

Systems. New York, US: Springer. ISBN: 978-1-4419-5652-1

Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science
in information systems research. MIS quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1,
pp. 75-105.

Hjortsø, C. N. and Meilby, H. (2013). Balancing Research and

Organizational Capacity Building in Front-End Project
Design: Experiences from Danida’s Enreca Programme. Public
Administration and Development, Vol. 33, pp. 205–220.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1649
 99

Hodgson, D. (2002). Disciplining the professional: The case of Project

Management. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 39, No. 6,
pp. 803–821. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00312

Hodgson, D. and Cicmil, S. (2006). Making Projects Critical. London,

UK: Palgrave. ISBN: 1-4039-4085-1

Hodgson, D. and Cicmil, S. (2007). The politics of standards in

modern management: making ‘the project’ a reality’. Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 431–450. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00680.x

Hodgson, D. and Cicmil, S. (2008). The other side of projects: the case
for critical project studies. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, Vol. 1, No. 1 pp. 142–152. https://doi.
org/10.1108/17538370810846487

Hodgson, D. and Cicmil, S. (2016). Making projects critical 15 years

on: a retrospective reflection (2001-2016). International Journal
of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 744–751.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-10-2015-0105

Hodgson, D. and Muzio, D. (2011). Prospects for Professionalism

in Project Management. In Morris, P. W. G, Pinto, J.
K. and Söderlund, J. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of
Project Management (online ed.), pp. 107–130. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/
oxfordhb/9780199563142.003.0005

Hodgson, D. and Paton, S. (2016). Understanding the professional

project manager: Cosmopolitans, locals and identity work.
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34, No. 2,
pp. 352–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.03.003.

Holton, J. and Walsh, I. (2017). Classic grounded theory: Applications

with qualitative and quantitative data. Thousand Oaks, US:
SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802762

Huemann, M. (2010). Considering Human Resource Management

when developing a project-oriented company: Case study
of a telecommunication company. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 361–369. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.02.008
 100

Hughes, M. (2013). The Victorian London sanitation projects and

the sanitation of projects. International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 682–691. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.009

Hällgren, M. (2012). The construction of research questions in project

management. International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 30, No. 7, pp. 804–816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2012.01.005

Hällgren, M. and Söderholm, A. (2011). Projects-as-Practice:

New Approach, New Insights. In Morris, P. W. G, Pinto,
J. K. and Söderlund, J. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook
of Project Management, pp. 500–518. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/
oxfordhb/9780199563142.003.0022

Hällgren, M. and Wilson, T.L. (2008). The nature and management of

crises in construction projects: Projects-as-practice observations.
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26, No. 8,
pp. 830–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.10.005

Ibbs, C. W., Lee, S. A. and Li, M. I. (1998). Fast-tracking’s impact on

Project Change. Project Management Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp.
35–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697289802900405

Ika, L. A. (2018). Beneficial or detrimental ignorance: The straw man

fallacy of Flyvbjerg’s test of Hirschman’s hiding hand. World
Development, Vol. 103, pp. 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
worlddev.2017.10.016

Ika, L.A. and Hodgson, D. (2014). Learning from international

development projects: Blending Critical Project Studies and
Critical Development Studies. International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 32, No. 7, pp. 1182–1196. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.004

Ika, L.A., Söderlund, J., Munro, L. T. and Landoni, P. (2020). Cross-

learning between project management and international
development: Analysis and research agenda. International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 38, No. 8, pp. 548–558.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.10.005
 101

Jaafari, A. and Manivong, K. (1999). The need for life-cycle integration

of project processes. Engineering Construction & Architectural
Management, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 235–255. https://doi.
org/10.1108/eb021115

Jacobsson, M., Burström, T. and Wilson, T.L. (2013). The role of

transition in temporary organizations: linking the temporary to
the permanent. International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 576–586. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJMPB-12-2011-0081

Jacobsson, M., Lundin, R.A. and Söderholm, A. (2016). Towards a

multi-perspective research program on projects and temporary
organizations. International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 752–766. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJMPB-10-2015-0100

Jarzabkowski, P. and Spee, A. P. (2009). Strategy-as-practice: A review

and future directions for the field. International Journal of
Management Reviews, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 69–95. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00250.x

Joham, C., Metcalfe, M. and Sastrowardoyo, S. (2009). Project

conceptualization using pragmatic methods. International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27, No. 8, pp. 787–794.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.03.002

Johns, T. G. (1995). Managing the behavior of people working in

teams: Applying the project-management method. International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 33–38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)95701-E

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental Models – Towards a Cognitive

Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. ISBN:0-521-17391-9

Julian, R. (2016). Is it for donors or locals? The relationship between

stakeholder interests and demonstrating results in international
development. International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 505–527. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJMPB-09-2015-0091
 102

Katz, D. and Kahn R. L. (1966). The Social Psychology of

Organizations. New York, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. ISBN:

Keeys, L.A. and Huemann, M. (2017). Project benefits co-creation:

Shaping sustainable development benefits. International Journal
of Project Management, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 1196–1212. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.008

Kenward, J. and Monnickendam, A. (2006). Lift, launch and lower

– Replacing the Bishop’s Bridge Road Bridge at Paddington
Station. Structural Engineer, Vol. 84, No. 17, pp. 39–44.

Kerzner, H. (2009). Project Management – A systems approach to

planning, scheduling, and controlling (10th edition). New York,
US: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN: 978-0-470-27870-3

Kim, J., Kang, C. and Hwang, I. (2012). A practical approach to

project scheduling: considering the potential quality loss cost
in the time–cost tradeoff problem. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 264–272. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.05.004

Klag, M. and Langley, A. (2013). Approaching the Conceptual Leap in

Qualitative Research. International Journal of Management
Reviews, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1468-2370.2012.00349.x

Klakegg, O.J. (2009). Pursuing relevance and sustainability.

International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 2,
No. 4, pp. 499–518. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538370910991115

Klein, L. (2016). Minima Moralia in Project Management: There

Is No Right Life in the Wrong One. Project Management
Journal, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 12–20. https://doi.
org/10.1177/875697281604700302

Knight, K. (1976). Matrix organization: a review. Journal of

Management Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 111–130. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1976.tb00528.x

Kock, A., Heising, W. and Gemünden, H. G. (2016). A contingency

approach on the impact of front-end success on project portfolio
success. Project Management Journal, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 115–
129. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21575
 103

Konstantinou, E. (2015). Professionalism in Project Management:

Redefining the Role of the Project Practitioner. Project
Management Journal, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 21–35. https://doi.
org/10.1002/pmj.21481

Koskela, L. and Howell, G. (2002). The underlying theory of project

management is obsolete. In: Conference proceedings of the 2002
PMI conference, Seattle; 2002.

Kreiner, K. (1995). In search of relevance: Project management in

drifting environments. Scandinavian Journal of Management,
Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 335–346, https://doi.org/10.1016/0956-
5221(95)00029-U.

Kreiner, K. (2020). Conflicting Notions of a Project: The Battle

Between Albert O. Hirschman and Bent Flyvbjerg. Project
Management Journal, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 400–410. https://doi.
org/10.1177/8756972820930535

Krishna, P., Moynihan, K., and Callon, D. (2009). Environmental

management process for major projects. Society of Petroleum
Engineers – International Petroleum Technology Conference
2009, IPTC 2009, Vol. 3, pp. 1623–1633. https://doi.
org/10.2523/IPTC-13593-MS

Kubal, M.T. (1996). The future of engineered quality. Journal of

Management in Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 45–52. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742- 597X(1996)12:5(45)

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.).

Chicago, US: University of Chicago Press. ISBN: 0-226-45803-2

Kvalnes, Ø. (2014). Honesty in projects. International Journal of

Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 590–600.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-07-2013-0027

Lalonde, P.-L., Bourgault, M. and Findeli, A. (2010). Building

pragmatist theories of PM practice: Theorizing the act of project
management. Project Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 5, pp.
21–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20163
 104

Lampel, J. (2001). The core competencies of effective project

execution: the challenge of diversity. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 19, No. 8, pp. 471–483. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00042-4

Lansiti, M. (1995). Shooting the Rapids: Managing Product

Development in Turbulent Environments. California
Management Review, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 37–58. https://doi.
org/10.2307/41165820

Lechler, T.G., Ronen, B. and Stohr, E.A. (2005) Critical Chain: A New
Project Management Paradigm or Old Wine in New Bottles?
Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 45–58.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2005.11431672

Lee-Kelley, L. and Sankey, T. (2008). Global virtual teams for value

creation and project success: A case study. International Journal
of Project Management, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 51–62. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.08.010

Legault, M-J. and Chasserio, S. (2012). Professionalization, risk

transfer, and the effect on gender gap in project management.
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 30, No. 6,
pp. 697–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.11.004

Lenfle, S. (2012). Exploration, project evaluation and design theory:

a rereading of the Manhattan case. International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 486–507.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371211235335

Lenfle, S., Le Masson, P. and Weil, B. (2016). When Project

Management Meets Design Theory: Revisiting the Manhattan
and Polaris Projects to Characterize ‘Radical Innovation’
and its Managerial Implications. Creativity and Innovation
Management, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 378–395. https://doi.
org/10.1111/caim.12164

Lenfle, S. and Loch, C.H. (2010). Lost Roots: How Project Management
Came to Emphasize Control Over Flexibility and Novelty.
California Management Review, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 32–55.
 105

Leybourne, S.A. (2007). The Changing Bias of Project Management

Research: A Consideration of the Literatures and an Application
of Extant Theory. Project Management Journal, Vol. 38, No. 1,
pp. 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280703800107

Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A. & Guba, E., 2018. Paradigmatic

Controversies, Contradictions and Emerging Confluences,
Revisited. In. Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds), The SAGE
Handbook of Qualitative Research (5th edition), Los Angeles,
US: SAGE, ISBN: 978-1-4833-4980-0, pp.222–264

Lindgren, M. and Packendorff, J. (2006). Projects and prisons. In

Hodgson, D. and Cicmil, S. (Eds.). Making Projects Critical, pp.
111–131. Oxford, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN: 978-1-4039-
5085-8

Ljungblom, M. and Lennerfors, T.T. (2018). Virtues and Vices in

Project Management Ethics. Project Management Journal, Vol.
49, No. 3, pp. 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818770586

Lloyd-Walker, B., French, E. and Crawford, L. (2016). Rethinking

researching project management. International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 903–930.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-04-2016-0033

Locatelli, G., Mariani, G., Sainati, T. and Greco, M. (2017). Corruption

in public projects and megaprojects: There is an elephant in
the room! International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 252–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2016.09.010

Lock, D. (1968). Project Management. London, UK: Gower.

Lohne, J., Svalestuen, F., Knotten, V., Drevland. F.O. and Lædre,
O. (2017). Ethical behaviour in the design phase of AEC
projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 330–345. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJMPB-06-2016-0049

Long, L.D. and Ohsato, A. (2008). Fuzzy critical chain method for
project scheduling under resource constraints and uncertainty.
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26, No. 6,
pp. 688–698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.09.012
 106

Loo, R. (2002). Tackling ethical dilemmas in project management

using vignettes. International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 20, No. 7, pp. 489–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-
7863(01)00056-4

Lopez, E.V. and Medina, A. (2015). Influence of ethical behaviors

in corporate governance. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 586–611. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IJMPB-02-2015-0021

Love, P. E. D., Ika, L. A. and Ahiaga-Dagbui, D. D. (2019). On de-

bunking ‘fake news’ in a post truth era: Why does the Planning
Fallacy explanation for cost overruns fall short? Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 126, pp. 397–408.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.06.013

Luiz, O.R., Souza, F.B.d., Luiz, J.V.R. and Jugend, D. (2019). Linking
the Critical Chain Project Management literature. International
Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp.
423-443. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-03-2018-0061

Lundin, R.A. and Söderholm, A. (1995). A Theory of the Temporary

Organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol.
11, No. 4, pp. 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/0956-
5221(95)00036-U

Lundin, R.A. and Söderholm, A. (1998). Managing the black boxes

of the project environment. In Pinto, J. K. (Ed.) The Project
Management institute Project management Handbook, pp.
41–54. San Francisco, US: Jossey-Bass, ISBN: 0-7879-4013-5

Lycett, M., Rassau, A. and Danson, J. (2004). Programme

management: a critical review. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 289–299. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2003.06.001

Maier, E.R. and Branzei, O. (2014). “On time and on budget”:

Harnessing creativity in large scale projects. International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 32, No. 7, pp. 1123–1133.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.02.009
 107

Male, S., Kelly, J., Gronqvist, M. and Graham, D. (2007). Managing

value as a management style for projects. International Journal
of Project Management, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 107–114. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.09.001

Maniak, R., Midler, C., Lenfle, S. and Le Pellec-Dairon, M. (2014).

Value Management for Exploration Projects. Project
Management Journal, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 55–66. https://doi.
org/10.1002/pmj.21436

Mang, P. and Reed, B. (2012). Designing from place: a regenerative

framework and methodology. Building Research & Information,
Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.201
2.621341

Manning, S. (2008). Embedding projects in multiple contexts

– a structuration perspective. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 30–37. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.08.012

March, J. G. (1997). Understanding how decisions happen in

organizations. Organizational decision making, Vol. 10, pp.
9–32.

Marshall, N. (2006). Understanding power in project settings. In

Hodgson, D. and Cicmil, S. (Eds.) Making Projects Critical, pp.
207–231. Oxford, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN: 978-1-4039-
5085-8

Martinsuo, M. (2020). The Management of Values in Project Business:

Adjusting Beliefs to Transform Project Practices and Outcomes.
Project Management Journal, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 389–399.
https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972820927890

Martinsuo, M. and Killen, C.P. (2014). Value Management in Project

Portfolios: Identifying and Assessing Strategic Value. Project
Management Journal, Vol. 45, No. 5, pp. 56–70. https://doi.
org/10.1002/pmj.21452

Matthies, B. and Coners, A. (2018). Double-loop learning in

project environments: An implementation approach. Expert
Systems with Applications, Vol. 96, pp. 330–346. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.12.012
 108

Maylor, H. (1996). Project Management. London, UK: Pitman

Publishing. ISBN: 0-273-61236-0

McCurdy, H.E. (2013). Learning from history: Low-cost project

innovation in the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 705–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2013.02.001

McKenna, A. and Metcalfe, M. (2013). The linguistic turn in

project conceptualization. International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 31, No. 8, pp. 1154–1162. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.006

Meier, S. R. (2008). Best Project Management and Systems

Engineering Practices in the Preacquisition Phase for Federal
Intelligence and Defense Agencies. Project Management
Journal, Vol 39, No. 1, pp. 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/
pmj.20035

Melese, Y. et al. (2017). Cooperation under uncertainty: Assessing

the value of risk sharing and determining the optimal risk-
sharing rule for agents with pre-existing business and diverging
risk attitudes. International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 530–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2016.11.007

Mesly, O., Lévy-Mangin, J-P, Bourgault, N. and Nabelsi, V. (2013).

Effective multicultural project management: the role of human
interdependence. International Journal of Managing Projects
in Business, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 78–102. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJMPB-08-2013-0037

Metcalfe, M. and Sastrowardoyo, S. (2013). Complex project

conceptualisation and argument mapping. International Journal
of Project Management, Vol. 31, No. 8, pp. 1129–1138. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.01.004

Meuchel, A. (2000). Project initiation: Up-front systems engineering.

SAE Technical Papers. https://doi.org/10.4271/2000-01-2569
 109

Meyer, J. W. and Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations:

Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. The American
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83. No. 2. Pp. 340–363. https://doi.
org/10.1086/226550

Miller, D. M., Fields, R., Kumar, A. and Ortiz, R. (2000). Leadership

and Organizational Vision in Managing a Multiethnic and
Multicultural Project Team. Journal of Management in
Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 18–22. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(asce)0742-597x(2000)16:6(18)

Miller, R. and Hobbs, B. (2005). Governance regimes for large complex

projects. Project Management Journal, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp.
42–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280503600305

Miller, R. and Hobbs, B. (2009). The complexity of Decision-Making

in Large Projects with Multiple Partners: Be Prepared to Change.
In Williams, T. M., Samset, K. and Sunnevåg, K. J. (Eds.)
Making Essential Choices with Scant Information, pp. 375–389.
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. ISBN: 978-0-230-20586-4

Miller, R. and Lessard, D. (2001a). The strategic management of

large engineering projects – Shaping Institutions, Risks, and
Governance. Boston, US: MIT Press. ISBN: 0-262-12236-7

Miller, R. and Lessard, D. (2001b). Understanding and managing

risks in large engineering projects. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 19, No. 8, pp. 437–443. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00045-X

Miterev, M., Engwall, M. and Jerbrant, A. (2017). Mechanisms

of Isomorphism in Project-Based Organizations. Project
Management Journal, Vol. 48, No. 5, pp. 9–24. https://doi.
org/10.1177/875697281704800502

Mithani, M. A. and O’Brien, J. P. (2021). So What Exactly Is a

“Coalition” Within an Organization? A Review and Organizing
Framework. Journal of Management, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 171–
206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320950433

Modig, N. (2007). A continuum of organizations formed to carry

out projects: Temporary and stationary organization forms.
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25, No. 8,
pp. 807–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.03.008
 110

Molloy, E. and Chetty, T. (2015). The Rocky Road to Legacy: Lessons

from the 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Stadium Program.
Project Management Journal, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 88–107.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21502

Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. London, UK: Sage. ISBN:

978-1-4129-3979-9

Morris, P. W. G. (2009). Implementing Strategy Through Project

Management: The Importance of Managing the Project Front-
end. In Williams, T. M., Samset, K. and Sunnevåg, K. J. (Eds.)
Making Essential Choices with Scant Information, pp. 39–67.
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. ISBN: 978-0-230-20586-4

Morris, P. W. G. (2010). Research and the future of project

management. International Journal of Managing Projects
in Business, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 139–146. https://doi.
org/10.1108/17538371011014080

Morris, P. W. G. (2011). A Brief history of Project Management.

In Morris, P. W. G., Pinto, J. K. and Söderlund, J. (Eds.)
The Oxford Handbook of Project Management, pp. 15–36.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/
oxfordhb/9780199563142.003.0002

Morris, P. W. G. (2013a). Reconstructing Project Management.

Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN: 978-0-470-65907-6

Morris, P. W.G. (2013b). Reconstructing Project Management

Reprised: A Knowledge Perspective. Project Management
Journal, Vol. 44, No. 5, pp. 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/
pmj.21369

Morris, P. W. G. (2014). Project management: a profession with a hole

in its head or, why a change in the culture of academic support
is needed for the profession, Engineering Project Organization
Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2–3, pp. 147–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/2
1573727.2013.873717

Morris, P.W.G., Crawford, L., Hodgson, D., Shepherd, M. M. and

Thomas, J. (2006). Exploring the role of formal bodies of
knowledge in defining a profession – The case of project
management. International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 24, No. 8, pp. 710–721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2006.09.012
 111

Morris, P. W. G. and Hough, G. H. (1987). The Anatomy of Major

Projects – A Study of the Reality of Project Management.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN: 0-471-91551-3

Morris, P. W. G., Pinto, J. K. and Söderlund, J. (2011). Introduction:

Towards the Third Wave of Project Management. In Morris,
P. W. G., Pinto, J. K. and Söderlund, J. (Eds.) The Oxford
Handbook of Project Management, pp. 1–11. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press, ISBN: 978-0-19-965582-3

Morrison, J. and Brown, C. (2004). Project management effectiveness

as a construct: A conceptual study. South African Journal of
Business Management, Vol.35, No. 4, pp. 73–94.

Mullaly, M. (2014). If maturity is the answer, then exactly what was

the question? International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, Vol. 7, No. 22, pp. 169–185. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJMPB-09-2013-0047

Munns, A.K. and Bjeirmi, B.F. (1996). The role of project management
in achieving project success. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 81–87. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)00057-7

Müller, R. and Klein, G. (2020). The COVID-19 Pandemic and Project

Management Research. Project Management Journal, Vol. 51,
No. 6, pp. 579–581. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972820963316

Müller, R., Pemsel, S. and Shao, J. (2015). Organizational enablers

for project governance and governmentality in project-based
organizations. International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 839–851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2014.07.008

Müller, R. and Turner, J. R. (2010). Leadership competency profiles

of successful project managers. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp. 437–448. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.09.003

Neal, A.R. (1995). Project definition: the soft-systems approach.

International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.
5–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)95697-C
 112

Nogeste, K. (2008). Dual cycle action research: a professional

doctorate case study. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 566–585. https://doi.
org/10.1108/17538370810906264

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating

Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of
Innovation. New York, US: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0-19-
509269-4

Nonaka, I. and von Krogh, G. (2009). Perspective—Tacit Knowledge

and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and Advancement
in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory. Organization
Science, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 635–652. https://doi.org/10.1287/
orsc.1080.0412

Norrie, J. and Walker, D. H. T. (2004). A Balanced Scorecard

Approach to Project Management Leadership. Project
Management Journal, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 47–56. https://doi.
org/10.1177/875697280403500406

Næss, P. (2009). Up-Front Assessment of Needs. In Williams, T. M.,

Samset, K. and Sunnevåg, K. J. (Eds.) Making Essential Choices
with Scant Information, Pp. 85–105. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
ISBN: 978-0-230-20586-4

O’Toole, G. (2013). Sustainable Web Ecosystem Design. New York, US:

Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7714-3

Ojansivu, I. and Alajoutsijärvi, K. (2015). Inside service-intensive

projects: Analyzing inbuilt tensions. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 901–916. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.11.001

Oksman, R. (2013). Projektijohtaminen suomalaisessa tv- ja

elokuvatuotannossa : näkökulmia projektijohtamiskäytäntöjen
rakentumiseen tv- ja elokuvatuottajien haastatteluissa. Doctoral
dissertation. Helsinki, Finland: Aalto University. ISBN: 978-952-
60-5376-9

Oliver, J. (2018). Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, Season 5,

Episode 17, Home Box Office.
 113

Olsson, N. (2006). Management of flexibility in projects. International

Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 66–74.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.06.010

Olsson, R. (2007). In search of opportunity management: Is the

risk management process enough? International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 25, No. 8, pp. 745–752. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.03.005

Ono, D. (1995). Upgrading skills using the US Project Management

Institute body of knowledge. International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 137–140. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)00009-F

Ordoñez, R. E. C., Vanhoucke, M., Coelho, J., Anholon, R., &

Novaski, O. (2019). A Study of the Critical Chain Project
Management Method Applied to a Multiproject System. Project
Management Journal, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 322–334. https://doi.
org/10.1177/8756972819832203

Orlikowski, W. J. (2010). Practice in research: phenomenon,

perspective and philosophy. In Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl,
D. and Vaara, E. (Eds.) Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as
Practice, pp. 23–33. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press. ISBN: 978-0-511-78969-4

Osei-Kyei, R. and Chan, A. P. C. (2015). Review of studies on the

Critical Success Factors for Public–Private Partnership (PPP)
projects from 1990 to 2013. International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 33, No. 6. Pp. 1335–1346. http://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.02.008

Osei-Tutu, E., Badu, E. and Owusu-Manu, D. (2010). Exploring

corruption practices in public procurement of infrastructural
projects in Ghana. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 236–256. https://doi.
org/10.1108/17538371011036563

Packendorff, J. (1995). Inquiring into the temporary organization:

New directions for project management research. Scandinavian
Journal of Management, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 319–333. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0956-5221(95)00018-Q
 114

Packendorff, J., & Lindgren, M. (2014). Projectification and its

consequences: Narrow and broad conceptualisations. South
African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, Vol. 17,
No. 1, pp. 7-21.

Padalkar, M. and Gopinath, S. (2016). Six decades of project

management research: Thematic trends and future opportunities.
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34, No. 7,
pp. 1305–1321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.06.006

Pant, I. and Baroudi, B. (2008). Project management education:

The human skills imperative. International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 124–128. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.05.010

Parkin, J. (1996). Organizational decision making and the project

manager. International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 257–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-
7863(96)84508-X

Pellegrinelli, S. (1997). Programme management: organising project-

based change. International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-
7863(96)00063-4

Pellegrinelli, S. (2011). What’s in a name: Project or programme?

International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29, No. 2,
pp. 232–240. https://doi.iorg/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.02.009

Pena-Mora, F. and Park, M. (2001). Dynamic Planning for Fast-

Tracking Building Construction Projects. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 127, No. 6, pp. 445–456.
https//doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2001)127:6(445)

Pender, S. (2001). Managing incomplete knowledge: Why risk

management is not sufficient. International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0263-7863(99)00052-6

Petter, S. and Carter, M. (2017). In a League of Their Own: Exploring

the Impacts of Shared Work History for Distributed Online
Project Teams. Project Management Journal, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp.
65–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800105
 115

Pettitt, G. and Westfall, S. (2015). A holistic approach to environment

and safety in ESIAs, SPE E&P Health, Safety, Security and
Environmental Conference-Americas. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. Pp. 674–684. https://doi.org/10.2118/173571-MS

Picciotto, R. (2020). Towards a “New Project Management”

movement? An international development perspective.
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 38, No. 8,
pp. 474–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.08.002.

Pinto, J.K. (2019). Project Management – Achieving Competitive

Advantage (5th, global Edition). Harlow, UK: Pearson. ISBN:
978-1-292-26914-6

Pinto, J.K., Dawood, S. and Pinto, M.B. (2014). Project management

and burnout: Implications of the Demand–Control–Support
model on project-based work. International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 578–589. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.09.003

Pinto, J.K., Patanakul, P. and Pinto, M.B. (2017). “The aura of

capability”: Gender bias in selection for a project manager job.
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 35, No. 3,
pp. 420–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.01.004

Pinto, J. K. and Slevin, D. P. (1987). Critical factors in successful

project implementation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. EM-34, No. 1, pp. 22–27, https://doi.
org/10.1109/TEM.1987.6498856.

Pinto, J.K. and Winch, G. (2016). The unsettling of “settled science:”

The past and future of the management of projects. International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 237–245.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.07.011

Pitagorski, G. (1998). The Project Manager/Functional Manager

Partnership. Project Management Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp.
7–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697289802900402

Pitsis, T.S., Clegg, S. R., Marosszeky, M. and Rura-Polley. T. (2003).

Constructing the Olympic Dream: A Future Perfect Strategy of
Project Management. Organization Science, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp.
574–590. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.5.574.16762
 116

Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, US: Doubleday

& Co.

Posner, B. (1987). What it takes to be a good project manager. Project

Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 51–54.

Project Management Institute (2008). A guide to the Project

Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) (4th edition).
Newtown Square, US: Project Management Institute Inc. ISBN:
978-1-933890-51-7

Project Management Institute (2017). A guide to the Project

Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) (6th edition).
Newtown Square, US: Project Management Institute Inc. ISBN:
978-1-62825-184-5

Rand, G.K. (2000). Critical chain: the theory of constraints applied

to project management. International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 173–177. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00019-8

Randle, C. W. (1960). Selecting the Research Program: A Top

Management Function. California Management Review, Vol. 2,
No. 2, pp. 9–15. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165387

Rawlins, M.A. and Westby, L. (2013). Community participation in

payment for ecosystem services design and implementation: An
example from Trinidad, Ecosystem Services, Vol. 6, pp. 117–121.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.09.004

Rehn, A. (2019). The vanishing point? – notes on conceptual

colonization and epistemological emptying. International
Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.
95–103. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-05-2018-0096

Richardson, G. L. (2015). Project Management Theory and Practice

(2nd edition). Boca Raton, US: CRC Press. ISBN: 978-7-4822-
5497-6

Rolfe, B., Segal, S. and Cicmil, S. (2017). The wisdom of conversations:

Existential Hermeneutic Phenomenology (EHP) for project
managers. International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 739–748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2017.03.002
 117

Rolstadås, A., Pinto, J. K., Falster, P. and Venkataraman, R. (2015).

Project Decision Chain. Project Management Journal, Vol. 46,
No. 4, pp. 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21517

Rosen, A. (2004). Effective IT Project Management: Using Teams to

get Projects Completed on Time and Under Budget. New York,
US: Amacom. ISBN: 0-8144-0812-5

Rämö, H. (2002). Doing things right and doing the right things
Time and timing in projects. International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 20, No. 7, pp. 569–574. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00015-7

Samset, K. (2009). Projects, Their Quality at Entry and Challenges

in the Front-end Phase. In Williams, T. M., Samset, K. and
Sunnevåg, K. J. (Eds.) Making Essential Choices with Scant
Information, pp. 18–35. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. ISBN: 978-
0-230-20586-4

Samset, K. and Volden, G.H. (2016). Front-end definition of

projects: Ten paradoxes and some reflections regarding project
management and project governance. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 297–313. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.014

Sauer, C. and Reich, B.H. (2009). Rethinking IT project management:

Evidence of a new mindset and its implications. International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 182–193.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.08.003

Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Introduction: practice theory. In Schatzki, T. R.,

Knorr-Cetina, K. and con Savigny, E. (Eds.). The Practice Turn
in Contemporary Theory, pp. 10–23. London, UK: Routledge.
ISBN: 0-203-97745-9

Scheibehenne, B. and von Helversen, B. (2009). Useful Heuristics. In

Williams, T. M., Samset, K., and Sunnevåg, K. J. (Eds.) Making
Essential Choices with Scant Information. Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave. Pp. 195–212. ISBN: 978-0-230-20586-4

Schneider, A. (1995). Project management in international teams:

instruments for improving cooperation. International Journal
of Project Management, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 247–251. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)00022-I
 118

Schubert, G., Artinger, E., Petzold, F., and Klinker, G. (2011). Tangible
tools for architectural design: Seamless integration into the
architectural workflow. Integration Through Computation –
Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Association
for Computer Aided Design in Architecture, ACADIA 2011, pp.
252–259.

Schwalbe, K. (2006). Introduction to Project Management. Boston,

US: Thomson Learning. ISBN: 978-1-4188-3559-0

Schwalbe, K. (2010). An Introduction to Project Management (3rd ed.).

Minneapolis, US: Schwalbe Publishing. ISBN: 9781451551648

Scott, D. and Yang, J. (1991). Setting the pace with PACES: A new
concept of using an expert system for project analysis and
control. Construction Management & Economics, Vol. 9, No. 6,
pp. 529–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446199100000040

Scott, W. R. (2012). The institutional environment of global project

organizations, Engineering Project Organization Journal, Vol. 2,
No. 1-2, pp. 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/21573727.2011.634
546

Serra, C.E.M. and Kunc, M. (2015). Benefits Realisation Management

and its influence on project success and on the execution
of business strategies. International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 53–66. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.011

Sewchurran, K. (2008). Toward an approach to create self-organizing

and reflexive information systems project practitioners.
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 1,
No. 3, pp. 316–333. https://doi.org/10.1108/1753837081088379

Shedletsky, A.-K., Campbell, M., and Havskjold, D. (2009). Embracing

ambiguity: A perspective on student foresight engineering.
Proceedings of ICED 09, the 17th International Conference on
Engineering Design, Vol. 10, pp. 237–244.

Shenhar, A.J. (2001). One Size Does Not Fit All Projects: Exploring
Classical Contingency Domains. Management Science, Vol. 47,
No. 3, pp. 394–414. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.3.394.9772
 119

Shenhar, A. J. and Dvir, D. (2007). Project Management

Research – the Challenge and Opportunity. Project
Management Journal, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 93–99. https://doi.
org/10.1177/875697280703800210

Shiferaw, A. T. (2013). Front-End Project Governance: Choice of

Project Concept and Decision-Making – An International
Perspective. Thesis for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor.
Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian University of Science and
Technology. ISBN: 978-82-471-4622-4

Sichombo, B., Muya, M., Shakantu, W. and Kaliba, C. (2009). The need
for technical auditing in the Zambian construction industry.
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27, No. 8,
pp. 821–832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.02.001

Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd edition).

Cambridge, US: MIT Press, ISBN: 0-262-69191-4

Skibniewski, M. J. and Vecino, G. A. (2012). Web-Based Project

Management Framework for Dredging Projects. Journal of
Management in Engineering, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 127–139.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000070

Smith, C. and Winter, M. (2010). The craft of project shaping,

International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 3,
No. 1 pp. 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371011014026

Smith-Daniels, D. E. and Smith-Daniels, V. L. (2008). Trade-Offs,

Biases, and Uncertainty in Project Planning and Execution: A
Problem-Based Simulation Exercise. Decision Sciences Journal
of Innovative Education, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 313–341. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2008.00177.x

Snider, K.F. and Nissen, M.E. (2003). Beyond the Body of Knowledge:
A Knowledge-flow Approach to Project Management Theory and
Practice. Project Management Journal, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 4–12.
https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280303400202

Snowden, D. J. and Boone, M. E. (2007). A Leader’s Framework for

Decision Making. (cover story). Harvard Business Review, Vol.
85, No. 11, pp. 68–76.
 120

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An

overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 104,
pp. 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Sonuga, F., Aliboh, O. and Oloke, D. (2002). Particular barriers

and issues associated with projects in a developing and
emerging economy. Case study of some abandoned water
and irrigation projects in Nigeria. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 20, No. 8, pp. 611–616. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00029-7

Stamatiadis, N., Kirk, A., Hartman, D., and Pigman, J. (2010). Practical
solution concepts for planning and designing roadways. Journal
of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 4, pp. 291–297.
http://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000089

Staw, B. M. and Ross, J. (1989). Understanding Behavior in Escalation

Situations. Science, Vol. 246, No. 4927, pp. 216–220. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.246.4927.216

Stawasz, E. and Stos, D. (2016). Method of Simplified Evaluation

of the Commercial Potential of R&D Projects in Dudycz, T.,
Osbert-Pochiecha, G., and Brycz, B. (Eds.) The Essence and
Measurement of Organziational Efficiency. Cham, SU: Springer.
Pp. 263-280. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-21139-8.

Steyn, H. (2001). An investigation into the fundamentals of critical

chain project scheduling. International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 363–369. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0263-7863(00)00026-0

Svejvig, P. and Andersen, P. (2015). Rethinking project management:

A structured literature review with a critical look at the brave
new world. International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 278–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2014.06.004

Svejvig, P. and Schlichter, B. R. (2020). The Long Road to Benefits

Management: Toward an Integrative Management Model.
Project Management Journal, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 312–327.
https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819896485
 121

Söderlund, J. (2002). On the development of project management

research: Schools of thought and critique. Project Management:
International Project Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.
20–31.

Söderlund, J. (2004a). Building theories of project management: past

research, questions for the future. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 183–191. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0263-7863(03)00070-X

Söderlund, J. (2004b). On the broadening scope of the research

on projects: a review and a model for analysis. International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, No. 8, pp. 655–667.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.05.011

Söderlund, J. (2011a). Theoretical Foundations of Project

Management: Suggestions for a Pluralistic understanding. In
Morris, P. W. G., Pinto, J. K. and Söderlund, J., (Eds.) The
Oxford Handbook of Project Management, pp. 37–64. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 978-0-19-965582-3

Söderlund, J. (2011b). Pluralism in Project Management: Navigating

the Crossroads of Specialization and Fragmentation.
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 13, No. 2,
pp. 153–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00290.x

Söderlund, J., Hobbs, B. and Ahola, T. (2014). Project-based and

temporary organizing: Reconnecting and rediscovering.
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 32, No. 7,
pp. 1085–1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.06.008

Söderlund, J. and Lenfle, S. (2011). Special issue: Project history.

International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29, No. 5,
pp. 491–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.01.001

Söderlund, J. and Lenfle, S. (2013). Making Project History: Revisiting

the Past, Creating the Future. International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 31, No 5, pp. 653–662. https://doi.org/j.
ijproman.2013.02.005

Tam, C.M. (1999). Build-operate-transfer model for infrastructure

developments in Asia: reasons for successes and failures.
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp.
377–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00061-1
 122

Taylor, J. (2004). Managing Information Technology Projects:

Applying Project Management Strategies to Software,
Hardware, and Integration Initiatives. New York, US: Amacom.
ISBN: 0-8144-0811-7

Terlizzi, M.A., Albertin, A.L. and de Oliveira Cesar de Moraes, H.R.

(2017). IT benefits management in financial institutions:
Practices and barriers. International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 763–782. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.03.006

Thiry, M. (2001). Sensemaking in value management practice.

International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 19, No. 2,
pp. 71–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(00)00023-5

Thomas, J.L. and Buckle-Henning, P. (2007). Dancing in the white

spaces: Exploring gendered assumptions in successful project
managers’ discourse about their work. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 552–559. http://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.05.001

Thomas, J.L., George, S. and Buckle-Henning, P. (2012). Re-situating

expert project managers’ praxis within multiple logics of practice.
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 5,
No. 3, pp. 377–399. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371211235281

Tonnquist, B. (2016). Project Management – A Guide to the Theory

and Practice of Project Methodology and Agile Methods (3rd
Edition). Stockholm, SE: Sanoma utbildning. ISBN: 978-91-523-
4114-8

Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing Integrative Literature Reviews:

Guidelines and Examples. Human Resource Development
Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 356–367. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1534484305278283

Trietsch, D. (2005). Why a Critical Path by Any Other Name Would

Smell Less Sweet?: Towards a Holistic Approach to PERT/CPM.
Project Management Journal, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 27–36. https://
doi.org/10.1177/875697280503600104
 123

Tsai, C. F. and Chen, Z. Y. (2013). Crossing the fuzzy front end chasm:
Effective product project concept selection using a 2-tuple fuzzy
linguistic approach. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, Vol.
25, No. 3, pp.755-770. https://doi.org/10.3233/IFS-120682

Tsoukas, H. (2005). Do We Really Understand Tacit Knowledge? In

S. Little & T. Ray (Eds.) Managing Knowledge: An Essential
Reader (2nd ed.): 107–126. London, UK: Sage. ISBN: 978-1-
4129-1240-7

Turner, M., Lindgard, H. and Francis, V. (2009). Work-life

balance: an exploratory study of supports and barriers in a
construction project. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 94–111. https://doi.
org/10.1108/17538370910930536

Turner, N. et al. (2014). Ambidexterity and Knowledge Strategy in

Major Projects: A Framework and Illustrative Case Study. Project
Management Journal, Vol. 45, No. 5, pp. 44–55. https://doi.
org/10.1002/pmj.21454

Turner, J. R. (2010). Evolution of project management research as

evidenced by papers published in the International Journal
of Project Management. International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2009.10.009

Turner, J. R. and Huemann, M. (2001). Project Management

Education in Project-oriented societies. International Project
Management Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 7–14.

Turner, J. R., Huemann, M., Anbari, F. and Bredillet, C. (2010)

Perspectives on projects. London, UK: Routledge, ISBN: 978-0-
415-99374-6

Turner, J.R., Huemann, M. and Keegan, A. (2008). Human resource

management in the project-oriented organization: Employee
well-being and ethical treatment. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 577–585. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.05.005
 124

Turner, J.R., Pinto, J.K. and Bredillet, C.N. (2011). The Evolution
of Project Management Research. In Morris, P. W. G.,
Pinto, J. K. and Söderlund, J. (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook
of Project Management (online ed.) , pp. 65–106. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press. http://doi.org/10.1093/
oxfordhb/9780199563142.003.0004

Vaara, E. and Whittington, R. (2012). Strategy-as-Practice: Taking

Social Practices Seriously. The Academy of Management Annals,
Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 285–336. https:/doi.org/10.1080/19416520.20
12.672039

van der Heijden, K. (2009). Scenarios Planning. In Williams, T. M.,

Samset, K., and Sunnevåg, K. J. (Eds.) Making Essential Choices
with Scant Information. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. Pp.68–84.
ISBN: 978-0-230-20586-4

van der Hoorn, B. (2016a). Discussing project status with the project-
space model: An action research study. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 34, No. 8, pp. 1638–1657. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.09.001

van der Hoorn, B. (2016b). Continental thinking: a tool for accessing

the project experience. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 865–891. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IJMPB-06-2015-0044

van der Hoorn, B. and Whitty, S.J. (2015). A Heideggerian paradigm

for project management: Breaking free of the disciplinary
matrix and its Cartesian ontology. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 721–734. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.09.007

van der Hoorn, B. and Whitty, S.J. (2017). The praxis of “alignment
seeking” in project work. International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 978–993. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.04.011

Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R. (2016). FEDS: a

framework for evaluation in design science research. European
journal of information systems, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 77-89.
https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.36
 125

Volden, G.H. (2019). Assessing public projects’ value for money: An

empirical study of the usefulness of cost-benefit analyses in
decision-making. International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 549–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2019.02.007

Volden, G. H. and Samset, K. (2017). Governance of Major Public

Investment Projects: Principles and Practices in Six Countries.
Project Management Journal, Vol. 48. No. 3, pp. 90–108.
https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800306

Walker, D.H.T. (2008). Reflections on developing a project

management doctorate. International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 316–325. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.01.006

Walker, D. and Lloyd-Walker, B. (2016). Rethinking project

management. International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 716–743. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJMPB-12-2015-0121

Wang, Y. R., and Gibson, E. (2006). Decision making practice in pre-

project planning. 5th International Conference on Engineering
Computational Technology, ECT 2006.

Wawak, S. and Woźniak, K. (2020). Evolution of project management

studies in the XXI century. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 867–888. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IJMPB-01-2020-0002

Webster, F. M. and Knutson, J. (2006). What is Project Management?

Project Management Concepts and Methodologies. In Dinsmore,
P. C. and Cabanis-Brewin, J. (Eds.) The AMA handbook of
project management (2nd Edition), pp 1–12. New, York, US:
AMACOM. ISBN:9780814429242

Webster’s (1996). Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary

of the English Language. Gramercy Books: New York, USA.
ISBN:0-517-11864-5

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M. and Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and

the Process of Sensemaking. Organization Science, Vol. 16, No.
4, pp. 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133
 126

Welde, M. and Odeck, J. (2017). Cost escalations in the front-end of

projects – empirical evidence from Norwegian road projects.
Transport Reviews, Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 612–630. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01441647.2016.1278285

Wells, G., Wardman, M., and Whetton, C. (1993). Preliminary safety

analysis. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries,
Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-
4230(93)80019-I

Wheelwright, S. C. and Clark, K. B. (1992). Competing through

development capability in a Manufacturing-Based Organization.
Business Horizons, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 29–43. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0007-6813(05)80160-0

Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the Practice Turn in Strategy

Research. Organization Studies, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 613–634.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840606064101

Whittle, G., Stange, W., and Hanson, N. (2007). Optimising project

value and robustness. In Project Evaluation Conference. Pp.
147-155. Melbourne, AUS: Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy.

Whitty, S.J. (2010). Project management artefacts and the

emotions they evoke. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 22–45. https://doi.
org/10.1108/17538371011014017

Whitty, S. J. and Schulz, M. F. (2007). The impact of Puritan ideology

on aspects of project management. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 10–20. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.05.002

Wilford, S. and O’Brien, R. (2016). The Integrataion of Environmental

and Social Issues into Concept Decision Making. SPE
International Conference and Exhibition on Health, Safety,
Security, Environment, and Social Responsibility. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. https://doi.org/10.2118/179310-MS
 127

Williams, C.B., Terpenny, J.P., and Goff, R.M. (2009). Designing

a service-learning design project for a first-year engineering
course. Proceedings of the ASME International Design
Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and
Information in Engineering Conference 2009, DETC2009, Vol.
8 PART A, pp. 631–639. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2009-
87091

Williams, T.M. (1999). The need for new paradigms for complex
projects. International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 269–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-
7863(98)00047-7

Williams, T. M. (2009). Decisions Made on Scant Information:

Overview. In Williams, T. M., Samset, K. and Sunnevåg, K. J.
(Eds.) Making Essential Choices with Scant Information, pp.
3–17. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. ISBN: 978-0-230-20586-4

Williams, T. M. and Samset, K. (2010). Issues in Front-End Decision

Making on Projects. Project Management Journal, Vol. 41, No.
2, pp. 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20160

Winch, G.M. (2014). Three domains of project organising.

International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 32, No. 5,
pp. 721–731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.10.012

Winkler, I. (2018). Identity Work and Emotions: A Review.

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 20, No. 1,
pp. 120-133. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12119

Winter, M., Andersen, E., Elvin, R. and Levene, R. (2006). Focusing on

business projects as an area for future research: An exploratory
discussion of four different perspectives. International Journal
of Project Management, Vol. 24, No. 8, pp. 699–709. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.08.005

Winter, M., Smith, C., Cooke-Davies, T. and Cicmil, S. (2006). The

importance of “process” in Rethinking Project Management:
The story of a UK Government-funded research network.
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24, No. 8,
pp. 650–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.08.008
 128

Winter, M., Smith, C, Morris, P. and Cicmil, S. (2006). Directions for

future research in project management: The main findings of a
UK government-funded research network. International Journal
of Project Management, Vol. 24, No. 8, pp. 638–649. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.08.009

Winter, M. and Szczepanek, T. (2009). Images of Projects. Farnham,

UK: Gower, ISBN: 9780566087165.

Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical Investigation. Oxford, UK: Basil

Blackwell Ltd.

Wright, G., Bolger, F., and Rowe, G. (2009). Expert Judgment and
Probability and Risk. In Williams, T. M., Samset, K., and
Sunnevåg, K. J. (Eds.) Making Essential Choices with Scant
Information. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. Pp. 213–229. ISBN:
978-0-230-20586-4

Xie, Z. and Zhang, L. (2011). Research of Product Design Based

and Core Value on User Based on Information Technology in
Lin, S. and Huang, X. (Eds.) Advances in Computer Science,
Environment, Ecoinformatics, and Education, International
Conference, CSEE 2011 Wuhan, China, August 21-22, 2011
Proceedings, Part III, pp. 352-356. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-642-23345-6_65

Yang, S. and Fu, L. (2014). Critical chain and evidence reasoning

applied to multi-project resource schedule in automobile
R&D process. International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 166–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2013.01.010

Yeung, J.F.Y., Chan, A.P.C. and Chan, D.W.M. (2012). Defining

relational contracting from the Wittgenstein family-resemblance
philosophy. International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 225–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2011.06.002

Yeo, K.T. & Ning, J.H. (2002). Integrating supply chain and critical
chain concepts in engineer-procure-construct (EPC) projects.
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20, No. 4,
pp. 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00021-7
 129

Zhu, F., Jiang, M. and Yu, M. (2020). The role of the lead firm in
exploratory projects: How capabilities enable exploratory
innovation of project alliances. International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business. Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 312–339.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-05-2018-0101

Zorzal, F. M. B., Vieria, D. R., Chain, M. C., and Pinheiro-Croisel, R.

(2017). Audit as a Tool for Project Maturity Certification in Heavy
Civil Construction. Journal of Modern Project Management,
Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 82–95. https://doi.org/10.19255/JPMPM01308

Zwikael, O., Cohen, Y. and Sadeh, A. (2006). Non-delay scheduling

as a managerial approach for managing projects. International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 330–336.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.11.002

Zwikael, O. and Meredith, J.R. (2019). Effective organizational support

practices for setting target benefits in the project front end.
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 37, No. 7,
pp. 930–939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.08.001
 Pekka Buttler EKONOMI OCH SAMHÄLLE

366
Project concepts, project concept design, and other topics affecting ECONOMICS AND SOCIETY
the front-end of projects

PEKKA BUTTLER  PROJECT CONCEPTS, PROJECT CONCEPT DESIGN, AND OTHER TOPICS AFFECTING THE FRONTEND OF PROJECTS
Projects today make up roughly one third of GDP Essay 1 is uses an extensive integrative literature
in developed nations. In many industries, the share review to theorise and develop the notion of project
of projects is even higher. Simultaneously – as we concepts. Essay 2 outlines a practice-oriented
all are aware – projects fail too often for comfort. research method and argues that this research
Project failure has two faces: On the one hand method is suitable to studying project concept design
projects may be finished late, and cost more than and other instances of creative teamwork. Essay 3
expected, while the result’s functionality may also uses empirical material to explore the phenomenon
leave something to be desired. In short: the project of hidden goals in projects and argues that goal-
was not done right. On the other hand, projects hiding is both more common and more nuanced
may turn out to have produced its result exactly to than previously known. These three essays are
specifications, on time and within budget, only for brought together, put into context and discussed in
it to turn out that the result is not what was needed, a summary chapter.
or that a different solution might have served This dissertation contributes to the literature of the
everyone’s needs better. In short: not the right project Study of Projects in several ways. First, it describes
was done. what project concepts are, showing that project
The topics of this dissertation – project concepts
and project concept design – play a central role in
concepts are both dualities and multiplicities.
Second, it highlights the significance of the process Project concepts, project concept
helping private and public organizations do the right and practice of project concept design and identifies
project. As is argued in this dissertation, projects are
commenced in the hope of making project concepts
five core functions (alignment, meshing, articulation,
consideration, evaluation) through which project
design, and other topics affecting
– the central, founding ideas for a project – come
true. Hence, the question of doing the right project is
concept design can contribute to doing the right
project. Third, the dissertation concludes that while
the front-end of projects
essentially a question of designing the right project project concept design primarily supports doing
concepts. However, understanding the significance the right project, it also can contribute to doing
of project concept design is not the same as knowing the project right. Fourth, the dissertation discusses
how to design the right project concepts. Given that several environmental factors that contribute to or
very little research on this topic exists, the dissertation
and its essays set out to offer some fundamental
inhibit successful project concept design. Fifth, it
discusses the practical difficulties facing endeavours
PEKKA BUTTLER
concepts, outlining avenues for further research and to study project concept design and outlines a
tools to aid researchers in pursuing those avenues. practice-oriented research method that it argues
could support future research.

HANKEN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

HELSINKI
ARKADIANKATU 22, P.O. BOX 479,
00101 HELSINKI, FINLAND
PHONE: +358 (0)29 431 331

VAASA ISBN 9789522324740 (PRINTED)

KIRJASTONKATU 16, P.O. BOX 287, ISBN 9789522324757 (PDF)
65101 VAASA, FINLAND ISSNL 04247256
PHONE: +358 (0)6 3533 700 ISSN 04247256 (PRINTED)
ISSN 2242699X (PDF)
[email protected]
HANKEN.FI/DHANKEN 9 789522 324740 HANSAPRINT OY, TURENKI

View publication stats