NEW POSSIBILITIES FORPROJECT MANAGEMENT THEORY:A CRITICAL ENGAGEMENT

SVETLANA CICMIL, Bristol Business School,

University of the West of England

Bristol, U.K.

DAMIAN HODGSON, Manchester Business School,

University of Manchester, U.K.

(jVBSTRACf)

This paper provides avenues for a broaderengagement with the conceptual consider-ations of projects and project managementwith the aim of creating new possibilitiesfor thinking about, researching, and devel-oping our understanding of the field aspracticed. Attention is drawn to the legacyof conventional but deeply rooted main-stream approaches to studying projectsand project management, and implicationsof the specific underpinning intellectualtradition for recommendations proposed toorganisational members as best practiceproject management. The identified con-cerns and limitations are discussed in thecontext of project management evolutionwhere taken-for-granted advantages ofproject management as a disciplined effec-tive methodology and its popularity arereexamined. The paper sheds light on avariety of voices from both scholarly andpractitioner communities that haveattempted to respond to this paradox andmove the field forward. Taking issue withconventional labels of project success orfailure, and drawing attention to alternativetheoretical and methodological proposi-tions, the argument turns toward criticalmanagement studies, outlining the impli-cations of this intellectual tradition for stud-ies of projects, project management,project performance, and individual skillsand competencies to cope with socialarrangements labelled "projects."

Keywords: project management theory;project management methodology;research and development

®2oo6 by the Project Management InstituteVol. 37, No. 3,111-122, ISSN 8756-9728/03

Introduction/ / ^ ^ o n c e p t s developed by the academic community... must be recovered

fl from operational and textbook definitions and reconnected to ways of^ ^ s e e i n g and thinking aboiit the world. In the dialectics of the situation

and the talk of individuals with different perspectives, the emergence of new waysof talking becomes possible" (Alvesson & Deetz, 2000, p. 146).

Several prominent authors (Koskela & Howell, 2002; Maylor, 2001; Morris,2004; Morris, Patel, & Wearne, 2000; Winch, 1996) have raised the need to intro-duce alternative theoretical approaches to the study of projects, and to identify theimplications that they may have for how we organise and manage projects. The pur-pose of this paper is to address this need, by identifying space outside of the tight-ly-defined and densely populated conceptual landscape of mainstream projectmanagement where other perspectives, other concerns, and other agenda may bearticulated and explored'. Extant project management literature, we would argue,tends to rely upon the language of design, regularity and control to propose mod-els and prescriptions as a route to increasing the ability of humans to control com-plex worlds (Stacey, 2001; Wood, 2002), to the exclusion of other approaches orways of reasoning. As a whole, research into projects and project managementremains heavily reliant on a functionalist, instrumental view of projeas and organ-isations, where the function of project management is taken to be the accomplish-ment of some finite piece of work in a specified period of time, within a certainbudget, and to agreed specifications. Most textbooks and professional associationsfor project management promote this normative view of the field as practiced,which can be summarised as the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and tech-niques to project activities to meet project requirements. Governed by the traditionof "natural sciences" (e.g., systems theory), the project management body of knowl-edge emphasises the role of project actors and managers as "implementers" nar-rowing their role to the issues of control (time and cost) and content (plannedscope of work), marginalising their wider potential role as competent social andpolitical actors in complex project-labelled arrangements. Dissemination of "bestpractice" carries a message about the possibility of the progressive rationalisation ofaction and a belief in the progressive and cumulative character of knowledge. Thistypically assumes rationality, universality, objectivity, and value-free decision-mak-ing, and the possibility of generating law-like predictions in knowledge.

AUGUST 2006 PROJECT MANAGEMENT JOURNAL

The limitations and challenges to this view of projectsare, however, widely recognised across the field, and increas-ingly within the projea management community itself.Project management has attracted significant attention froman increasing number of researchers and praaitioners aaossmanagement disciplines, coincident with the increased"adoption" of projea-based work across industrial sectors(Cicmil, 2001; Hodgson, 2002; Kreiner, 1995; Packendorff,1995). At the same time, the foundations and praaical appli-cation of this managerial technology, embodying the scien-tific achievements of operational research in work schedulingand control under specific constraints of time, cost, and aunique outcome, have been seriously questioned by both theacademic and praaitioner communities. Several importantwriters in this field maintain that little radical examination ofthe intellectual foundation of project management has beendone within this stream of research, arguably since the 1960s(Koskela & Howell, 2002; Morris, 1997). In the same vein,writers such as Frame (1994, 1995, 1999), Morris (1997),and Maylor (1999, 2001), among others, have called for areexamination of the dominant doctrines in project manage-ment for their failure to deliver on their promises.Nonetheless, there are limitations to this self-aitique; thetendency in the field is still to start from the assumption thatthe basic framework of project management is compellingand essentially sound. Efforts have therefore been directedinstead towards searching for improvements in traditionalmodels and skills (see, for example, Maylor, 2003; Meredith& Mantel, 2003; Young 1999, 2003) towards a model thatbetter represents the "true" nature of projects, or for amethod of projea management based on "critical successfactors" (Belassi & Tukel, 1996; Belout, 1998; Boddy &Paton, 2004; Kharbanda & Pinto, 1996; Stallworthy &Kharbanda, 1985), with the assumption that such an idealmodel can objeaively exist in the world of practice. There islittle evidence yet that the resulting torrent of competingstreams of thought, methods of inquiry, and best practiceclaims and propositions has creatively contributed either toconstructive debate in the field or to the resolution of diffi-culties encountered in praaice.

To address this situation, we intend through this paperto create an opportunity to stand back and problematisethat which seems known and accepted about projects.Taking this concern as its point of departure, our aim is toopen up new trajectories within the research agenda in thefield of studies relevant to projects, project performance andproject management (Hodgson & Gicmil, 2006a). The start-ing objective is to critically evaluate the intellectual founda-tions of project management as a field of study and apraaicing discipline, to expose and understand the keyobstacles to innovative research and the creation of knowl-edge communicable and relevant to practitioners, and tobroaden the research agenda by encouraging a more criticalapproach in this area of organisational life. In particular, thepaper will explore the potential of critical research inenhancing the intellectual basis of the project managementsubject area.

As a tentative starting point, therefore, we would pose somefiindamental questions that might guide our reflection on howprojects are conceived and how they could be conceived:

• Is there a universal explanation of what projects areand how projects evolve?

• What is the meaning behind the concepts in use, thatis, the terms such as "project", "projea management,"and "project success"?

• What are the implications of the "mainstream" defi-nitions of "project'"and "project management" for thenature of knowledge and the intellectual foundationsof studies of project-based organising, work, andmanagement?

• What are the consequences of project organising ascurrently prescribed, both for project managers andproject workers?

• What alternative perspectives upon projects existbeyond the mainstream?

• Whose interests are being served by the reproductionof the status quo in the field?

To understand why we have highlighted this sort of con-cern (and, equally importantly, why we feel such concernsare not routinely considered in the vast "mainstream" liter-ature on projects), we will need to locate our discussionwithin a reexamination of the evolution of project manage-ment. In doing so, we aim to underline why projects meritsuch serious attention, and to account for their rising popu-larity and importance in contemporary organisations.

Project Management in PerspectiveProject management emerged as a social practice in thepost-World War II development of technology and infra-structure. Although for many writers, project managementhas a much longer ancestry, traceable back to prehistorictimes, we would strongly oppose this ahistorical perspective(Hodgson & Cicmil, 2006b), which affords a spurious pedi-gree to techniques, models, and procedures that have exist-ed in something close to their current incarnation forcertainly less than a century. The emergence of project man-agement is described in some detail by Morris (1997) andEngwall (1995), highlighting its development in practicethrough a number of major projects that can be traced backto the Manhattan project in the 1940s. Although the U.S. oiland chemicals industry played a major role in this period,the majority of the groundwork was done in U.S. defenceand aeronautics in the 1950s, including widespread use inthe Apollo space programs (Harrison, 1981). As is evidentfrom contemporary writings (Gaddis, 1959), the Gold Waracted as a significant driver on project management devel-opment in the U.S. throughout this period. The intellectualactivity in developing the field until the 1960s was basedalmost exclusively on quantitative techniques within opera-tional research (OR). During the 1960s and 1970s, the pre-dominantly technicist approach was criticised and thetheoretical foundations of the field expanded (Packendorff,1995; Winch, 1996) to encompass traces of organisational

AUGUST 2006 PROJECT MANAGEMENT JOURNAL

research and theories largely concerned with project organi-sation structures (i.e., the matrix form), project leadership,the role of human resource management in facilitating proj-ea work and advice on project team building. In the 1980sand 1990s, there was a revival of the OR-based project man-agement research driven by the developments of computer-based technology, which resulted in the creation andpromotion of sophisticated expert systems for project plan-ning, control and risk analysis, and an increased use of ter-minology such as project information systems, projectcommunication networks, etc. This was in no small measuredue to the awakening of public sector clients, including gov-ernment agencies, in their search for robust managementmodels and procedures to minimise disasters of budget andtime overruns and questionable quality associated with theproject work and outcomes delivered by contractors. A vari-ety of project control methodologies (for example, thePRINCE family) and risk management schemes have beendeveloped against such a background. Despite the increasedsophistication of these models for project planning andmonitoring, researchers found that only the most basic onesare actually used by practitioners and that they are notalways used as intended (Packendorff, 1995).

The 1990s saw an expansion of the project managementfield of study from its engineering heartlands into whatbecame widely accepted as a "multidisciplinary subject," sig-nificantly engaging business and management researchersand educators (Winch, 1996). This coincided with the pro-motion and acceptance of project-based work, organising,and management across industries and sectors, as a power-ful and universal organisational response to the challengesof managing in a complex world. As Clarke (1999, p. 139)stated: "In a world where change is becoming increasinglyimportant, tools such as project management, if used prop-erly, can provide a useful way for organisations to managethat change effectively." It is usually based on the introduc-tion of a set of procedures, or on a new model of adminis-tration with the strategic aim to enhance competitivenessthrough a more effective intra-organisational integrationand optimal utilisation of scarce resources (Cleland, 1997).

The contemporary surge in interest in project manage-ment is typically explained by reference to the increasingrecognition of "the project" as a versatile, fiexible, and pre-dictable form of work organisation. Its image as a universalsolution to organisational problems has been establishedon the promotion of specific techniques for planning, mon-itoring, and control, tried and tested in the operations of tra-ditionally project-oriented industries such as defence,aerospace, and construction (see, for example. Frame, 1999;Maylor, 2001; Young, 1999). Projects and project teams havebeen hailed in both practitioner and academic discourses asunique economic and social processes on which the emerg-ing "knowledge economy" heavily relies (Briner & Hastings,1994; Clarke 1999; Cleland, 1997; Cleland & Ireland, 2002;Frame, 1994, 1995; Meredith & Mantel, 2003; Young,2003). They are promoted as universally applicable tem-plates for integrating, by design, diverse functions of an

organization that enable concentration of fiexible,autonomous, and knowledgeable individuals in temporaryproject teams, for the focused accomplishment of goals effi-ciently, timely, and effectively, for customer satisfaction andcompany benefits. Despite the various streams of praise andcriticism in the last 50 years, then, project management andprojects have now been accepted by many both within andoutside the field as natural, self-evident, and indispensable.

The promotion of projects and project managementcontinues to expand as knowledge-intensive firms increas-ingly based on project models have been acclaimed by manyas the organisation of the future (Frame, 1999; Weick,1995). Thus, Frame, for example, claims confidently that theunderlying reason for the projects becoming the centralfocus of management activity in many organisations can bestated "in a single word: competition" (1999, p. 4, italicsoriginal). The literature since the 90s has drawn attention tothe centrality of project-based organizing and project work-ing in the processes of information sharing and knowledgemanagement in organizations (Davenport & Prusak, 1998;De Fillipi, 2001; Hansen, Nohria, & Tierney, 1999; Silver,2000Wiig, 1997). Cleland (1997) pointed out that, as proj-ect teams evaluate new technologies and resources, theygain insights into the need for making changes. Projects sup-posedly provide, according to Cleland, a central point wherenew knowledge, skills, and attitudes can be developed. Thereceived wisdom of this kind has resulted in a widespreadadoption of "the project" in contemporary organizations asthe focal unit of their operations. Not only are projects con-sidered suitable ways to control endeavours in a turbulentenvironment (Ekstedt, Lundin, Soderholm, & Wirdenius,1999), but also more importantly, they are regarded as theappropriate way to stimulate a learning environment andenhance creativity so as to deliver complex products(Hobday, 2000). Despite the inherent contradictionbetween these two arguments for project-based organising(Tjaeder & Thomas, 2000), it is precisely upon this ambi-tious promise to deliver both "controllability and adven-ture" (Sahlin-Anderson & Soderholm, 2002) that theattraction of organisational "projectification" is founded.

In certain academic circles, the expanding influence of"project-based work" has been referred to as the projectifica-tion of society (lessen, 2002; Lundin & Soderholm, 1998;Midler, 1995; Sydow & Staber, 2002). In essence, this notionattempts to capture the growing colonisation of all quartersof life by project-related principles, rules, techniques, andprocedures, aspiring to form a new "iron cage" of projectrationality (Hodgson & Cicmil, 2003). As more and moreorganisational members are consequently being redefinedas project workers and project managers across industrial sec-tors, both scholarly and practitioner communities arereflecting upon the implications of this shift for employeesand organisations (Hodgson, 2002; Packendorff, 1995),particularly in terms of the impact on workplace identity,reshaped intersubjective interaction, and increased controlover the individual through ideologies of efficienq^ and per-formativity (Fournier & Grey, 2000). These mechanisms are

AUGUST 2006 PROJECT MANAGEMENT JOURNAL "3

actualised in a number of project-related contemporary ten-dencies including the use of information technology (IT) inbusiness process restructuring, the promotion of self-man-aging teams, the ideology of the "knowledge society" andthe "knowledge worker," and the emergence of the project-based organisation. The resulting drive towards the profes-sionalisation of the project management discipline has beenaccompanied by the struggle and tensions involved in con-ceptualising, promoting, and agreeing on the universallyacceptable document that should outline the formal bodyof project management knowledge. This struggle reflects andencapsulates the competition between the nationally-embedded professional associations of project manage-ment, with distinct bodies of knowledge proposed by the(U.S.-based) Project Management Institute, but also the(U.K.-based) Association for Project Management, thelapanese Engineering Advancement Association (ENAA),the International Project Management Association(European in origin), in addition to the British StandardsInstitute (BSI) Cuide to Project Management (BS6079) andthe numerous corporate models such as Ericsson's "PROPs"model (Linde & Linderoth, 2006). Despite the ongoingdebates, however, project management is the focus ofunprecedented interest in the first decade of the new mil-lennium. This interest in many senses fiies in the face of thequestion marks that remain over the effectiveness of projectmanagement, the theoretical underpinnings of project man-agement theory, and the transferability of project manage-ment into novel industrial sectors and organisations.

Project Management in QuestionIn the closing decade of the 20th century, project manage-ment was challenged more seriously than in any previousperiod. Despite the levels of research founded on the pre-sumptions of instrumental rationality in decision-makingand control, it is increasingly apparent that accepting andapplying such orthodoxy does not eliminate project failures,nor does it guarantee project success (Williams, 2004).Although the project management body of thought hasbeen substantially modified over the last decade, the coreconcerns continue to shape academic enquiry and practi-tioners' discourses about projects and project management.Contemporary studies of project performance continue toindicate the disparity between the maturing body of projectmanagement know-how and the effectiveness ofits applica-tion (Atkinson, 1999; Belassi & Tukel, 1996; Baker, Murphy& Fisher, 1983; Morris et al., 2000; Williams, 1995), as anincreasing visibility is being given to the claims about proj-ect and project management failures, and about dissatisfac-tion with project performance and outcomes by affectedstakeholders. Simultaneously, a growing body of literature,as well as a growing body of empirical evidence and thevoices of numerous practitioners, supports the view that thevery reason for using projects and project management as amethodology for organisational innovation and change is atthe heart of project failures (Clarke, 1999; Maylor, 2001;Thomas, 2000).

A glance at the content of recent public reports andthose recorded in previous studies (e.g., Atkinson, 1999;Ewusi-Mensah & Przasnyski, 1997; Flyvbjerg, Bruzelius, &Rothengatter, 2003; Flyvbjerg, Holm, & Buhl, 2002; Morris& Hugh, 1987; Standish Croup, 1995; Williams, 1999;Winch, 1996) provides an insight into frequent cost over-runs, delays, and underperformance in terms of quality anduser satisfaction, which seem to have become the rule andthe reality of contemporary projects. In 1995, for instance, itwas estimated by the Standish Croup that American compa-nies and government agencies spent US$81-billion on can-celled IT projects (Ewusi-Mensah & Przasnyski, 1997). Inaddition, the same source reports that, in total, 31% of IS/ITprojects were deemed complete failures; 53% were late, overbudget, and did not meet expectations; only 9% of IT proj-ects were delivered on time or within budget; and a mere16% were considered successful. The average time overrunhas been identified as being 222% of the original estimate.The question often raised in public about this issue is, gen-erally, how the IT/IS project risk (both financial and servicerisk) is shared and transferred among the public sector andprivate sector participants.

In January 2000, The Financial Times reported, for exam-ple, on the "fiascos" of the major government IT projects inthe U.K. "stemming from basic project errors" that "high-lighted the need for greater professionalism in project man-agement.... The government's track record in projectmanagement has been, to say the least, poor" (Whitehall,2000). Here, the blame was attributed to a lack of specialistproject management knowledge among some civil servantsand ministers, and to different approval systems, whichhave, according to some observers, resulted in unrealisticproject deadlines. A growing body of evidence shows thatsimilar observations and conclusions have been made inrelation to IT/IS in other sectors and types of organisations.It is not only the poor performance of IS/IT projects that hascome under public scrutiny. Bowen, Clark, Holiday, andWheelwright (1994) reported that nearly 30% of productdevelopment projects never live up to business objectives.According to Winch (1996), U.K. government-procuredconstruction projects ranging from hospitals to roads, sufferfrom, on average, 14% cost overrun and 11% time overrun.More recently, the £214m refit project of the Royal OperaHouse in Covent Carden resulted in a cancelled openingperformance, and the remaining shows being run at hugetechnical risks associated with the operation of newlyinstalled but not properly tested and mastered backstageequipment (Royal Opera House, 1999). The Jubilee lineextension project for the London Underground, for exam-ple, has been characterised as having been "...a long saga ofovershot deadlines and overspent budgets" (Winder, 1999,p. 8). In the United States, the belated opening of DenverInternational Airport after four embarrassing postpone-ments, various scandals, and a final cost of US$5 billionagainst the budgeted US$1.5 billion, has been held up as yetanother example of project failure (Dempsey, Coetz, &Szyliowicz, 1997). The much-derided construction of the

AUGUST 2006 PROJECT MANAGEMENT JOURNAL

Scottish Parliament Building was described by the Fraserreport in September 2004 as being two-and-a-half yearsbehind schedule with costs running approximately 10 timesmore than the original estimate of f 40m. The conclusiondrawn about the destiny of such projects as a rule, inherentin their very nature, is simple: "These projects never goaccording to plan" (Royal Opera House, 1999).

In light of this, it is unsurprising that governments aretaking a greater interest than ever before in project manage-ment, in an attempt to address this apparently perennialfailing of project nianagement techniques. As previouslynoted, governments, and, in particular, the U.S. government,has been closely involved in the development of projectmanagement models and techniques for over half a century.The U.K. Office of Government Commerce (OGC) withinthe British Treasury, for example, has developed and pro-moted the well-established PRINCE and PRINCE2 models,and is currently taking the lead in setting up Centres ofExcellence for Project and Programme Managementthroughout the U.K. Similar initiatives by government agen-cies in North America and elsewhere indicate the serious-ness with which project management models and practicesare now considered in the public sector. Meanwhile, theongoing professionalisation of the field of project manage-ment, and the increased influence of professional associa-tions through accreditation of training and credentialism,draws significant support and gains moral legitimacy fromthis perceived role in protecting public interests and ensur-ing the effective use of public funds.

Diagnoses and PrescriptionsAlthough the existence of a crisis of some kind in the fieldof project management is recognised in many (although notall) quarters, the diagnoses in the field are unsurprisinglyvaried. For many established project management writers,the failings of project management are to be expected in amaturing field. As techniques are further honed, and mod-els are perfected through longitudinal and cross-sectoralresearch, it is assumed that the field will one day settle upona reliable and basically effective model and array of tech-niques. Others see the problem as far more deeply rootedin the fundamental principles upon which the field ofproject management has been established. In this section,we will look at each of these accounts in turn, consideringfirst the attempts by the mainstream of project manage-ment to confront the very real failings in the discipline,before turning to a more critical diagnosis of the currentstate of project management.

It is not our claim, then, that project management as adisciplinary area is unaware of, or unconcerned by, the lim-itations and continued failings of project managementmodels and methods. There is a long-standing debate on theinternational scene about the formulation of the formal,professional project management body of knowledge, inwhich important questions are posed by the proponents ofproject management about the boundaries of the projectmanagement subject area, its purpose, practical application.

and relationship with other aspects of organisational andmanagerial reality (Frame, 1999; Meredith & Mantel, 1995,2003; Morris et al., 2000; Walta; 1995; Wideman, 1995;among others). Despite the significant presence of project-based working and organising across industrial sectors andthe problematic qualifications of project outcomes as suc-cess or failure, a number of authors note that the develop-ment of project management knowledge remains unstableand fragmented. As a consequence, the dream of establish-ing project management as an exemplary field of manage-ment science is becoming increasingly remote. Questionshave been raised about the underlying belief system thatexhibits a strong bias towards functionalist/unitarist tradi-tion, reductionism, operational research, and "how-to-do"prescriptive forms of intellectual output (Buchanan &Badham, 1999; Kreiner, 1995; Packendorff, 1995). It wasmainly in the 1990s that critical analysis of social and polit-ical power associated with projects as organisational andsocial arrangement;s, and project management as a practiceand as a social grouping emerged in an explicit form(Buchanan and Badham, 1999; Buchanan & Boddy, 1992;Kreiner, 1995; Lundin & Hartman, 2000; Lundin & Midler,1998; Packendorff, 1995).

Nonetheless, the response to this crisis has so far been ayet-greater emphasis on technicist solutions, quantitativemethodologies, positivist methodologies and a strongerreliance on instrumental rationality. In one attempt to movethe field forward, Atkinson (1999) asserted that it hasbecome an impossible, and, most likely, non-"value-adding"endeavour to define project management in terms of the tra-ditional "iron triangle" principles, emphasising the achieve-ment of time, cost, and quality objectives as the majorjustification for the role of project management. Accordingto Atkinson, the attention should be refocused from theseefficiency measurements, which are being questioned asappropriate measures of project success (see also Baldry,1998; Belassi & Tukel, 1996; Chapman, 1998; Maylor, 2001).

The issue of ambiguity associated with qualifying a proj-ect as success or failure has recently attracted scholarly atten-tion (e.g., Boddy & Paton, 2004; Buchanan & Badham,1999; Clarke, 1999). The debate focuses on a more strategiclevel of decision-making, in which project failure appears tobe "strategic" rather than linked to technical problems, andis seen as a result of political processes of resistance inorganisations. Accounts pointing to the evidence of mount-ing dissatisfaction and lack of support imply a range ofsocial and behavioural factors behind project failures. Otherauthors suggest the need for a wider picture ofwhat goes onin social construction of projects and project managementby focusing on who is included in, and who is excludedfrom, the decision-making process, analysing what deter-mines the position, agendas and power of different partici-pants with respect to issues, and how these different agendasare combined and resolved in the process by which the deci-sions are arrived at (Flyvbjerg et al., 2003). In the context ofIT/IS project failures, Taggert and Silbey (1986) cynicallypropose a political-development cycle of projects: wild

AUGUST 2006 PROJECT MANAGEMENT JOURNAL "5

enthusiasm, disillusionment, total confusion, search for theguilty, punishment of the innocent, and promotion of non-participants, in contrast to the conventional rational projectlife cycle (PLC) model, which neatly unfolds as a successionof stages: conception and feasibility study, requirementanalysis and specification, design and development, imple-mentation/execution, and project termination.

On the basis of his research into IT projects, Fincham(2002) argued that project failure can be interpreted in awide range of ways, joining the writers who focus on politi-cal discourses, language and interpretation related to organ-isational reporting on project performance. Arguing that allprojects exhibit, to a smaller or larger extent, a dimension oforganisational innovation and change, Fincham suggestedthat the attributions of "success" and "failure" can also beexplored as narratives that are involved in many forms ofchange and innovation in organisations. "Through a kind ofsocial labelling events are formulated into evolving 'stories'that evoke either status or stigma and play a powerful role inordering behaviour" (Fincham, 2002, p. 1). From that per-spective, the management of projects and the change associ-ated with its initiation and outcomes is equated with the"management of meaning" (Huczynski & Buchanan, 2001),or with symbolic attempts to legitimise project proposalsand particular definitions of problems and solutions in theface of competing ideas. Similarly, Fincham (2002)observed that "[t|he gloss of success is often critical for proj-ects that may involve large expenditures and much uncer-tainty" (p. 1), with expectations to justify huge, riskyinvestments. Such a frame of reference emphasises the needto understand organisational processes of power, politics,structure, and their interplay with the nature of interactionamong individuals and interest groups involved in develop-ment and implementation of a project.

Table 1 summarises different approaches to under-standing project failure by distinguishing three perspectivesand linking them to a wider domain of the project manage-ment process. This table has been adapted from Fincham(2002), who termed the three approaches as rationalist.

Form of OrganisationalBehavior and Action

process, and narrative. The first two essentially refiect theidea of Sauer (1999) who differentiates between a factor-based approach and a process approach to project failure,which is largely present in the extant project managementbody of thought. The third (narrative—Fincham, 2002) isrelated to a much less frequent approach to project per-formance research, but is the one that is of most interest tothis paper.

The exploration of the performance characteristics ofpublic initiatives, such as large-scale engineering projects,has expanded these performance measures to include a dis-cussion of the role of institutions, risks, and governance inproject success (Flyvbjerg et al., 2003; Miller & Lessard,2000). For others, it is the paradoxical feedback that hindersthe effective adoption of project-based working and organ-ising as a structural innovation in complex business envi-ronments. W^hereas project management has beenmobilised as a blueprint for structuring and coordinatingorganisational change, according to Clarke (1999): "Peopleoften do not see project management as something to helpthem but rather something which is mandatory, serving lit-de useful purpose" (Clarke, 1999, p. 144). Clarke identifiedthe following as problematic in the application of projectmanagement as a vehicle of change; the rigid "standardisa-tion" of project management as the mode of change man-agement that often causes cultural clashes; projectmanagement, or "managing by projects" or becoming a"project-based" organisation is often regarded as anothercontrol mechanism, a "corporate reporting" tool; the inade-quate formal completion of change projects; project over-load syndrome; individual resistance to imposed proceduresand practice, and a lack of confidence and motivation. Itbecomes obvious that, frequently, the very principles ofeffective, structured project management methodology aresimultaneously its major causes of failure.

Another infiuential attempt to address the malaisecomes from what is known as the "Scandinavian School" ofproject studies (Ekstedt et al., 1999; Lundin & Hartmann,2000; Lundin & Midler, 1998; Lundin & Soderholm, 1995;

MethodologicalFocus

Success and FailureSeen As

Rational/normative

Processual

Narrative

Organisational goals;managerial andorganizational structuressurrounding the project

Organisational and socio-political processes;projects as form of adecision outcome

Organisational and socio-political processes; symbolicaction; themes

Simple cause and effect

Socio-technical interaction

Interpretation and sense-making; rhetoric andpersuasion; critical/hermeneutics

Objective and polarisedstates

Outcomes of organizationalprocesses

Social constructs; paradigms

Table 1: Perspectives on proiect success and failure (adapted from Fincham, 2002, p. 3)

116 AUGUST 2006 PROJECT MANAGEMENT JOURNAL

Sahlin-Andersson & Soderholm, 2002; Soderlund, 2004). Inthe 1990s, Packendorff succinctly summarised the concernshared by a group of Scandinavian scholars, arguing thatcontemporary propositions for the improvement of projectmanagement knowledge and practice were ill-conceived,reflecting fundamental misconceptions within the field. Heidentified three major deficiencies which are ingrained,maintained, and reproduced across the research fieldthrough certain ontological, epistemological, and method-ological assumptions: (1) the assumed universality of proj-ect management theory, (2) the lack of empirical studies ofprojects, and (3) the lack of alternative representations of"projects" (summarised in Table 2),

Emerging from this school are a number of vital themesthat move beyond traditional understandings of projectsand their management: the conceptualisation of projects astemporary organisations (Lundin & Soderholm, 1995); therecognition of the historically-embedded nature of projects(Engwall, 2003; Kreiner, 1995); and the shift in focus fromsingle to multiple project management (Engwall & Jerbrant,2003). Although this introduction of sociological perspec-tives to the field of projects is clearly welcome—indeed,long overdue—the more conservative current work in thistradition remains strongly wedded to a functionalist view-point, focusing upon improving project performancethrough attention to social (i.e., human) factors. Equally,within this perspective, the inclusion of power and powerrelations tends to be limited to the introduction of a form ofmicropolitics, separated from the larger power differentialsinherent in modern, capitalist society. Although there ismuch to be drawn from the Scandinavian School, and muchthat improves upon the narrow mechanistic instrumental-ism of traditional project management, we would argue thatthe school remains too conservative in its ambitions, anddoes not take its argument to its logical conclusions. It does,however, open the space of project studies to more explicit-ly "critical" currents, and some of the strongest critical workon projects to have emerged so far has its roots in theadvances made by the Scandinavian School (see, for exam-ple, Lindgren & Packendorff, 2001, 2006).

Our proposal in this paper is to draw on the insightsoffered by writers and academics within the broad groupingof critical management studies to widen and deepen the the-oretical foundations of project management and to providenovel approaches to the entrenched challenges facing proj-ect management. We foresee that this would require a fun-damental reappraisal of many of the core tenets of projectmanagement theory and techniques, a stance that may beuncomfortable for many whose careers and indeed liveli-hoods are intimately connected to project management as itstands. Nonetheless, we argue that without such a radicalreappraisal of the field, project management as a disciplinewill not surmount the practical and philosophical concernsthat it currently faces, and will struggle to exercise a signifi-cant influence on the ever-wider application of projectorganising in the years to come.

Critical Perspectives on ProjectsCritical work on management and organisations has abroad, even eclectic base, and draws upon a wide range ofsocial theories, philosophies, and ethical/moral positions,including Marxism, feminism, environmentalism, labourprocess theory, post-structuralism, post-colonialism andcritical realism. Work in this field draws its inspiration andtheoretical frameworks from a wide range of writers, includ-ing Weber, Braverman, Derrida, Latour, Bourdieu,Baudrillard, Foucault, Habermas, Bhaskar, among others. Inwhat stands as the most coherent summary of the principlesunderpinning this diverse field, Fournier and Grey (2000)set out three key tenets that critical work shares. They arguethat critical research on management and organisations:

1. Has a "Non-Performative Intent"—Starts out from theposition that issues of morality, equality and ethics areat least as important as, and in many senses moreimportant than, the traditional functionalist concernsof effectiveness and efficiency of management.

2. "Aims to Denaturalise Organisations &Management"—Challenges arguments that the cur-rent way in which organisations, economies, andsocieties are organised is somehow natural, normal

Common Assumptions Alternative Assumptions

Project management theory

Aim of research on projects

Research metaphor for the project

General theory for all kinds of projects,generic concept collecting differenttheories applicable to projects underone umbrella

Prescriptive, normative theory,grounded in ideal models of projectplanning and control. Researchundertaken as survey studies of largesamples of projects

A tool, a means for achieving higher-level ends

Middle-range theories on differentsorts of projects, classified accordingto different selection criteria

Descriptive theory, grounded inempirical narrative studies on humaninteraction in projects. Researchundertaken as comparative casestudies

A temporary organisation, anaggregate of individuals temporarilyenacting a common cause

Table 2: Common and alternative assumptions on project management (adapted from Packendorff, 1995, p. 326)

AUGUST 2006 PROJECT MANAGEMENT JOURNAL " 7

or inevitable, arguing instead that the status quo is aconsequence of the prioritisation of the agenda ofcertain social groups, and benefits these groups at theexpense of others.

3. "Aims to Prevent Oppression/Exploitation"—Theoverarching mission underpinning critical work is tohighlight and oppose oppression ahd exploitation inorganisations and societies. Typically, this refers tothe exploitation of employees, of women, of ethnicminorities, or of the environment.

Much of this work (for example, Alvesson & Willmott,1996; Reed, 1992; Thorhpson & McHugh, 2002) has sincethe mid-1990s been collectively referred to as critical man-agement studies(CMS), which has also lent its name to amajor.international conference (CMS5, to be held in 2007),as well as to a major interest group at the Academy ofManagement. Such work takes issue with positivist episte-mology in the field of management, insofar as it perpetuatesthe belief that managers face an objective reality that they cancontrol by applying suitable methods for a rational assess-ment of the problematic situation in order to come up withthe correct solution. The consequence of this is a prolifera-tion of methods, tools, analytical techniques, and appliedinstruments with which management itself becomes identi-fied. Management skills and knowledge are reduced tovalue-neutral competence, ignoring the political aspect oforganisations, and ethical and moral issues, reinforcing thebelief that management can be conceptualised in a technicalway by agreeing on terminology and meaning. Managers areseen as rational technicians, dealing with technical issuesthat are resolvable through the application of superiorknowledge of the planning and control techniques.Alvesson and Deetz have commented on the problems withnarrow, conventional approaches to studying the phenome-non of management and the need to adopt a much morecritical stance and varying theoretical lenses:

There is considerable agreement that conventional, univer-sal statements of what management is about and whatmanagers do—planning, organizing, coordinating andcontrolling—do not tell us very much about organisation-al reality, which is often messy, ambiguous, fragmentedand political in charaaer (Alvesson & Deetz, 2000, p. 60).

It is argued that conventional approaches to organisa-tional and management research have exposed managersand other employees involved in problem-solving and deci-sion-making to an overwhelming amount and range of tech-niques (empowerment, teamwork, flexibility), which can beinterpreted as "covert tools of manipulation and exploita-tion" (Huczynski & Buchanan, 2001, p. xxi).

More work has emerged that applies this critical posi-tion to project management, its nostrums and methods (see,for example, Bredillet, 2002, 2004; Buckle & Thomas, 2003;Cicmil, 2003; Cicmil & Hodgson, 2005; Cill, 2002;Hodgson, 2002; Hodgson & Cicmil, 2003; Metcalfe, 1997;Packendorff, 1995). The most important requirement for

the development of critical project management studies isthe inclusion of critical social theory into the researchprocess. Central to it is the need to explore how the rela-tionships between individuals and collectivities are beingconstituted and reproduced in the context of project man-agement, and how asymmetrical power relations create andsustain the social reality of projects. In this context, we arguethat the main issue for the project management researchcommunity should not be what form of critical analysis isbest suited for enhancing the intellectual basis of criticalmanagement studies. Drawing on critical theory and partic-ularly the contribution of lurgen Habermas, Alvesson, andWillmott (1996) suggest that intellectual efforts should befocused on encouraging inspiration from a variety of theo-ries and ideas, as a counterforce to technicist and instru-mental forms of rationality in project environments. From aHabermasian perspective, it might be argued that the objec-tive, abstract and universal body of knowledge claimed in anumber of authoritative sources as proprietary to projectmanagement fails to live up to the challenges of the embod-ied and power-laden realities of its operation. "Project man-agement" as created by this school of thought, exhibits thecharacteristics ofwhat Alvesson and Willmott (1996) calledmanagement as colonising power and management as distortedcommunication. From this perspective, the possibility of crit-ical project management will depend on the extent to whicha social theory about the nature of projects provides con-cerned actors with authentic insights into their position inproject environments, leading to their enlightenment,changed attitudes and emancipatory action.

Another major influence on critical work with implica-tions for an understanding of project management is thewide and varied oeuvre of Michel Foucault, drawn upon bywriters such as David Knights, Stewart Clegg, BarbaraTownley, and Stanley Deetz, among others. In particular, akey research theme is a focus on the consequences of thosetechniques of observation, measurement, and performancecontrol central to project management methodologies forboth the management and the self-management of workerswithin project settings. Work on project management in thistradition (Hodgson, 2002; Lindgren & Packendorff, 2003;Thomas, 2003) tends to criticise the implied calculabilityand formality of project management methodology, as itembodies a strong functionalist commitment to ensuring,first and foremost, the effective control of workers. In manyways, as previously noted, this control imperative in projectmanagement is traditionally based upon similar principlesto those underpinning scientific management: the fragmen-tation of work and the maximisation of visibility andaccountability. However, with isolated exceptions (Metcalfe,1997), the fundamentals of project work appear to haveevaded the practical and moral critique levelled at otherTaylorist work forms. At the same time, the ongoing profes-sionalisation of project management can also be interpretedin line with other professionalisation projects, as a mode ofcontrol over expert labour (cf. Larson, 1977; Abbott, 1988),implementing and enforcing a form of self-disciplinary con-

118 AUGUST 2006 PROJECT MANAGEMENT JOURNAL

trol over project managers. A key challenge for critical workfrom this perspective is thus to draw attention to the powerrelations established and maintained by project manage-ment technologies, and the consequences of these powerrelations. Other critical work on projects includes analysis ofthe gendered nature of project management models (Buckle& Thomas, 2003), examinations of the impact of projectsworking on work-life balance (Lindgren & Packendorff,2003), investigations into the role of project management inperpetuating oligarchic elites in modern corporations(Clegg & Courpasson, 2004), and analyses of project man-agement as a form of bureaucratic control in post-bureau-cratic contexts (Hodgson, 2004).

To advance such critical work, we would argue that thescope for critical research into projects and project manage-ment, and in particular the emancipatory aspect of suchresearch needs to be expanded. This means a more radicalacknowledgment of voices from practitioners in projectenvironments, such as Balck's:

Practitioners, in particular we as project managers, arewell advised to rid ourselves of the constricting histori-cal background of a mechanistic wodd image andrationalism. Without question the best method to helpus correct our way of traditional thinking is "on-the-jobtraining"—that is, experiencing the real success and fail-ures in dealing with our everyday business endeavours(Balck, 1994, pp. 2-4).

We would argue that taking this seriously means mov-ing beyond the narrow instrumentalism, which bedevils, yetlargely defines, the "iron triangle" approach to project man-agement. Our hope is that this paper may encourage move-ment towards the creation of a vocabulary and a resource fora critical engagement between practitioners and academicsbeyond the confines of the existing language, concepts andassumptions of project management.

Making Projects Criticat: New Trajectories

At this point, it is opportune to return to the intentionsbehind this paper. As stated in the introduction, we aim toopen new trajectories within the research agenda in the fieldof studies relevant to projects, project performance and proj-ect management in order to address the persisting and pre-vailing concerns articulated in literature and practice, whichwe attempted to briefly illuminate. Our immediate objec-tive, therefore, is to signpost possible research trajectoriestowards a critical evaluation of the intellectual foundationsof project management as a field of study and a practisingdiscipline and to broaden the research agenda by encourag-ing a more critical approach in this area of organisationallife. Explicitly we take up the challenge offered by Flyvbjerg(2001, p. 166) to conduct research that "contributes to soci-ety's capacity for value-rational deliberation and action"; inessence, to make social science matter in the context of proj-ect work. What, therefore, might it mean for both the schol-arly and the practitioner community, to encourage adifferent way of viewing and thinking about projects and

project management as social phenomena through criticalstudies? How might a consideration of lines of reasoningand practice other than those promoted by narrowly instru-mentalist project management thinking respond to theidentified crisis in the field?

The first and most important consequence of anengagement with critical work would be an increased sen-sitivity to the possibility of oppression and exploitation inproject settings, an outcome which is especially likelygiven the pressurised environment of most projects,regardless of sector and scale. A second important aspect ofcritical approaches to project management is to reexaminethe currently dominant imperative of performativity inrelation to how this shapes the development of the bodyof knowledge and best practice in the field (particularlyrelated to "critical factors for project success") and illumi-nate the importance of considering other indicators of"project success" beyond time, cost, and quality perform-ance, to encompass environment, health and safety, econ-omy, and ethics. And, third, critical project managementresearch would engage directly with not merely projectmanagers but with practitioners at all levels of the projecthierarchy, as it is interested in specific local situations andthe lived experiences of various project actors, often withthe aim of initiating some transformative redefinition(Alvesson & Deetz, 2000) of actors' own perception of self,their voice, and their infiuence in shaping their own socialroles and place.

Our intention in presenting these views is primarily tostart a dialogue, to raise the importance of such issues andconcerns within the field of project management, and todraw attention to broader theoretical resources available toconceptualise projects and their management. To this end,we have in the past organised workshops to act as forumsfor debates around these themes, of which the best papershave been published as a collection (Hodgson & Cicmil,2006b). We will continue to run these workshops, in thehope of extending the debate and learning from the views,experiences and insights of as broad a range as possible,and we would welcome interventions, participation, andeven counter-critique from all quarters. We hope that, at theleast, this paper has succeeded in raising new concerns andhas sharpened interest among project management aca-demics and practitioners to engage with these concerns,which are central to the future of a sustainable and ethicalproject management.

Notes

' In this sense, the paper continues the mission of two work-shops organised and held at Bristol Business School in the U.K.in 2003 and 2004, with the explicit aim to "make projects crit-ical." These workshops brought together a diverse communityof researchers and practitioners from Europe, North America,and Australasia with a common interest in considering vitalissues and values that are both ignored and obscured by "main-stream" project management. Details can be found athttp://vww.uwe.ac.uk/bbs/research/research/mpc/index.shtml

AUGUST 2006 PROJECT MANAGEMENT JOURNAL 119

ReferencesAbbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the

division of expert labour. London: University of Chicago Press.Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (1996). Making sense of

management: A critical introduction. London: SAGE.Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (2000). Doing critical manage-

ment research. London: Sage.Association for Project Management (APM). (1995).

Body of knowledge. Version 2, January 1995 APM: London.Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: Cost, time

and quality, tv̂ 'o best guesses and a phenomenon; It's timeto accept other success criteria. International Joumal of ProjectManagement, 17(6), 337-342.

Baker, B. N., Murphy, D. C, & Fisher, D. (1983). Factorsaffecting project success. In D. I. Cleland, & R. W. King(Eds.), Project management handbook (pp. 669-685). NewYork: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Balck, H. (1994). Projects as elements of a new indus-trial pattern: A division of project management. In D. I.Cleland & R. Careis (Eds.), Global project management hand-book (pp. 2-1-2-11). New York: McCraw - Hill InternationalEditions.

Baldry, D. (1998). The evaluation of risk managementin public sector capital projects. International Joumal ofProject Management, 16(1), 35-41.

Belassi, W., & Tukel, O. I. (1996). A new framework fordetermining success/failure factors in projects. InternationalJoumal of Project Management, 14(3), 141-151.

Belout, A. (1998). Effects of HRM on project effective-ness and success: Toward a new conceptual framework.International Journal of Project Management, 16{l), 21-26.

Boddy, D., & Paton, R. (2004). Responding to compet-ing narratives: Lessons for project managers. InternationalJournal of Project Management, 22(3), 225-233.

Bowen, H. K., Clark, K. B., Holloway, C. A., &Wheelwright, S. C. (1994). The perpetual enterprise machine.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bredillet, C. N. (2002). Beyond the positivist mirror: Towardsa project management 'gnosis'. Paper presented at the IRNOPconference in Rotterdam, Netherlands, May 28-31, 2002.

Bredillet, C. (2004). Beyond the positivist mirror: Towardsa project management 'gnosis'. Paper presented at the IRNOPconference in Turku, Finland August 25-27, 2004.

Briner, W., & Hastings, C. (1994). The role of projects inthe strategy process. In D. I. Cleland & R. Careis (Eds.),Global project management handbook (pp. 15_3-15_24). NewYork: McCraw-Hill International Editions.

Buchanan, D. & Badham, R. (1999). Power, politics, andorganisational change: Winning the turf game. London: Sage.

Buchanan, D., & Boddy, D. (1992). The expertise of thechange agent Hemel Hempstead, UK: Prentice Hall.

Buckle, P., & Thomas,). (2003). Deconstructing projectmanagement: A gender analysis of project managementguidelines. Intemational Joumal of Project Management, 21 (6),433-441.

Chapman, R. J. (1998). The role of system dynamics inunderstanding the impact of changes to key project person-

nel on design production within construction projects.International Joumal of Project Management, i6(4), 235-247.

Cicmil, S. (2001). Reconstructing the project manage-ment knowledge system: A multiple-perspective agenda.Paper presented to Critical Management StudiesConference, UMIST Manchester, UK, llth-13th July 2001.

Cicmil, S. (2003). Knowledge, interaction and projectwork: The perspective of complex responsive processes ofrelating. Paper presented at the 19th ECOS Colloquium,subtheme "Project Organizations, Embeddedness andRepositories of Knowledge," Copenhagen, Denmark, 3-5July 2003.

Cicmil, S., & Hodgson, D. E. (2005). Knowledge, aaion,and reflection in management education—The case of projectmanagement. BBS Teaching and Research Review, Issue 7,September 2005; ISSN 1468-4578. Reuieved Oaober 10,2005, from http://www.uwe.ac.uk/bbs/tn-/Is7-cont.htm

Clarke, A. (1999). A prartical use of key success factors toimprove the effertiveness of project management. IntemationalJoumal of Project Management, i7(3), 139-145.

Clegg, S. C, & Courpasson, D. (2004). Political hybrids:Toquevillean views on project organizations. Joumal ofManagement Studies, 41(4), 525-547.

Cleland, D. I. (1997) Field guide to project management.New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Cleland, D. I., & Ireland, L. R. (2002). Project management:Strategic design and implementation (4th ed.). New York:McCraw-Hill Intemational.

Davenport, T H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

DeFillippi, R. (2001). Projea based learning, reflectiveprartices and learning outcomes. Management teaming, 32(1),5-10.

Dempsey, P. S., Coetz, A. R., & Szyliowicz, J. S. (1997).Denver International Airport: Lessons leamed. New York:McCraw-Hill.

Ekstedt, E., Lundin, R. A., Soderholm, A., & Wirdenius, H.(1999). Neo-industrial organising London: Routledge.

Engwall, M. (1995). Jakten pa det Effektiva Projektet.Stockholm: Nerenius & Santerus.

Engwall, M. (2003). No projea is an island: Linking proj-eas to history and context. Research Policy, 32(5), 879-808.

Engwall, M., & Jerbrant, A. (2003). The resource alloca-tion syndrome: The prime challenge of multi-projea manage-ment. Intemational Joumal of Project Management, 2i(6),403-409.

Ewusi-Mensah, K., & Przasnyski, Z. H. (1997). Criticalissues in abandoned IS development projects. Communicationsof the Association for Computing Machinery, 40(9), 74-80.

Fincham, R. (2002). Narratives of success and failure insystems development. British Joumal of Management, 13{\),1-14.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., & Rothengatter, W. (2003).Megaprojects and risk: An anatomy of ambition.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

AUGUST 2006 PROJECT MANAGEMENT JOURNAL

Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M. S., & Buhl, S. (2002).Underestimating costs in public works projects—Error orlie? Joumal of American Planning Association, 68 (Summer),279-295.

Fournier, V., & Grey, C. (2000). At the critical moment:Conditions and prospects for critical management studies.Human Relations, 53(1), 7-32.

Frame J. D. (1994). The new project management. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Frame, J. D. (1995). Managing projects in organisations.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Frame, J. D. (1999). Project management competence:Building key skills for individuals, teams and organisations,San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Caddis, P. O. (1959). The project manager. HarvardBusiness Review, May-June, 89-97.

Cill, R. (2002). Cool, creative and egalitarian?Exploring gender in project-based new media work inEurope. Information, Communication and Society, 5(1), 70-89.

Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., &Tierney, T. (1999). What'syour strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard BusinessReview, March-April, 1999.

Harrison, F. L (1981). Advanced project management.Aldershot, UK: Cower.

Hobday, M, (2000), The project-based organisation: Anideal form for managing complex products and systems?Research Policy, 27, 871-893,

Hodgson, D. E, (2002), Disciplining the professional:The case of project management. Journal of ManagementStudies, 39(6), 803-821,

Hodgson, D. E. (2004). Project work: The legacy ofbureaucratic control in the post-bureaucratic organisation.Organization, 11(1), 81-100.

Hodgson, D. E., & Cicmil, S. (2003, July). Setting thestandards: The construction of 'the project' as an organizationalobject. Paper presented to the 3rd Critical ManagementStudies Conference, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.

Hodgson, D. E., & Cicmil, S. (2006a). Making projectscritical. London: Palgrave.

Hodgson, D. E., & Cicmil, S. (2006b). Are projects real?:The PMBoK and the legitimation of project managementknowledge. In D, E, Hodgson & S, Cicmil (Eds,), Makingprojects critical. London: Palgrave,

Huczynski, A,, & Buchanan, D. (2001), Organizationalbehaviour: An introductory text (4th ed.), Harlow, UK: FT-Prentice Hall, Pearson Education Ltd,

Jessen, S. A, (2002), Business by projects.Universitetsforlaget AS: Oslo, Norway,

Kharbanda, O., & Pinto, J. (1996). What made Gertie gal-lop? Lessons from project failures. New York: Van NostrandReinhold.

Koskela, L., & Howell, C. (2002, July). The underlyingtheory of project management is obsolete. Proceedings of PMIResearch Conference 2002 (pp. 293-301). Newtown Square,PA: Project Management Institute.

Kreiner, K. (1995). In search of relevance: Project man-agement in drifting environments. Scandinavian Joumal of

Management, U{4), 335-346.Larson, M. (1977). The rise of professionalism: A sociolog-

ical analysis. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Linde, A., & Linderoth, H. (2006). An actor-network

theory perspective on IT projects. In D. Hodgson & S. Cicmil(Eds.), Making Projects Critical. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.

Lindgren, M., & Packendorff, J. (2001), What's new innew organizational forms? On the constmction of gender in proj-ect-based work. Paper for the Cender, Work and Organizationconference 'Rethinking gender, work and organisation',Keele University, Keele, UK, June 27-29, 2001,

Lindgren, M., & Packendorff, J. (2006). Projects andprisons. In D. Hodgson & S. Cicmil (Eds.), Making ProjectsCritical. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.

Lundin, R, A,, & Soderholm, A. (1995). A theory of thetemporary organization, Scandinavian Journal ofManagement, 11{4), 437-455.

Lundin, R, A., & Soderholm, A. (1998).Conceptualising a projectified society: Discussion of an eco-institutional approach to a theory on temporary organiza-tions. In R. A, Lundin & C. Midler (Eds.), Projects as arenas forrenewal and teaming processes (pp, 13-23). Boston: KluwerAcademic Publishers.

Marshall, N. (2001), Knowledge, identity, and difference inproject organisation. Paper presented at the 17th ECOSColloquium The Odyssey of Organising', Lyon, France, 5-7July 2001.

Maylor, H. (1999). Project management (2nd ed.). London,UK: Pitman Publishing,

Maylor, H. (2001). Beyond the Cantt chart—Projea man-agement moving on. European Management Joumal, 29(1),92-100.

Maylor, H. (2003). Project Management (3rd ed.). London,UK: Pitman Publishing.

Meredith, J. R., & Mantel, S. L. (1995). Project manage-ment—A managerial approach (3rd ed.). New York: JohnWiley & Sons.

Meredith, J. R., & Mantel, S. L. (2003). Project manage-ment—A managerial approach (5th ed.). New York: JohnWiley & Sons.

Metcalfe, B. (1997). Projea management system design: Asocial and organisational analysis. Intemational Joumal ofProduction Economics, 52(3), 305-316.

Midler, C. (1995). 'Projeaification' of the firm: TheRenault case. Scandinavian Joumal of Management, 11{4),363-373,

Miller, R., & Lessard, D. R, (2000), The strategic managementoflarge engineering projects. Boston:Institute of Technology Press,

Morris, P W, C, (1997), The management of projects (2nded,), London: Thomas Telford,

Morris, P, W, C, (2002, May). Science, objeaive knowledgeand the theory of projea management. Proceedings of theInstitute of Civil Engineering, 150, 82-90.

Morris P. (2004), Current trends in projea and pro-gramme management. In Association for Project ManagementYearbook. High Wycombe, UK: Association for ProjectManagement (APM),

AUGUST 2006 PROJECT MANAGEMENT JOURNAL

Monis, P. W. G., & Hough, G. H. (1987). The anatomy of majorprojects. London: Major Projects Association.

Morris, P W. G., Patel, M. B., & Weame, S. H. (2000).Research into revising the APM project management body ofknowledge. International Journal of Projea Management, 18(3),155-164.

PackendorfF, I. (1995). Inquiring into the temporary organi-sation: New directions for project management research.Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11 (4), 319-333.

Reed, M. I. (1992). The sociology of organisations: Themes, per-spectives, and prospects. Hemel Hempstead, UK: HarvesterWheatsheaf.

Royal Opera House cancels perfonnance. (1999, November24). Financial Times, p. 5.

Sahlin-Andersson, K., & Soderholm, A. (Eds.). (2002) Beyondproject management: New perspectives on the temporary-permanentdilemma. Gopenhagen: liber.

Sauer, G. (1999). Deciding the future for IS failures: Not thechoice you might think. In W. L Gurrie & B. Galliers (Eds.),Rethinking rrmnagement information systems (pp. 279-309). Oxford,UK: Oxford University Press.

Silver, G. A. (2000). Where technology and knowledge meetJournal of Business Strategy, 2J(Nov/Dec.), 28-33.

Soderiund, 1. (2004). Building theories of projert manage-ment: Past research, questions for the futtire Intemational Journalof Project Management, 22(3), 183-191.

Stacey, R. (2001). Complex responsive processes in organisations:Learning and knowledge aeadon. London: Routledge.

Stallworthy, E. A., & Kharbanda, O. P (1985). International con-struction and the rok of project management. Aldershot, UK: Gower.

Standish Group. (1995). Ghaos paper. Retrieved March 16th,2005, from http://vww.standishgroup.com/

Sydow, ]., & Staber, U. (2002). The institutional embedded-ness of projert networks: The aise of content production inGerman television. Regional Studies, 36(3), 215-227.

Taggert, W. M., & Silbey, V. (1986). Informational systems:People and computers in organizations. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Thomas,). (2000). Making sense of projert management. InR A. Lundin & F. Hartman (Eds.), Projects as business constituentsand guiding motives. Boston: Kluwer Academic Press.

Thomas, 1. (2003, April). Problematizing project management.Paper presented to Making Projerts Gritical Workshop, Bristol

Business School, UWE, Bristol, UK.Thompson, P, & McHugh, D. (2002). Work organisations.

London: Palgrave.Tjaeder, J., & Thomas, |. (2000, lanuaiy). On learning and con-

trol—Competing paradigms or co-existing requirements for managingprojects in ambiguous situations? Unpublished paper presented toIntemational Research Network on Organizing by Projects(IRNOP) founh bi-annual conference held in Australia.

Walta, H. (1995). Dutch projert management body ofknowledge policy. Intemational Journal of Project Management,13(2), 101-108.

Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organisations. ThousandOaks, GA: Sage.

Whitehall counts the costs of IT projects. (2000, lanuaiy 14).Firumdal Times, p. 13.

Wideman, R. M. (1995). Griteria for a projert managementbody of knowledge Intemational Journal of Project Management,13(2), 71-75.

Wiig, K. M. (1997). Knowledge management: An introduc-tion and perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, J (1), 6-14.

Williams, T. (1995). A classified bibliography of researchrelating to projert risk management. European Journal ofOperational Research, 85(1), 180-188.

Williams, T. M. (1999). The need for new paradigm for com-plex projects. Intemational Journal of Project Management, 17(5),269-273.

Williams, T. (2004, luly). Assessing and building on theunderlying theory of projert management in the light of badlyover-run projects. Paper presented at the PMI ResearchGonference, London.

Winch, G. (1996, September). Thirty years of projert man-agement—What have we leamed? British Academy of ManagementConference Proceedings (pp. 8.127-8.145). Birmingham, UK:Aston Business School.

Winder, R. (1999, May 16). A grand departure goes uncele-brated. The Independent on Sunday, p. 8.

Wood, M. (2002). Mind the gap? A processual reconsidera-tion of organisational knowledge. Organization, 9(1), 151-171.

Young, T. (1999). How to be a better projea manager. London:Kogan Page.

Young, T. (2003). 77K handbook of projea management - A prac-tical guide of effective policies and procedures. London: Kogan Page.

SVETLANA CICMIL, BSc (Civ. EngO, MBA, PhD, is the head of research in operations and information management and director ofMBA Programmes at Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, U.K. She has an extensive international teaching,consultancy and industrial experience in the field of project management. Svetlana's specific research interests lie in the areas ofcomplexity theory and sociology of project based work, project management education, and the development of projectmanagement skills, competencies, and knowledge. She is also interested in the global aspects of management education, and theinternational transfer of management knowledge. Svetlana is actively involved in Project Management Research Networks, regularlyspeaks at conferences and has published widely. Recent articles written by Svetlana have appeared in International lourr^al of ProjectManagement, Building Research and Information, and Intemational Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities, and Nations.In collaboration with Dr. Hodgson, Svetlana published an influential book Making Projects Critical (Palgrave), drawing on a seriesof distinctive workshops with the same name with contributions from a range of international researchers.

DAMIAN HODGSON BA (HONS), MA, PhD is senior lecturer in organisational analysis at Manchester Business School, University ofManchester. His key research theme at present is the phenomenon of projects in work organisations, encompassing an analysis of theemergence of project-based organisations, the widespread adoption of project working across a range of industries, and ongoing effortsto institutionalise project management as a professional discipline. In particular, he is keen to promote a critical analysis of projectmanagement knowledge, in terms of its epistemology, ontology and related core assumptions. Damian is also co-investigator on theEPSRC-funded network entitled "Rethinking Project Management" (vimw.rethinkingpm.org.uk. He has presented work at a variety ofinternational conferences including the Academy of Management, the Critical Management Studies Conference, the British Academyof Management, and EGOS, and has published in a range of journals including the Journal of Management Studies, Organization,Management Decision and Gender, Work and Organisation.

AUGUST 2006 PROJECT MANAGEMENT JOURNAL