From the Editor

International Journal of Managing Projects in Business

ISSN: 1753-8378

Article publication date: 11 September 2009

375

Citation

Walker, D.H.T. (2009), "From the Editor", International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 2 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijmpb.2009.35302daa.001

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2009, Emerald Group Publishing Limited


From the Editor

Article Type: From the Editor From: International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Volume 2, Issue 4

There were 35 peer-reviewed papers in total including one research note, two research practice notes and eight thesis research notes. The general content formulae for each issue of International Journal of Managing Projects in Business (IJMPB) has been to present six substantial regular papers a research or practice note, two thesis research report notes and two book reviews.

The regular papers are of varying length with an aim for around 6,000+words plus references, tables, etc. (though we do and have accepted longer papers). This allows authors to more fully develop the contextual and discussion parts of their papers. Journals papers in many other publications could be criticised as having truncated context and discussion of results, due to word count limitations, and this deprives authors and readers gaining full benefit of salient issues raised in papers that may remain tacitly exposed or otherwise hidden. The research and research practice notes are, like the regular papers, also double blind reviewed. However, because the aim of both research and research practice notes is to advance the ideas of issues that may be new to the project management (PM) discipline, or discuss tools and techniques that are being advanced by a small group of subject matter experts, the nature of references cited may make the authors' identity obvious to reviewers. Research notes may be advancing ideas that could be seen as controversial and it is hoped that this will trigger debate and further papers around the subjects raised. Likewise, research practice notes are aimed to expose readers to tools, techniques and practices that are either experimental or gradually emerging (perhaps adapted in a new PM context from other more established disciplines). Again it is hoped that new practices described will attract validating case study papers and other methods of describing wider use of those described practices. These two categories of paper allow some PM innovations to be better exposed and discussed than might otherwise be the case.

Each IJMPB issue features two research thesis report notes that highlight a recent PM-related doctoral thesis and provides direct links to where the full thesis may be electronically downloaded. The aim of this innovation is to enable PM academics and practitioners to more directly access the complete thesis. This facility can benefit all of us. Often, especially until a few years ago, a thesis was only available in hard copy form through an inter-library loan which can take months to arrange. By “showcasing” the thesis, its approach and contribution, authors can become more widely cited. Perhaps more importantly for readers, this link gives them ready and rapid access to the entire thesis. We hope that this will stimulate more PM research, help set high standards of scholarship and also to expose practitioners to current cutting-edge PM research. The thesis research notes also provide us all with a tangible reminder of the breadth and depth of scholarship that is going on in the PM discipline.

In Volume 2, there were eight thesis research report notes published. Four of these papers are from doctoral graduates of Australian universities. Two are from RMIT University (one a PhD the other a Doctor of Project Management degree who is resident in Canada), one from Macquarie University (a DBA) and the other from the University of Newcastle in New South Wales in Australia. There is also a PhD thesis note from a student who studied and wrote the thesis at the University of Siegen in Germany (and subsequently won the International Project Management Association young researcher award). A further research thesis report notes feature a PhD that was written in French from the University of Quebec in Montreal. Another PhD was written by a candidate at the Lille School of Management Research Group, Lille, France. A PhD thesis is also reported upon in this issue from Sweden that was written in Swedish though, as with each of these thesis research notes, notes are written in English. These thesis research notes are a significant innovation in disseminating cutting edge PM work to the wider PM community.

I am delighted to have thesis research report notes submitted for review and publication for several reasons. First, they demonstrate the truly global effort that is underway in broadening and deepening PM knowledge through doctoral research. Second, these thesis research report notes illustrate the national diversity of backgrounds of candidates and the industry segment background which brings vitality and rich perspectives of national and organisational culture to their work. Third, and for many readers this will be of greatest value, these thesis research report notes demonstrate a wider variety of access to doctoral level study in PM that was understood before we started this initiative. As the director of a doctoral program, and continually getting emails from prospective PM doctoral candidates from a range of countries and industry/academic backgrounds, I find it comforting to know that “out there” are numerous universities and potential supervisors that can offer these potential expanders of PM knowledge with a “home” to undertake their research. These thesis research notes also have indicated a variety in ways in which the graduates have undertaken their doctorate. There are examples of traditional PhDs where a candidate is resident at the university for a period of time full or part time while studying and research. There are also examples of graduates who were using technology from their home base, where they are most likely undertaking action research at their workplace, while enrolled in a doctorate at a university on the other side of the world from them – such as the case with the Doctor of Project Management at RMIT in Australia. Examples of PhDs from Lille in France present an option of candidates spending periods of time on-campus and in their home base. This diversity of PM doctorate options should be very encouraging for those contemplating that step in their career.

Finally, each issue has two book reviews of new PM publications and each issue has a section that provides information on forthcoming conferences and links to a number of web sites of organisations that support the dissemination of PM professional knowledge through conferences, symposiums, and congresses.

Statistics on downloads of journal papers indicates that there is a strong interest in the papers and that this is increasing. We are seeing papers published in Volume 1 being cited in an increasing number of sister publications, books and journals outside the PM discipline.

About this issue

Contributing authors to this issue are based in Finland, Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and the USA. Issue 4 of the IJMPB adheres to its international ethos. We continue to have papers that explore and extend issues relating to questioning the boundaries of PM that help to document and analyse PM emerging practice and future trends.

The first paper in Issue 4 is “Organizational rationality and project management” by Erling S. Andersen, Anders Dysvik, and Anne Live Vaagaasar all from BI Norwegian School of Management in Oslo. The paper investigates the relationship between one aspect of organisational culture, namely the formal rationality of the base organisation, and how projects are approached. Two types of project management approaches (perspectives) are studied: the task perspective (focus on a clearly defined endeavour from the start of the project) and the organisational perspective (focus on supporting the base organisation in its change efforts). The relationship between formal rationality of the base organisation and choice of project perspective is revealed. This paper will be of great value to anyone who is trying to make sense of how to approach PM in an organisation or trying to achieve organisational fit between context and approach. Readers that enjoy this paper should refer to the book review of Andersen (2008) later in this issue.

The second paper “Pursuing relevance and sustainability: improvement strategies for major public projects” by Ole Jonny Klakegg from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway investigates governance issues and the challenges in the front-end of major public investment projects. He identifies problems leading to lack of relevance and sustainability. He argues that these are critically important problems from a strategic perspective that require effective improvement strategies that can be derived from this perspective. This paper reports on some of the findings from the Concept Research Programme in Norway. Results from interviews with 80 international senior experts suggest that lack of relevance comes from projects not linking to users' needs and from unclear objectives. Lack of sustainability comes from unsolved conflict over objectives, lack of commitment and faulty economic assumptions. This knowledge leads to identification of effective improvement strategies for existing governance frameworks. This paper extends our understanding of PM front end process success.

The third paper “Improvisation and agile project management: a comparative consideration” is by Stephen A. Leybourne from Boston University, Boston. This is a comparative paper, considering the extant literature on improvisational working within projects, and agile project management (APM). It concludes with a comparative table of constructs and their segregation into components and outputs. The paper contributes to the growth in the recognition of improvisation as a useful addition to the armoury of the project manager and it complements some alternative perspectives of many projects that are non-traditional and require a more emergent approach to PM (see the research thesis note by Hällgren in this issue). The second area of scrutiny within this paper seeks to position the limited emerging literature on (APM) within the wider project literature, and to examine overlaps and commonalities with improvisational working within projects. This paper moves from the “traditional” project-based paradigm of “plan – then execute” to offer insights into potential emerging best practice for practitioners in some organisational contexts.

The fourth paper “Information and communication design for multi-disciplinary multi-national projects” by Stephen Fox at VTT Technical Research Centre in Helsinki, Finland challenges us to reconsider the way that we achieve shared understanding in multi-disciplinary multi-national projects through the application of information and communication design. This paper reports on action learning research. The originality of the research is that it encompasses: inherent challenges in establishing shared understanding; limitations of generic methods for the communication of information; issues underlying information and communication design; as well as two cases of multi-disciplinary multi-national projects. The value of this paper is that it includes practical examples to inform information and communication design by personnel in project businesses. Practical recommendations related to the challenges highlighted by established theory are provided for reducing time and cost.

The fifth paper “Systematising knowledge management in projects” is by Paul Davidson and Jillian Rowe of the Project Management Academy, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. It provides a practicable systems-based approach to knowledge management in a project environment that encourages organisations to unlock the value in their review processes. It relies on knowledge capture and storage at decision review points, to enrich individual, team, and organisational learning during the project life cycle. The paper introduces a vertical dimension to facilitate the knowledge management process and the authors offer a model that conceptualises project-specific knowledge drawing on and feeding into the organisation's knowledge management system at tactical and strategic levels. It illuminates the broader potential of under-utilised opportunities in well-known management approaches to add dimension to the business project, of knowledge creation, storage, and sharing.

The final paper, “Coaching IT project teams: a design toolkit” is written by Davar Rezania, from the MacEwan School of Business, Grant MacEwan College, Edmonton, Canada and Tony Lingham, Department of Organizational Behaviour, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, USA. This paper explores a design toolkit for coaching project teams. It also provides some insights into theory behind coaching and how that may link to human resource management processes that can enhance the effectiveness of project managers. Coaching is an area of interest in PM that has received scant attention and should be further explored as we now realise that people in teams are the drivers of projects “on the ground.” Project managers and team leaders can benefit form this design toolkit to approach coaching their teams and so this paper will appeal to readers who find leadership, managing teams and organisational learning interesting emerging PM topics of interest.

This issue also provides a research note entitled “On productivity in project organizations” by Tomas Blomquist and Timothy L. Wilson of the Umeå School of Business, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. In this paper, the authors look at the underlying unit cost considerations in project conduct at the firm level and an established business unit concept is extended to multi-project organisations. The approach and background are described along with apparent implications. The approach permits managers to get a handle on productivity in their organisations. It is particularly attractive insofar as it largely depends upon available accounting information for input. Although the paper is conceptual, the authors believe that it may be among the first papers to quantitatively treat productivity in multi-project organisations. The approach can be used to understand the productivity as well as some elements of effectiveness of multi-project organisations. This paper seeks to fuel greater interest and debate by practitioners and PM academics about the topic.

This issue also introduces the work of two recently completed and published doctoral theses. The first thesis research report note is entitled “Innovation and attitude: mapping the profile of ICT decision-makers in architectural, engineering and construction firms” by Dr Graham Brewer from the School of Architecture and Built Environment, University of Newcastle, Australia, and Dr Goran Runeson (supervisor) from the School of Built Environment, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia. His thesis addressed the research question was driven by the question “What really influences decision-makers when considering whether or not to adopt an innovation?” This paper describes the philosophy, methodology, and findings of the study, and illustrates the usefulness of the findings for application in construction and other project-driven industries. Successful use of information and communication technology (ICT) in a temporary project organisation context requires consideration and accommodation of the attitudes of the various project team members. This may entail preparatory auditing of trading partners using an appropriate diagnostic tool. The attitude of decision-makers has not previously been mapped in relation to ICT innovation adoption. Moreover, it is likely that with innovation-specific modification the model will be applicable to other innovations deployed in a similar context. The complete thesis can be accessed on URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/33054

The second thesis research report note is from Dr Markus Hällgren from the Umeå School of Business, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. The paper is entitled “Mechanisms of deviations: observations of projects in practice” and it describes and summarises his PhD thesis that contributes to the understanding of how unexpected events (deviations) are handled and how the limited time available in a project affects the possibilities for reflection and knowledge creation. It explores the reality of project manager's attempts to address loosely coupled components of tightly coupled projects. Rather than reducing uncertainty, project management action through coping with deviations to plans provides mechanisms that thrive on the uncertainty of the situation. Project managers can cope with unexpected deviations to plan in a logical and rigorous way that is currently poorly recognised as an official project management “skill.” There are two main areas of conclusion that are given attention in his paper. First, uncertainty is inherent in projects which can be used when dealing with deviations in projects because while all deviations do not have great consequences, they follow the same basic pattern when managed. Project management in this sense becomes the management of deviations. Second, in terms of the theory of loosely coupled systems, a process and practice-based analysis has been largely missing in the project management literature. The study reported upon investigates and explains this inner life of loose coupling mechanisms. The paper contains references on a number of English language papers written by him as well as a link to his thesis (in Swedish) that can be accessed from URL: www.markushaellgren.com

The intention of this journal is to also provide a review of relevant and useful new PM publications that can enhance the PM academic and practitioner's stock of knowledge that can be reflected upon. In this issue, we review two books of relevance to PM professionals. The first is Rethinking Project Management – An Organisational Perspective (Andersen, 2008) which provides a refreshingly different perspective on PM that is evident from many standard texts. The second book review is of Managing Project Uncertainty by Cleden (2009) which is one of the Gower series on PM that provides books of around 100 or so pages based on new PM aspects or provide an expansion on existing PM topics that attract scant attention in traditional PM texts. Both of these books are well written and can be of great value to academics, practitioners and students.

Finally, this has been a full and interesting year. I learned a lot more about PM myself this year and I thank all contributors and reviewers for their time, effort, energy, and courage in exposing their ideas and research findings to the scrutiny of a double blind peer review. I have been fortunate that the editorial board has also been highly supportive both in encouraging authors to submit papers but also for colleagues to see the value in being a reviewer. The reviewer's role can be a poorly rewarded one. Reviewers are by the nature of the peer-review system nameless and yet their constructive comments for published papers often triggers the “icing on the cake” through highlighting what needs to be clarified or expanded upon and what additional ideas might be considered. I hope that all reviewers find that the process provides them with access to cutting edge work, introduces them to new cited references that they may not have known of, and that the task is pleasant and not a chore. Again my heartfelt thanks to the reviewers for this volume!

Derek H.T. Walker

References

Andersen, E.S. (2008), Rethinking Project Management – An Organisational Perspective, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow

Cleden, D. (2009), Managing Project Uncertainty, Gower, Farnam

Related articles