Search results

The purpose of this essay is to illustrate how project management “pull” and AI or analytics technology “push” are likely to result in incremental and disruptive evolution of project management capabilities and practices.

This paper is written as a critical essay reflecting the experience and reflections of the author with many ideas drawn from and extending selected items from project management, artificial intelligence (AI) and analytics literatures.

Neither AI nor sophisticated analytics is likely to elicit hands on attention from project managers, other than those producing AI or analytics-based artifacts or using these tools to create their products and services. However, through the conduit of packaged software support for project management, new tools and approaches can be expected to more effectively support current activities, to streamline or eliminate activities that can be automated, to extend current capabilities with the availability of increased data, computing capacity and mathematically based algorithms and to suggest ways to reconceive how projects are done and whether they are needed.

This essay includes projections of possible, some likely and some unlikely, events and states that have not yet occurred. Although the hope and purpose are to alert readers to the possibilities of what may occur as logical extensions of current states, it is improbable that all such projections will come to pass at all or in the way described. Nonetheless, consideration of the future ranging from current trends, the interplay among intersecting trends and scenarios of future states can sharpen awareness of the effects of current choices regarding actions, decisions and plans improving the probability that the authors can move toward desired rather than undesired future states.

Project managers not involved personally with creating AI or analytics products can avoid mastering detailed skill sets in AI and analytics, but should scan for new software features and affordances that they can use enable new levels of productivity, net benefit creation and ability to sleep well at night.

This essay brings together AI, analytics and project management to imagine and anticipate possible directions for the evolution of the project management domain.

This to show how critical success factors (CSFs) from practitioner-oriented research can be tested and used to generate new theory.

This paper uses an extended example regarding the integration of IT departments following organizational mergers and acquisitions to illustrate in proof of concept that such practitioner-oriented research can generate new substantive theory and be used to begin a cycle of representation-testing leading to enhancing domain knowledge. The method used consists of the identification of an exemplary practitioner-oriented research article, restatement of CSFs into testable propositions, gathering data through interviews with phenomenon participants, analyzing and interpreting data relative to these CSFs, then presenting the results pertaining to these CSFs and observations from examining them holistically.

No CSFs were affirmed in all cases, neither were they rejected in all cases. The pattern of answers reveals a significant difference between factors representing general management best practices and technical practices. The higher frequency among management factors shows a relative universality to these items, whereas the technical issues are noted less frequently as they each apply to smaller subsets of all post mergers and acquisitions integrations but remain critical when they do apply. This set of responses suggests that the frequency of responses does not indicate the importance of any given factor across settings.

This study suggests (1) CSFs, while generally helpful, can also be misleading when applied such that, where of potential importance, they can be brought into a theorizing mode for refinement and extraction of additional knowledge; (2) that CSFs can be sorted into those tending toward general management principles that apply most frequently in contrast to those of critical importance but applicable across fewer situations; and (3) that as a proof of concept the case to theory transformation method can work to introduce heuristic knowledge into a process-initiating theorizing, raising prospects for subsequent continued improvement.

Assuming robust reporting of CSFs in well-conducted cases, this study knows that at least in one setting these factors were important in achieving particular results. However, this study does not know, without subsequent testing and theorizing, whether the factor applies across circumstances and whether it requires particular handling (e.g. timing may be critical but relies on varied conditions to indicate when actions need be taken). By theorizing based upon CSFs for important IS phenomena, the authors create a bridge between knowledge as used in practice and the scientific tools for increasing its value over time.

Although the authors know of case and multiple case studies surfacing best practices in post mergers and acquisitions integrations, they know of no broad studies across numerous organizations; they also know of no studies demonstrating the relationship of management and technical CSFs in an IS phenomenon. Further, although there are other techniques advocated for theory initiation and building, the authors know of none that transforms heuristic or anecdotal knowledge for subsequent theorizing and continual improvement at a more detailed level than mid-range theory.

The purpose of this commentary is to discuss the interpretation of the work by Alam and Bagchi in the larger context of foreign direct investment (FDI) in practice.

This commentary is an essay.

While this paper does a creditable job of inferring relationships based on available data, conclusions regarding the dynamics of FDI decision making in practice should be avoided. This is because all of the data used is inferred from observable precursors and effects of FDI, but does not observe actual decision making in practice.

While noting that conclusions based on inference from observable and countable artifacts of FDI should be handled with caution, there are no recommendations in this essay about what alternative methods other researchers could use to obtain this sort of information.

The cautionary message of this commentary is not unique, but should be repeated frequently, as people all have a tendency to project from the data they have to what they would like to know.

This research expands the scope of the exploitation/exploration literature which has generally embraced a firm-level perspective by showing the theoretical and practical relevance of this framework for the study of entrepreneurial behaviour from an individual-level perspective. The study exemplifies specific instances where explorative or exploitative aspects of behaviour are likely to be manifested as a response to specific types of shocks that precede and impact the decision to quit and start one’s own business. Different types of shocks or entrepreneurial events displace the individual from the inertia of existing behaviour and pave the way for the consideration of a new set of opportunities; a new set of opportunities where entrepreneurial initiatives are perceived to be both feasible and desirable (exploitation–exploitation). Drawing upon 80 semi-structured and longitudinal interviews with entrepreneurs who quitted their ‘salaried job’ in order to start their own business, the study: (a) provides an inventory of events/shocks found to precipitate the interviewees’ decision to quit, and (b) links the various types of shocks with the prospective explorative and/or exploitative entrepreneurial initiatives. In this respect, the dynamics that underlie the effects of shocks on entrepreneurial behaviour are illustrated, while blurriness and interrelatedness of exploitative and explorative aspects of entrepreneurial behaviour are exemplified. Such a detailed list of shocks may serve as reference tool for both prospective entrepreneurs who wish to make an entrepreneurial shift in their career, as well as managers who wish to be proactive in avoiding or encouraging entrepreneurial employee turnover.

Despite a growing body of research on exploration and exploitation, scholars have tended to study the phenomena from a narrow perspective mostly within larger, well-established organizations. However, it is still far from obvious how top management within small-to-medium sized enterprises (SMEs) are to address the liability of newness and seek access to resources and capabilities relevant for the pursuit of exploration and exploitation. Resource sourcing and allocation decisions are particularly critical in SMEs and must be aligned with the firm’s fundamental strategic intent and growth model. For example, organizations following a stage model by first developing a domestic market and then expanding globally will require different bundles of resources and capabilities than organizations that are designed to conquer the global arena. Indeed, management systems will likely need to adapt across the firm life cycle such that it can fulfill an explorative function in the earlier stages and an exploitative function in later ones. Hence, early-stage ventures have to master the resource reallocation process which is contingent on their access to capital. Across the firm life cycle, venture capitalists can tap into the growth potential of early-stage ventures is a key factor behind their successful short-term innovative performance as well as long-term survival.