Search results

The purpose of this paper is to review and analyze Albert Hirschman’s landmark book Development Projects Observed, share its insights for managing big projects, discuss its theoretical implications and how it may contribute to the current understanding of project behavior, project management (PM), and in what way it may encourage the rethinking of PM.

The paper is based on an in-depth analysis of Hirschman’s book. The paper draws on the writings of Jeremy Adelman who authored Hirschman’s biography, Cass Sunstein and Michele Alacevich who, respectively, wrote the foreword and afterword of the Brookings Institution classic published in 2014. It also profits from the work of Robert Picciotto who first met Hirschman in 1964, and Bent Flyvbjerg who recently offered a test of validity for Hirschman’s “Hiding Hand” principle.

Albert Hirschman was an original thinker and, the authors argue in many ways, a father of PM scholarship. His ideas had profound implications for social sciences and lasting influence in academy, policy, and practice. Although, to a great extent based on studies of projects, his ideas have had surprisingly little impact on modern writings of PM. This paper contributes to amending this weakness in current literature on PM. The authors identify in Hirschman’s book a set of core ideas that possess analytical power for explaining problems in contemporary PM. They include the principle of the Hiding Hand, the power of context, the role of complexity and uncertainty, the unexpected project effects, project traits, and latitudes/disciplines. For all his work and way of research, the authors conclude that Hirschman is not only an early behavioral theorist in PM but equally an early rethinker of PM.

This is the first paper that offers a discussion of Hirschman’s ideas on contemporary projects, how to understand them, their behavior, including the principle of the Hiding Hand and other important nuggets of wisdom in his research such as the significance of project traits, latitudes, and disciplines. The authors discuss in what respects these ideas may enlighten PM practice and theory. This paper also conveys the novel idea that Hirschman is an early rethinker of PM.

The purpose of this paper is to report on a PhD thesis that examined the empirical relationship between a specific set of critical success factors (CSFs), project success, and success dimensions (criteria) from the perspectives of World Bank project supervisors (task managers or task team leaders) and project managers (the national project coordinators). Also, the PhD thesis author's journey and motivation are explained.

Data were collected by web questionnaires addressed to 1,421 World Bank task team leaders and paper‐based questionnaires delivered to 600 national project coordinators in 26 different countries in Africa. Principal component and confirmatory factor analyses, multiple correlation and regression analyses, as well as structural equation models were used for data analysis in this study.

First, research findings highlight a specific set of World Bank project CSFs (monitoring, coordination, design, training) and the existence of a second‐order latent CSF, that is World Bank project supervision. Second, they suggest that World Bank project supervision has differing significant influences on the two project success dimensions and that the first (project management (PM) success) does not significantly affect the second (deliverable success). Third, consistent with theory and practice, they suggest that the most prominent CSFs for both World Bank project supervisors and managers are design and monitoring. Fourth, they suggest that for the national project coordinators, project success is insensitive to the level of design efforts but a significant correlation does exist between monitoring efforts and project “profile”, a success dimension which is an early pointer of long‐term deliverable success (impact).

This study offers insights into the relationship between success factors and dimensions for ID projects with the perspectives of both the World Bank project supervisors and managers. The thesis calls for further research on PM in the ID industry sector.

The purpose of this paper is to improve understanding and practice of project management by assessing whether two of its core myths also prevail in international development (ID): first, that project managers (PMs) plan fully for project success, including implementation success and end‐user satisfaction; and second, that they can focus on “getting things done”, free of concern for strategic issues.

The analysis of a high‐profile World Bank project and of the policies and rules under which their PMs operate serves as a means to carry out the research. The authors uncover certain “facts” that challenge the myths that prevail in standard project management. Furthermore, they examine how these facts and the corollaries they produce guide the behaviours of PMs differently in the ID field.

In the ID field, and contrary to the standard practice in project management, it is found that: PMs are not involved in overall planning, and are limited to implementation planning, because they lack the necessary latitude. Hence, they practice project implementation as the art of avoiding making mistakes as they juggle donor procedures and guidelines. Second, PMs are well informed about the overall strategy of their project, which is articulated by the donors and the beneficiary country, but they are limited in their ability to contribute directly to its success. Thus, they may fail to deliver the intended development strategy even if they “get things done”.

This paper argues that these two core PM tenets are convenient myths at best, given the asymmetrical distribution of power, the strong front‐end activity, and the procedures orientation of international development projects.

This paper addresses questions regarding the nature and the content of the work of PMs in the context of ID. In contrast to other sectors, projects are found to be linked more clearly to the higher strategic issues, and yet PMs are less empowered to contribute to them. Thus, all stakeholders may have to revise their expectations regarding what PMs can realistically do in ID. These findings are relevant to scholars and practitioners alike.

The value of this paper lies in examining the basic question of “what PMs do”. Although ID has been project‐oriented since the 1950s, this question has not received much attention in standard PM literature. In assessing “what PMs do”, the paper also brings into question “what project management is”.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the empirical relationship between project management (PM) efforts (the extent to which national project coordinators (NPCs) – the project managers in the aid industry sector – make use of available PM tools), project success, and success criteria.

Data were collected by way of questionnaires delivered by mail to 600 recipients in 26 different countries in Africa.

The research results suggest that project success is insensitive to the level of project planning efforts but a significant correlation does exist between the use of monitoring and evaluation tools and project “profile,” a success criterion which is an early pointer of project long‐term impact.

This paper contributes to PM research by exploring the relationship between the use of PM tools and project success in the non‐traditional PM – although project oriented – aid industry sector. The paper highlights self‐perceptions of NPCs and should not be interpreted in other ways.

This paper highlights the importance of PM tools in practice. Further, it suggests that NPCs (who are in fact only involved in project execution) put a lot of effort into monitoring and evaluation. In so doing, they strive to ensure project performance and accountability throughout project lifecycle, and this contributes to project “profile.”

This is the first study that offers insights into the relationship between PM efforts and project success in the aid industry sector. The paper calls for further research on PM practices in the aid industry sector where projects remain important instruments for aid delivery.

Worldwide, major projects often make the headlines as they suffer from a fourfold whammy of delays, cost blowouts, benefit shortfalls and stakeholder disappointments. It seems that error and bias can explain their underperformance. Which overarching explanation outweighs the other? It is the question this paper aims to address.

Insights are garnered from decades of research on thousands of major projects in developed and developing countries worldwide. In particular, two high-profile project cases, the Veteran Affairs Hospital in Aurora, Colorado (USA) and the Philharmonie de Paris (France), are explored.

The case projects show that error and bias combine to best explain project (under) performance. Applying best practices or debiasing project cost and benefit estimates is insufficient to prevent cost blowouts and benefit shortfalls. The confrontation of the two overarching explanations is not merely platonic. It is real and may lead to a media and legal battle.

This viewpoint calls practitioners to transcend the error versus bias debate and reconcile two key characters in the world of major projects: the “overoptimistic” who hold a bias for hope and firmly believe that, despite error down the road, many projects would, in the end, “stumble into success” as creativity may come to the rescue; and the “overpessimistic” who hold a bias for despair and think many projects should not have been started.

This study examines scholarly communications in the International Journal of Managing Projects in Business (IJMPB) and identifies the journal's leading trends from 2008 to 2019.

This study analyzed a sample of 522 articles published in the IJMPB since its inception in 2008 until 2019. A set of bibliometric measures was used in the study to identify publication trends, citation structures, leading authors, institutions and countries. Additionally, analysis of research methodologies, industrial sectors and research themes of the articles was carried out through a rigorous content analysis. To examine the changes in journal expansion over time, the duration of publications (from 2008 to 2019) was divided into three subperiods.

The study findings show that 793 authors from 370 institutions and 58 countries contributed to the journal during this period. In terms of contributions, Australia and the Scandinavian countries are at the top, while Asian and African countries occupy a lower position. Moreover, among authors, Derek H.T. Walker was found to be the most prolific, with the highest weighting score and number of articles. Similarly, RMIT University of Australia emerged as the most productive institution. The articles were predominantly case studies followed by mixed methods (i.e. both surveys and interviews are used for data collection). Most of the articles in the sample were related to project management in general. However, several articles reported on construction, information technology (IT) and manufacturing projects.

This study is useful for the researcher community to understand the journal's scientific productivity. Further, it will also help identify dominant topics in the field of project management.

This is the first comprehensive review article presenting a general overview of the journal's leading trends and researchers since its inception in 2008.

The purpose of this editorial is to reflect on the growing interest of situated project research.

The editorial is conceptual and relies on published work and the articles included in the special issue.

With this special issue it is found that practice‐based studies, also called Projects‐as‐Practice studies, interested in the everyday activities of project practitioners, are multi‐faceted and rich. What may also be seen is that practice‐based studies are not yet a coherent area. However, it is more important that practice‐based studies allow researchers to understand the organization less as an entity and more as a socially‐accomplished task.

Several implications for research are offered, including the need for studies that emphasize the small details of organizing, and that practice‐based studies are not restricted to a certain methodology but depend on what a particular paper tries to accomplish.

With an ever‐growing stream of research focusing on projects the guest editors argue that it is about time to look into the details of organizing. This could be accomplished through a number of ways but in this special issue it is proposed that approaching traditional areas with a conscious naivety when asking the questions may do it. For the practitioner, the special issue offers important insights into how things are done in practice, which may be used as a mirror or reflection upon their own practice.

This editorial and special issue offer insights for any academic interested in understanding projects differently.

The aim of this study is to evaluate to what extent the project team size influence the relation between transformational leadership and success of international development projects (IDPs). The paper draws on leader-member-exchange (LMX) theory and contextualizes transformational leadership style to temporary project environment particularly that of an official development assistance project in an African context.

The research is based on the processing of a primary database collected by questionnaire from 111 coordinators of IDPs in Benin. The structural equation method based on the PLS approach was used to test our hypotheses.

First, the preliminary results reveal that, in the context of IDP, projects managers are much more sensitive to the “management” and “visibility” dimensions than to the “impact” dimension of project success. Then, following the hypothesis test, the results show that transformational leadership has a direct positive influence on the success of IDP. Project team size does not play a moderating role in the relationship between transformational leadership and project success. Also, considering the effect of the specific dimensions of transformational leadership on IDP success, only the “idealized influence” dimension influences directly and positively on the latter.

Research calls for examining the role of team size vis-à-vis transformational leadership style and project success and calls in general for studying project manager's leadership styles. This study contributes to literature by answering such calls. In addition, the originality of this study lies in the evaluation of the influence of the specific dimensions because the exclusive use of leadership forms provides an imperfect and oversimplified picture of reality.