Search results

This paper reports on an action research study based optimization project related to healthcare IT implemented on the Faroe Islands. The aims were to study what constitutes value in the public healthcare setting by applying and activating existing resources in the organization, hence answering the overall research question: How can a resource-based view (RBV) improve benefits management (BM) practices?

By applying a RBV to findings from an action research study of an optimization project of an integrated health information system (HIS), a framework of capabilities needed in a public HIS setting to create value was developed.

The theoretical contribution is a framework explaining how BM practices and, hence, value can be interrelated in a public healthcare IT system.

The study shows the need for academic IT professionals to structure and facilitate value generation, especially in the form of creating an innovative and learning environment in the form of an action research based project.

This study suggests which actors should be motivated and developed in order to ensure value in healthcare IT projects. Having value creation in mind, the model could have potentially broad applicability in a variety of healthcare IT settings.

The findings leads to better usage of public healthcare resources.

The present research studies real problems in a real setting, thus providing distinct ideas on how to improve public value creation by direct engagement of researchers.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the similarities and differences between the Danish rethinking project management (RPM) initiative named Project Half Double (PHD) and the RPM research stream. The paper furthermore discusses how PHD and RPM can inspire each other in research and practice.

This is an empirical paper based on collaborative research between industry and researchers. PHD has developed principles and practices driven by industry consisting of ten leading stars and the impact, leadership and flow (ILF) method. The ten leading stars and ILF method are compared to RPM research. The comparative analysis is then used in a broader discussion about how the research-driven RPM initiative can enrich the industry-driven PHD initiative and vice versa depicted in a theoretical understanding of translations between global ideas and local implementations.

RPM and PHD share a focus on value creation, social processes, learning and complexity while PHD also focusses on lean thinking, agile thinking, front-end loading and leadership, which are largely topics beyond the RPM research stream.

The paper presents how stakeholders from Danish industry interpret the actuality in projects and how they want to move forward with a radically different project paradigm. This is expressed in the ten leading stars and ILF method, which is compared and contrasted to the existing RPM literature providing a foundation for further development of both RPM and PHD.

The purpose of this article is to investigate collaboration in project management research. Although the literature shows an increase in collaboration between scientists and social scientists for various reasons, it is unclear how and why such collaboration takes place in project management research. The literature does show that co-authorship of articles published in project management journals is on the rise due to increased collaboration between researchers in developed countries and emerging economies as well as developing countries. However, no detailed study has been conducted to investigate how such collaboration occurs in practice in project management research. This article addresses this gap.

We use a multi-method approach (action research as a meta-methodology and surveys) using qualitative data to reflect on a successful collaborative externally funded research project. At the end of the study, a survey was used to investigate how collaboration occurred among the 26 researchers involved, who were spread over nine countries to collect data on a sponsored research project led by the authors who were the principal investigators. We also compare our findings from the original project with findings from a second survey of a purposeful sample of ten project management researchers who have conducted or are conducting collaborative research in order to validate our findings.

Through this study, we were able to compare the reasons for increased collaboration in scientific research reported in the literature with what we learnt from our own experience in collaborating on a large-scale project across geographical boundaries and cultures around the world. We were also able to get some insights on enablers and barriers to collaboration from peers who have collaborated on project management research from the second survey. We found that, although some of the reasons explained in the literature were confirmed in our study (e.g. the reputation of lead researchers), some other reasons (e.g. the prestige of institutions) were not that important. The conclusions section of this article provides a more detailed comparison. We also found that using a project management approach would deliver better outcomes. The literature on scientific collaboration was divided on the value of a project management approach and preferred a combination of firmness and flexibility. We found that using action research as a meta-methodology to reflect on our research gave us further insights into why we did what we did at certain critical points in our research that moved us forward.

Our study used two surveys with a limited number of researchers to compare what was found in the literature on reasons for collaboration in scientific research and how research outcomes were measured using citation rates. Conducting interviews or focused groups could have provided more nuanced findings. However, our findings did show that collaboration is beneficial to both experienced and early career researchers and helps them to publish in higher-ranked journals resulting in better visibility for the research. This is an interesting observation and merits further investigation. Theoretical implications: Findings from this research contribute to the broad literature on collaborative research in science and social science with a focus on practice-based fields such as project management where collaboration between academics and practitioners is becoming important.

The study provides some insights into the reasons for processes used and benefits from collaboration in project management research. Our findings have also been validated with our peers. Thus, this study will be useful for setting up and managing collaborative research in project management.

Effective collaboration in research can provide social value through mentoring of early career researchers.

This is the first detailed study of collaborative research in project management. It also proposes an action research model that can be used to retrospectively analyse long-term research projects to reflect upon and improve.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the extent of the continuing influence on project management (PM) research directions of rethinking project management over the last ten years.

The authors chose a qualitative research approach that involved reading all papers published in the International Journal of Managing Project in Business since its commencement in 2008. Content analysis was performed on these papers to allow axial coding of key article content influence themes.

The research identified the strength, over time, of the three research interest clusters on the PM research agenda and resultant changes in the PM paradigm. The five directions put forward by the rethinking PM agenda and other researchers ten years ago have continued to influence the PM research agenda.

Findings provide a better understanding the changes in PM research directions since rethinking PM, the increased breadth and sophistication of PM research in general, and future research directions.

In view of the substantial gaps between desirable and actual competencies of project practitioners, there is a genuine and continual need to improve approaches towards project management education. The purpose of this paper is to empirically examine whether previous work experience of students pursuing a master’s programme in project management plays a role in their understanding and learning from the programme.

Survey data were collected from 282 respondents, who included working project professionals along with first-year (junior) and second-year (senior) students of a two-year postgraduate programme in project management. Considering the responses of working project professionals as the benchmark, the paper employs exploratory factor analysis and multiple comparisons to examine differences in the perceived importance given to factor groupings of critical success factors (CSFs) of construction projects by different respondent groups.

Results of the study suggest that irrespective of students’ seniority in the postgraduate programme, responses of students with previous project work experience more closely match the responses of project professionals, in contrast to students without such experience. The results indicate that students’ previous project work experience does play a role in their understanding and learning. In addition, the paper also identifies four factor groupings of CSFs and, diverging from past studies, conceptualises “alignment” as a new factor grouping.

Findings support the view that adequate previous work experience may be included as an essential qualifying requirement for pursuing higher education in project management.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is one of the first empirical studies that investigate the requirement of students’ previous work experience and reveals its significance in higher project management education.

In 2006, the “Rethinking Project Management” network called for a paradigm shift in project research, and proposed five research directions. The directions inspired research and marked a milestone in the development of the field. The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the past decade and to rejuvenate these research directions.

The authors propose the umbrella term: “project studies” to denote the research related to projects and temporary organizing. Project studies is conceived not only as a body of research, but also as a social process embedded in research communities, and contemporary Zeitgeist. Based on Sandberg’s interpretative approach to the fit between work and works (in this case research-researcher) and Habermas’ three types of human interests: technical, practical, and emancipatory, the authors develop a conceptual framework circumscribing three types of research in project studies.

The conceptual framework is used to craft future research directions, in the lines proposed by Winter et al. (2006b).

The authors conclude by proposing for a sixth theme on the practice of theorizing, and call for engaged, ambidextrous scholars, who’s “job” goes beyond the writing of articles and research applications, and includes shaping discourses of project research, nurturing new project scholars, contributing to project practice and carefully considering the legacy of projects and project studies in society.

This paper positions research as a social process, and the role of researchers as actors shaping research in project studies.

Many literature reviews on project management (PM) research are limited to studies published only in PM journals but some reviews do expand their analysis on PM research published also in journals belonging to the management studies field. However, the authors found no previous literature reviews comparing the PM content in different sectors outside the management studies field. Therefore, the analysis and findings of PM content derived from the sector-specific engineering and technology-focused journals are new. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

The authors analyze PM content in nine different sectors, where each sector and its inherent research is connected to specific engineering, technological, or industry-related disciplines. The authors conduct an evidence-informed literature review on PM knowledge in the distinct literatures of these nine sectors. The period of analysis is 24 years from 1986-2009. The authors discuss potential consequences of the findings’ sector-specificity for future PM domain development.

The perspective on different origins of PM leads to a meta-level PM concept covering several different PM domains, each with its own sector specific and separated development path.

The literature analysis purposefully excluded PM journals and management studies, and the authors focused only on sector-specific engineering and technology-focused journals that represent knowledge and wisdom of different PM contents in nine sectors.

The findings have significant potential to contribute to scholarly discussion on the development of a universal PM theory. For applicability across sectors, the authors suggest a modular PM theory with different sector-specific modules for knowledge, concepts, and underlying assumptions.

Currently, this discussion has been mainly focused on theorizing concepts and approaches in management studies only. This study expands the understanding to engineering and technology-focused journals across nine industry sectors/domains.

University–industry projects provide special challenges in understanding and expressing the values required of project management (PM) in delivering stakeholder benefits. This paper presents a framework for understanding, identifying and managing the values of PM in major university–industry R&D projects.

The value framework identifies for each of the key stakeholders, the key PM values that may require to be managed and are largely derived from research literature. Empirical research then explores, prioritises and selects key PM values that need to be managed for a specific project. A large case study is used involving one university and one industry collaborating on a multi-million Euro initiative over six years. Empirical research was conducted by researchers who observed at close quarters, the challenges and successes of managing the competing values of key stakeholders.

The value framework takes a stakeholders' perspective by identifying the respective PM values for each of six stakeholders: university–industry consortium, university, industry, R&D external entities, funding entity and society.

The research was performed using only one case study which limits the generalisability of its findings; however, the findings are presented as a decision support aid for project consortia in developing values for their own collaboration.

Guidance and decision support are provided to multi-stakeholder research consortia when selecting values that need to be managed for achieving tangible and intangible project benefits.

The paper demonstrates a proposed framework for designing and managing the value of PM in large multi-stakeholder university–industry R&D projects.

The purpose of this paper is to develop an investment valuation model using the mezzanine debt mechanism based on blue bonds that explicitly allude to public–private partnerships (P3s) and project finance (PF). Additionally, this study proposes the financial captured value (FCV) theory for measuring how much financial value lenders may capture by becoming sponsors through financing of sustainable infrastructure systems (SIS).

The investment valuation model was validated through the Aguas Claras wastewater treatment plant as a case study.

The empirical results show that lenders may capture financial value by converting outstanding debt into equity shares throughout the operation and maintenance stage. Furthermore, case study results provide new insights into the implications of the debt–equity conversion ratio on the relationship between the sponsors’ internal rate of return and the FCV.

The most significant limitation is the lack of primary and secondary information on blue bonds. Thus, robust statistical analyses to contrast results were not possible.

Researchers and practising professionals can improve their understanding of how mezzanine debt, P3s and PF into an investment valuation model allows financing SIS using a non-conventional financial mechanism. The recommendations will benefit both the academia as well infrastructure industry in bridging the gap between design theory and practice.

Sustainability components have not been addressed explicitly or combined in the financing’s structuring. Therefore, the investment valuation model could be considered a novel methodology for decision making related to financing and investment of SIS.