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.

The resource crisis in healthcare can be alleviated by engaging external stakeholders and resources in healthcare delivery. The authors use value and open innovation concepts to understand what motivates the stakeholders to join the healthcare innovation ecosystem and what value such an ecosystem brings to healthcare.

A systematic literature review following the PRISMA framework method was applied to reach the research objective. Out of a total of 509 identified articles published till 2021, 25 were selected as relevant for this review.

Six categories of actors were identified, including innovation intermediaries, which were so far neglected in the healthcare innovation literature. Furthermore, patients, healthcare providers, innovation suppliers, investors and influencers were described. The authors also distinguished internal and external stakeholders. The authors show why and how open innovation projects contribute to involving external stakeholders and resources in healthcare delivery by contributing to patient autonomy, relationship building, knowledge transfer, improving collaborative mindset and culture, advancing know-how and bringing additional finances.

This article is the first one to systematically describe the value of open innovation in healthcare. The authors challenge the positivist approach in value presented by value-based healthcare. The authors show how openness contributes to addressing the resource crisis by involving new stakeholders and resources in the care delivery process.

The purpose of this paper is to shed light on different types of knowledge created and how this links to the project design, process, and content.

In this paper the authors investigate participants' experiences from a three-year interactive research project, designed to trigger reflection among the participants. They apply a knowledge creation perspective on experiences expressed by participants as a result of different research project activities.

The study resulted in five categories of insights with potential for sustainable influence on the participating organizations: an understanding of concepts and theories; an understanding of the impacts of collaborative, reflective work processes; an understanding of the meaning of one's own organizational context; an understanding of the importance of increased organizational self-awareness; and an understanding of the potential for human interaction and communication.

The author’s findings suggest that it is possible to design a project to promote more profound and sustainable effects on a business beyond the explicit purpose of the project. They advise practitioners to make room for iterative reflection; be mindful to create a trustful and open environment in the team; challenge results with opposing views and theories; and make room for sharing experiences and giving feedback.

This study contributes to unraveling key practices which can nurture conditions for knowledge creation in interactive research projects and business projects alike.