Project Management Research: Development, and the Future

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Abstract
Introduction
Contextual background
Perspectives to consider
Significant historical shifts in the study of project management
Future possibilities and existing constraints
Conclusions
References

Abstract

The field of project management is constantly changing. What once was a phenomenon strictly referred to when addressing the issues surrounding engineering or construction management, project management is now a separate research area. Lately, in conjunction with the rapid growth of information technology for business, professional project management from specific groups of processes for certain areas and areas of activity has grown into a generally accepted management system. Nowadays, project management is focused on a wide range of business initiatives, providing theoretical framework for operating project portfolios. Therefore, it is crucial to take into consideration the existing vault of scholarly literature related to project management conceptualization in order to understand the concepts and strategies of project management. The following paper focuses on analyzing the development of project management and its thematic perspectives. The ultimate goal is to connect past developments and current trends with the potential advancements in the future. The patterns and progressions in the history of project management’s development are the main sources of inquiry into the future of the concept. The paper contextualizes project management, offers a variety of different perspectives in relation to the concept, and makes informed predictions as to what challenges and opportunities are in store for the field of project management.

Introduction

Project management (PM) is a subject that has risen to prominence over the past decades. Companies use projects as a way of coordinating work as they allow to bring a semblance of structure to a somewhat chaotic stream of day-today responsibilities on the agenda. Many enterprises have decided to switch to thinking of their initiatives in terms of short- and long-term projects, rather than specific tasks. Initially only a sub-discipline of engineering, PM has grown to encapsulate a “dominant model in many organizations for strategy implementation, business transformation, continuous improvement and new product development” (Winter et al., 2006, p. 638). Nevertheless, despite the wide distribution and the availability of extensive tools aimed at successfully achieving the goals of the project, this area of knowledge is still quite young and needs to be carefully studied. Another important factor in the use of professional tools of the project approach is the need to adapt project management tools to the needs of a specific project.

Thus, a substantial body of literature has been formed, which now serves as the main source of knowledge related to the history and development of project management. For example, a study by Collyer et al. (2010) provides a qualitative research including methodology to improve project management dynamism, the complexity of human behaviors in actual environments, and a new theory to support change. Another study from Evans et al. (2009) investigates project planning in a specific environment, which makes it impossible to be widely generalizable beyond the offered setting. Finally, Giezen’s (2012) research develops a deviant case study research design with narrative interviews, and explains why megaprojects may be improved by maintaining time and choosing simplification.

Project planning becomes especially relevant today, as the globalization and digitalization of the world takes its toll on business industry, demanding for new approaches and innovative thinking. The research agenda allows one to understand the current trends and findings in the field of project management, giving a comprehensive overview of it. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to analyze the existing body of literature centered around project management in order to determine past trends in PM conceptualization and predict some of the future ones.

Contextual background

Projects are the driving force behind change for any organization. Accordingly, the way to create business value of an organization through the implementation of project activities depends on the capabilities and resources of the organization, as well as on its project management strategy. Based on this assumption, the project approach and all the variety of existing project tools are favorable for use if the company has the knowledge to implement the planned initiatives. In order to build this knowledge, there is a need to understand the concepts of project management, its current trends and tools, and theoretical framework behind it. An enhanced project management practice can provide the enterprises with new effective solutions in the field of operating multiple projects at once, and improve the current strategies. Due to this fact, it is crucial to study the project management research agenda, as it offers an overview of the vast assortment of the theories, findings, case studies, and concepts.

Firstly, for the purpose of this paper, it is imperative to conceptualize project management and the studies surrounding project organization and coordination. The term “project management” in its traditional and most well-known meaning is used to refer to “the processes, tools, techniques and concepts to manage the execution of the project” (Geraldi and Soderlund, 2017, p. 57). However, over the recent decades, there has been a trend characterized by a steady departure from classic PM definitions. In the scholarly community, project management is no longer regarded as a separate activity (Garel, 2013). Now, the stream of academic literature focused on project management is active, yet it has not always been the case. Arguably, the early era of PM literature dates all the way back to mid-1980s (Aubry, Hobbs, and Thuillier, 2008). Therefore, the insights gathered as a result of more than three decades of studies provide modern-day researchers with a substantial theoretical framework. In the context of this paper, the primary objectives behind analyzing the existing body of literature related to project management relate mainly to the assessment of the most prominent of existing studies

Perspectives to consider

When identifying the different perspectives of project management development, it is imperative to use a framework to aid in completing a qualitative analysis of the research. For this paper, the thematic framework described by Padalkar and Gopinath (2016) is incorporated. It implies the categorization of the common themes in PM research into four groups, which include deterministic themes, explanatory themes, non-deterministic themes, and finally, general themes. It is imperative for the purpose of this paper to examine each of these themes in detail in order to determine what nuanced perspective each of them offers.

Deterministic Thematic Perspective

The early era of project management research is characterized by a heavy focus on a deterministic perspective, primarily centered around the themes of scheduling and methods of control. Deterministic evaluation methods are of a more quantitative nature, establishing a set of KPIs and milestones to be reached at certain points. According to Padalkar and Gopinath (2016), the peak of this thematic perspective dates back to the early to mid-1980s, signaling that there has been a reduced interest in the deterministic approach ever since. Their work Six decades of project management research: Thematic trends and future opportunities discusses how project management have developed throughout the years, offering an evolutionary approach.

Moreover, this study sets to explore the existing literature on the topic, which allows the reader to predict the potential trends that can arise in the future. The deterministic view posits that projects ought to be evaluated based on their “iron triangle” performance, which includes such key indicators as cost, quality, and schedule (Jha and Iyer, 2007; Pollack, Helm, and Adler, 2018). Thus, all the projects were considered a fixture with clearly set, deterministic attributes. Proponents of such a perspective argued that improving a project’s efficacy implied optimization of its schedule.

Explanatory Thematic Perspective

The explanatory thematic perspective may start coincides with the slow loss of interest in determinism in the 1980s. A new era signified a newly found fascination with seeking a perfect explanation for various project organization phenomena. Thus, the main themes include “project performance and success, success and failure criteria, and antecedents of project performance” (Padalkar and Gopinath, 2016, p. 1308). The authors state that there is a need to strengthen the positions of explanatory approach that can help evaluate the projects through a qualitative and not quantitative assessment, as it happens with deterministic perspective. However, successor factors remained the primary theme during the active rise of the explanatory era, leading to the prominence of a number of sub-themes, including project efficiency, the contributing role of leadership in project success, stakeholder and human resource management, and so on. Despite the fact that this thematic perspective is now currently saturated, it still reigns as the dominant mode of theoretical inquiry into project management.

Non-Deterministic Thematic Perspective

Once certain academics started to express their doubts in relation to the relevance of the explanatory and deterministic perspectives, a new thematic approach has emerged. In the mid-2000s, “following calls for treating projects as complex social systems and examining the “actuality of projects” (..), and to examine project complexity (…), researchers turned to themes of interdependence and complexity” (Padalkar and Gopinath, 2016, p. 1309). The study gives a valuable insight, stating that for theory building, there needs to be a stronger non-deterministic approach, focusing more on the theoretical framework of project management strategies and tools. This has marked the emergence of the non-deterministic perspective. Apart from those mentioned in the quote above, explanatory themes include project risk, project value, organizational contexts, and many others. Explanatory approach is different from deterministic in its general direction – while deterministic perspective is focused on evaluating the progress of a project, explanatory perspective discusses the various aspects that factor in the project’s success.

General Themes

The project management research agenda is quite vast, as the importance of it has rose with the growth of digitalization and globalization. Some of the most common general themes are research typology and methodology. For example, a study by Wang and Gibson (2010) discusses the correlation between the pre-project planning and project success using mathematical models. The authors state that planning makes it possible to ensure a high probability and high level of achievement of goals, based on the systematic preparation of decisions. Pinto (2013) in his research elaborates on the consequences the human errors might bring into the project, affecting the operational activity of the whole organization. The article explains the most common reasons for project failures in different industries, while also offering advise on how to avoid them. In addition, the studies on general concepts of project management can include research integration and the adoption of PM-related research findings across various sectors, industries, and scholarly fields.

Significant historical shifts in the study of project management

In terms of the development of project management, as mentioned earlier, there are three dominant eras, each of them signaling a shift in the conceptualization of project management and phenomena associated with it. The shift from a deterministic to an explanatory approach signaled moving from a means to an ends orientation, although both perspectives still largely supported the assumption of tractability until a non-deterministic era shattered such an assumption. Additionally, Padalkar and Gopinath (2016) indicate that all of the eras had distinct ontological assumptions. The deterministic era implies a reductionist approach, which means that the studies of the period prioritize conceptual and analytical frameworks. Finally, the non-deterministic era masterfully combines approaches, which are empirical with the ones that are purely conceptual.

Furthermore, in order to get a better grasp of the developmental journey of the PM-associated literature, it is crucial to highlight the prominent trends. Across all the thematic perspectives, there has been a declining trend. The lack of excitement about older themes combined with a low interest in new ones results in an overall decline. Over the period of 2000-2015, the most influential theme has been project methods (Padalkar and Gopinath, 2016). Despite a relatively high interest in project methods under both deterministic and non-deterministic perspectives, the theme continues to decline (Seymour and Hussein, 2014). As for the most engaged theme, success factors show the most progress and no signs of convergence so far. Success factors are not the only explanatory theme as a part of the positive trend. Project risk is another explanatory theme, which is now the third largest overall in the literature focused on project management.

The second theoretical strand of thinking dates back to the 1960s and 70s and is defined as an approach centered around the organizational structure as a determinant of success and efficacy. Winter et al. (2006) clarify that this era is represented by the scholarly works of Lawrence and Lorsch, Galbraith, Toffler, and Mintzberg. Lastly, the third theoretical era has emerged in the 1980s. According to Winter et al. (2006), studies of this era still are of much relevance today as they emphasize “a broader view of projects, recognizing the importance of the front-end, and of managing exogenous factors” (p. 640). It is evident that, as time passed, the focus of researchers shifted towards applying project management insights into practice, leading to the popularity of such themes as strategy and learning.

When discussing the development and diversification of the research pertaining to project management, it is integral to mention the International Journal of Project Management (IJPM). Moreover, the Journal of Project, Program, and Portfolio Management (JPPPM) and the Journal of Modern Project Management are important to mention. Analyzing their articles can serve as a tool for existing the gradual shift of PM from a phenomenon associated exclusively with engineering to a widely-accepted and applied process, which is now known as project management. The journal perfectly captures the dynamic nature of the field.

If prior to the 2000s, the focus of scholarly journals has been on engineering and construction management, then now it has changed to broader organizational topics. According to Geraldi and Soderlund (2017), over the past two decades, the publication “has become more rooted in social science and management/organization studies in a braided sense” (p. 57). For example, the study conducted by Crawford et al. (2006) concludes that there has been a rising trend for IJPM to cover such topics as marketing, project outcomes, and evaluation. Rather than what has been traditionally associated with PM: quality assessments and task coordination – the researchers are now more open to studying more specific or targeted aspects of PM. Thematic trends in publications in one of the field’s leading journals are indicative of larger trends, demonstrating the development of project management research and conceptualization.

Future possibilities and existing constraints

With engineering roots, project management is a phenomenon developed as an extension of a rational, practice-oriented approach. The fact that PM will always be rooted in such technical concepts leads to a whole set of limitations (Shenhar and Dvir, 2007). It is virtually impossible or just exceptionally challenging to engage with taken-for-granted conceits. Geraldi and Soderlund (2017) indicate that project management conceptualization is often associated with the inability of contributing “to theory on a more general level, and if not being recognized as a scholarly field of inquiry as such” (p. 67). These are the primary constraints worth of a mention.

As for the future of project management research, it is evident that there are numerous possible directions of development. Currently, PM is going in the direction of sustainability and digital tools, which marks, perhaps, a beginning of new era in the history of PM research. Sylvius (2017) emphasizes that the collaboration of sustainability and project management creates a new school of thinking in the field of PM. Picciotto (2020), from an international perspective, also states that PM needs to reconsider its approaches, as they are too rigid and goal-oriented, thus not fitting for today’s projects.

There is also possibly going to be a shift towards concepts related to social agenda and cooperation as a part of project management (Morris, 2010). Value creation will most likely become a top priority for project managers, citing such objectives as “creating value” and “facilitating benefits” as the primary ones. Conceptualization will no longer be regarded as static, prioritizing an ongoing conceptualization process instead.

Conclusions

In conclusion, it is evident that the field of project management has changed a lot over the past couple of decades. The thematic perspectives have evolved from deterministic to explanatory, and then, to non-deterministic. Despite that, a deterministic approach is still the most relevant in current discourse surround PM-associated practices. However, PM has transitioned to include a wide range of themes, such as organizational effectiveness, success factors, risk management, and governance. While it might be challenging to make predictions about the future of the field of project management, it is apparent that ”hard” and static convictions about PM will be replaced by the understanding of this phenomenon as a dynamic one.

References

Aubry, M., Hobbs, B., and Thuillier, D. (2008) ‘Organisational project management: An historical approach to the study of PMOs’, International Journal of Project Management, 26(1), pp. 38–43. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.08.009

Crawford, L. et al. (2006) ‘Uncovering the trends in project management: Journal emphases over the last 10 years’, International Journal of Project Management, 24(2), pp. 175–184. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.10.005

Collyer, S. et al. (2010). Aim, fire, AIM—project planning styles in Dynamic Environments. Project Management Journal, 41(4), pp.108–121.

Evans, J. et al. (2009). Discrete return Lidar in natural resources: Recommendations for Project Planning, Data Processing, and Deliverables. Remote Sensing, 1(4), pp.776–794.

Garel, G. (2013) ‘A history of project management models: From pre-models to the standard models’, International Journal of Project Management, 31(5), pp. 663–669. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.011

Geraldi, J. and Söderlund, J. (2017) ‘Project studies: What it is, where it is going’, International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), pp. 55-70. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.06.004

Giezen, M. (2012). Keeping it simple? A case study into the advantages and disadvantages of reducing complexity in Mega Project Planning. International Journal of Project Management, 30(7), pp.781–790.

Jha, K.N. and Iyer, K.C. (2007) ‘Commitment, coordination, competence and the iron triangle’, International Journal of Project Management, 25(5), pp. 527–540. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.11.009

Morris, P.W.G. (2010) ‘Research and the future of project management’, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 3(1), pp. 139-146. doi:10.1108/17538371011014080

Padalkar, M. and Gopinath, S. (2016) ‘Six decades of project management research: Thematic trends and future opportunities’, International Journal of Project Management, 34(7), pp. 1305–1321. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.06.006

Picciotto, R. (2020). Towards a ‘new project management’ movement? An International Development Perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 38(8), pp.474–485.

Pinto, J.K. (2013). Lies, Damned Lies, and project plans: Recurring human errors that can ruin the project planning process. Business Horizons, 56(5), pp.643–653.

Pollack, J., Helm, J. and Adler, D. (2018) ‘What is the iron triangle, and how has it changed?’, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 11(2), pp. 527-547.doi:10.1108/IJMPB-09-2017-0107

Seymour, T. and Hussein, S. (2014) ‘The history of project management’, International Journal of Management & Information Systems (IJMIS), 18(4), pp. 233–240. doi:10.19030/ijmis.v18i4.8820

Shenhar, A.J. and Dvir, D. (2007) ‘Project management research—The challenge and opportunity’, Project Management Journal, 38(2), pp. 93–99. doi:10.1177/875697280703800210

Silvius, G. (2017). Sustainability as a new school of thought in Project Management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, pp.1479–1493.

Svejvig, P. and Andersen, P. (2015) ‘Rethinking project management: A structured literature review with a critical look at the brave new world’, International Journal of Project Management, 33(2), pp. 278–290. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.06.004

Wang, Y.-R. & Gibson, G.E. (2010). A study of preproject planning and project success using ANNS and regression models. Automation in Construction, 19(3), pp.341–346.

Winter, M. et al. (2006) ‘Directions for future research in project management: The main findings of a UK government-funded research network’, International Journal of Project Management, 24(8), pp. 638–649. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.08.009

Click Here To Order Now!