Research Agenda in Project Management

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

Context of the Research Agenda
Perspectives on This Research Agenda
How the Functional Model of Communication Literature Has Developed
Critical Analysis of a Corporate Culture-Focused PMC Research Agenda
Lessons, Limitations, and Future of the Research Agenda
Reference List

Context of the Research Agenda

Many people who give it enough thought would readily agree that globalization hinges on a project economy. According to the Project Management Institute (PMI), the project economy is a social domain in which firms complete projects, deliver products, and align value streams, ultimately delivering “financial and societal value” (2020, p. 5). Dismayed by the difficulty in quantifying the current economic contribution of project management (PM), Brantley (2018) cites an undated study by Wheatley, estimating that PM contributed a quarter of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) and $10 of the global GDP at the start of the 21st century. Interestingly, many scholars recognize the adverse effects of poor PM (Brantley 2018). Intrigued by botched projects’ proclivity to turn into a “black swan,” Flyvbjerg and Budzier (2014) conclude that PM failure routinely cost top managers their jobs, sink corporations, and puts nations and cities at peril. MP is vital because of the financial and social rewards it promises; it even deserves intent focus because of the havoc it inevitably wrecks upon failure.

Project management is a costly and risky undertaking since projects typically demand immense resources from inception to take-off. Many projects run over several years, in the process gulping an average of $167 million, while those on the extreme high-end consume over $30 billion (Flyvbjerg and Budzier, 2014). Meanwhile, Antony and Gupta (2018) revealed that an organization risks over $1 million and lives whenever a project fails. That value seems small until one realizes, for instance, that it is all one needs to launch a business startup in Ontario, Canada (Ontario Business Central, 2021). Even more concerning is that financial costs are often underestimated; there is a good chance that even the scary figures recorded hitherto do not reveal the true scope of the problem. It is no wonder Baghizadeh, Cecez-Kecmanovic, and Schlagwein (2020) suggested that lack of communication and coordination is a major cause of the high rate – 77% – of information systems development project failure. In retrospect, effective communication remains elusive for many organizations, jeopardizing projects that cost millions of dollars.

A lot of knowledge and sophisticated communication technologies exist in the business sphere. However, barriers to effective communication in project management seem to be reinventing themselves in defiance of the concerted efforts to eliminate or reduce them. These enduring challenges demand a comprehensive literature review to identify knowledge gaps promoting this scourge. Accordingly, this inquiry seeks to understand the current state of communication research on PM.

Perspectives on This Research Agenda

A common assumption undergirding all project management communication (PMC) research is that projects (what people need) are the product of two materials: skills and capabilities – combined through communication. This line of thought leads to the conclusion that a project manager’s central duty, if not the only one, is to facilitate the flow of information. Indeed most PM-focused research seems to validate this idea. The PMI, a respectable body and contributor to the PM discourse, and other scholars estimate that a project manager’s work mostly revolves around communication (Alvarenga 2019; Brantley 2018). Seemingly, discussions or inquiries regarding PMC seem to be bound by a hidden compulsion to conform to consensus.

The most salient perspective in this research agenda fundamentally remains unilateral. Project management communication, as a concept, is definitively restricted to the confines of functionalism and often viewed through the lenses of either information exchanges or coordination of people’s actions (Brantley 2018). As Brantley (2018) observes, even when new sub-niches emerge under this discipline, such as the arguably recent agile PM, communication is still treated on a shallow functional basis. Broadly, much of the existing knowledge on PM has been established on the functional model of communication, which almost by default continues to shape the perspective in this research agenda.

The functional communication framework is the only ideal relational approach for many PM professionals. More nuanced project managers and advanced scholars in this field technically term it the Source–Message–Channel–Receiver (SMCR) model. Brantley (2018) recognizes it as a modern version of the Shannon-Weaver Communication Model invented in the mid-20th century. Under SMCR, communication is simplistically understood as sending and receiving messages. Intuitively, PM communication is a dual process deemed to have occurred upon passing the right information to the intended recipient within a reasonably acceptable timeframe. Unsurprisingly, scholarly inquiry and innovation efforts under PMC have been exclusively focused on one goal: enhancing communication flow for the project’s successful completion. This view is so embedded in modern PM practice that it is enforced through PMI’s certification exam as the best practice. This modus operandi, as this text later explains, cannot evade the pitfalls of consequentialism.

How the Functional Model of Communication Literature Has Developed

The functional communication framework dates back to 1949, when Shannon, a researcher and engineer at Bell Laboratories, made a major theoretical breakthrough regarding signal transmission from source to destination. Concerned with improving efficiency in telephone communication, that is, separating noise from the message-bearing signal while maintaining maximum telephone capacity, Shannon fashioned his theory with purely engineering touch. Later, Weaver paved the way for its application to PMC by reorganizing its philosophical aspects around human communication, hence the name Shannon and Weaver Model.

The Shannon and Weaver Model comprises seven elements, all defined and arranged according to their functions. The first is an information source charged with choosing the desired message from a set of other options (Brantley, 2018). Another vital part of this popular framework is the transmitter. It converts the message into the signal, thus encoding and completing the encoding process. In the third position comes the message, the object of the whole process. The fourth feature is the path a message follows from the transmitter to the encoder, commonly referred to as the channel. Subsequently, there is the receiver – the reverse transmitter decoding the signal to reveal the original message. The sixth feature is the destination; it describes the target place for the message. Finally, there is noise, which describes all the nuisances that ultimately distort the message or cause transmission errors.

Inspired by Shannon and Weaver’s work, David Berlo conceived the Source–Message–Channel–Receiver (SMCR) model. Berlo was drawn by the challenges pervading communication despite the theoretical advancement in this area. In expanding the unilateral model proposed by Shannon and Weaver, Berlo explored the individual components of communication with a special interest in the factors affecting each. The most outstanding distinguishing factor in Berlo’s work is his focus on the objectives and purpose of communication. Moreover, Berlo widens his framework to capture verbal and nonverbal communication, including the emotional aspects involved in the process.

Kim and Han (2014) argued that communication success hinges on the balance between the sender and recipient. The SMCR stresses the need to attain a form of balance in all elements of communication. For example, Berlo submits that the strength of a source is determined by their communication skills, attitudes, knowledge, social system, and culture. However, the receiver must also match the sender based on these features for them to be synchronized for maximum communication potential (Kim & Han, 2014). Notably, the model fails to identify the specific cognitive tasks completed in the communication process but stresses the need for both the sender of the message and its receiver to possess the capability to undertake them for effective communication to occur.

Project management communication is such a broad field that it has equally attracted significant research attention. It would thus be misleading to insinuate that PMC models are limited only to the ones discussed above. Notably, at least half a dozen other PMC models exist, but their differences are merely superficial because they fundamentally mimic the functional theory (Brantley, 2018). As Brantley’s (2018) work reveals, the past few decades have however witnessed an upsurge in dissatisfaction with the widespread use of the functional approach to PMC. This displeasure is perhaps readily discernible in Myers-Briggs Types theory.

The Myers-Briggs Types theory is unarguably detached from the functional model of PMC. Brantley (2018) explains that the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) was inspired by Jung’s 1971 theory of psychological types. The author further clarifies that the concept rests on the thesis that behavior might appear randomly varied when it is, in fact, orderly and consistent because humans tend to demonstrate some basic differences in how they perceive and judge. According to Myers and Briggs Foundation (2014), people learn about their environment – ideas, events, people, and things – through perception. Subsequently, they make judgments, that is, reach conclusions about what they have perceived. Accordingly, systematic differences in what individuals perceive and the meaning ascribed to them inevitably lead to differences in values, skills, motivations, and interests.

The MBTI is believably the most popular subjective tool for assessing normal personality differences. It is established around 16 personality types subsumable into four planes (The Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2019):

Extraversion or Introversion is the preferred method of focusing attention.
Using Sensing or Intuition to take in information.
Decision-making through Thinking or Feeling.
Dealing with an individual’s external environment through planned Judging or Perceiving.

The MBTI, being over half a century old, has gained significant attention and continues to influence contemporary PMC. Millions of people undertaking MBTI are drawn by its acclaimed ability to promote, among other benefits, self-understanding and development and management training (Kim and Han, 2014). Many PM experts also seem to endorse MBTI by recommending it as an ideal tool for training managers in effective communication (Kim and Han, 2014; Mallari and Pelayo, 2017). While many professionals seem to recognize MBTI’s vital role, none has explored how to use it for improving PMC in real life.

Critical Analysis of a Corporate Culture-Focused PMC Research Agenda

Contemporary PMC research has stoked criticism for lacking the agility to the prevailing business circumstances. In a recent proposal for a new research agenda, Brantley (2018) highlights the need to recognize with the utmost urgency the complex responsive processes of relating, a feat that remains unfeasible under the restrictive purview of the functional model undergirding contemporary pm practice. Notable advancements in PM research promise to revolutionize the functional approach only to add inconsequential extensions, such as communication style, without fundamentally changing the model (Brantley, 2018). The supposed advanced models of PMC end up disintegrating in the face of retrospectively surmountable and avoidable challenges that attract costly project consequences.

Another chief shortcoming of this PMC framework lies in its overreliance on outcomes. It takes little effort to realize that the primary yardstick for evaluating project managers is rigged to assess the efficiency of project delivery along with the calibrations of time, budget, and customer specifications. This view overshadows the importance of effective communication. It does not matter how well a project manager communicates as long as they deliver the desired project outcomes. It is like praising individual liberty and justice as the basis of national development only to remain indifferent when authoritarianism equally achieves the desired goal.

The lack of diversity in ways of enhancing project management is concerning. Leading voices in this field are seemingly unperturbed that their continued emphasis on creating a communication plan detailing the intended audience for a piece of information and how to deliver it is undermined by the inefficiencies of informational or transactional processes (Brantley 2018). They seem to forget or disregard the core goal of the project economy: to leave behind a better planet by converting skills and capabilities into things that people need. Although the name misleadingly suggests dealing with the inanimate, PM is designed by humans for their benefit. In other words, the present research agenda in PMC overemphasizes functionalism, thereby reducing humans to what roles they can serve and optimizing their potential for those functions. Ultimately, people are commoditized, forgetting that they need to remain human to communicate effectively about gaps they need project management to bridge.

Dismayed by the deranged state of the contemporary workplace, Schwartz, Gomes, and McCarthy (2011) contend that information available for people to consume is overwhelming, and business processes are fast-paced, placing employees in a perpetual state of “urgency and endless distraction” (p.10). They further observe that the furious nature of the corporate culture creates a vicious self-sustaining cycle with debilitating silent consequences. These costs include “less capacity for focused attention, less time for any given task, and less opportunity to think reflectively and long term” (Schwartz Gomes & McCarthy, 2011, p. 10). Upon getting home, the author adds, workers, have less time for their families, minimal time for rewinding and relaxing, and shorter time for sleeping. People then resume work the following day, “feeling less rested, less than fully engaged and less able to focus” (p. 10).

Schwartz, Gomes, and McCarthy (2011) suggest that corporate culture is the number one and possibly the only barrier to effective project communication. It dehumanizes employees and diminishes their capacity to create value in their roles at the workplace, producing consequences that extend beyond the offices but endure long enough to be a part of the following workday. Based on this background, it is sufficient to propose that effective PMC is more about the internal state of the recipient of the message than it concerns the source. For example, an order to create or implement a new enterprise resource planning (ERP) software may be given to a qualifying company, but the result will ultimately depend on how well the project development team will understand the order and, more importantly, their wellbeing and level of engagement to creatively complete the request.

Following Schwartz, Gomes, and McCarthy’s (2011) recommendation, the proposed PMC research agenda should focus on the organizational culture as it affects its human capital/project team, with respect to four elements: sustainability, safety, self-expression, and importance. The sustainability aspect emphasizes the need to recognize and align PMC with human’s inborn rhythm – the fundamental need to spend and renew energy. An ethic of more, bigger, faster should not be pursued at the expense of the employees’ need to renew because doing that would almost always guarantee failure.

Lessons, Limitations, and Future of the Research Agenda

Project management communication researchers have made remarkable advances in proposing numerous theories of PM communication, but they have devoted minimal attention to analyzing how the internal business environment has evolved, potentially outpacing the models. So much knowledge has been accumulated about PM but woefully, little retrospective energy is dispensed to assess whether the overwhelming speed and volume of data have become perilous.

This proposed research will incise beyond the inauthentic recognition of emotional intelligence when it is already common knowledge that emotions influence any individual and those around them. Doing this would invalidate the usually unspoken expectation that employees should set aside their emotions as they park their cars, for instance, while entering the workplace. Thirdly, the culture should enhance deep, sustained, perceived attention and avoid the risk of overwhelming the project team with information. Finally, the research agenda promises to embrace the idea that people, including organizational cultures that put humans first rather than profitability, can be motivated by a philosophy in which it’s project stakeholders genuinely believe.

In conclusion, a recognizable limitation, however, is the expansive nature of this research agenda. Redefining the organizational culture as a basis for a truly humanized PMC is not a small feat. Capitalistic imperialism engulfs the business environment, putting employees in a perpetual state of disempowerment and dependence on the owners of the means of production. The pressures of social stratification extending into the workplace make communication challenging despite increasing awareness of the benefits of cultural benefits. It is costly to detach from the grain of nature, a fundamental way to connect with humans and work for social benefits. In the short term, it is even costlier to bend a society back to this almost forgotten path. A practical starting point of future research is to analyze how the approach proposed herein fits in the broad context of PMC literature and its potential for success.

Reference List

Alvarenga, J. C., Branco, R. R., Guedes, A. L. A., Soares, C. A. P., & e Silva, W. D. S. (2019). The project manager’s core competencies to project success. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business.

Baghizadeh, Z., Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., & Schlagwein, D. (2020) Review and critique of the information systems development project failure literature: An argument for exploring information systems development project distress. Journal of Information Technology, 35(2), 123-142.

Brantley, W.A. (2018) A new research agenda for project management communication theory. Project Management Center for Excellence, University of Maryland, USA.

Flyvbjerg, B. and Budzier, A. (2014) Why Your IT Project May Be Riskier Than You Think. [online] Harvard Business Review.

Kim, M.R. and Han, S.J. (2014) The characteristics of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in nursing students. Advanced Science and Technology Letters, 47(305).

Mallari, S.D.C. and Pelayo III, J.M.G. (2017) Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Personality Profiling and General Weighted Average (GWA) of Nursing Students. Online Submission.

The Myers & Briggs Foundation. (2019) The Myers & Briggs Foundation – MBTI® Basics. Myersbriggs.org.

Ontario Business Central. (2021) Ontario Online Registration / Renewal of a Master Business License. [online]

Schwartz, T., Gomes, J. and McCarthy, C. (2011) The way we’re working isn’t working: the four forgotten needs that energize great performance. Simon and Schuster.

Click Here To Order Now!