INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

PROJECT MANAGEMENT
International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 649658 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Recent developments in project-based organisations

Michel Thiry *, Manon Deguire
Valense Ltd., London, UK Received 27 January 2007; accepted 6 February 2007

Abstract Project-based organisations (PBO) refer to a variety of organisational forms that involve the creation of temporary systems for the performance of project tasks. Recently, project-based organisations have received increasing attention in recent years as an emerging organisational form. Recent studies have demonstrated that mature project-based organisations need to adopt integrative approaches that will enable consistent structures, delivery of strategy and uniformisation of knowledge. However, it is generally recognized that project-based organisations are struggling to integrate knowledge and structures and that projects are often viewed as singular ventures. It is the purpose of this paper to further investigate and understand how the widespread adoption of a project management approach within organisations has come to gradually inuence their strategy and governance approaches. This paper concludes that an important aspect of PBOs is yet unexplored and lies in the development of a collaborative relationship between the elds of project and general management and the importance of developing a common language that fosters dialogue. It also emphasises a two way relationship which recognises that project management practice can and will inuence organisational practices as well as the obvious reverse. 2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd and IPMA.
Keywords: Project-based organisations; Governance; Strategy formation; Organizational structures; Program management; Portfolio management; PMO

1. Introduction The purpose of this paper is to investigate and understand the double loop eect of strategy, governance and structure on project management and vice versa. To do so, the paper provides an overview of the dierent terms and denitions pertaining to project-based organisations (PBOs) highlighting how they aim, but not always succeed, to adopt consistent structures to facilitate delivery of strategy [30,7,46]. It is many authors claim that the positivist paradigms legacy has continued to rationalise strategies even if this has led to mitigated success and that, still today,

* Corresponding author. Address: 116, Frameld Road, London W7 1NJ, UK (after June 30th). Tel.: +44 20 8123 1382, +44 7930 210 201 (mobile). E-mail addresses: michel.thiry@valense.com (M. Thiry), manon. deguire@valense.com (M. Deguire). 1 Tel.: +44 20 8133 8989, +32497 16 35 52 (mobile).

strategy implementation does not go much beyond planning [36,15,52]. Recently models such as the balanced scorecard [38] or the business excellence model [19], which were developed to assist the implementation of strategies have in fact intensied the problem by further increasing controls rather than facilitate implementation. It is also well documented that the actual strategy process, in contrast to project processes, is often not planned, linear and rational, but rather ongoing, emergent and enacted [15,52,6]. If anything, PBOs should stimulate the potential for projects to shape or reshape strategies (see Fig. 3). However, it is generally recognized that PBOs are struggling to integrate knowledge and structures when projects are viewed as singular ventures [22] and that, taken individually, these typically do not reect the organisations strategic intent. Recent management literature puts forward new perspectives of corporate governance that promote a shift from strictly shareholder to stakeholder and value

0263-7863/$30.00 2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.02.001

650

M. Thiry, M. Deguire / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 649658

creation approaches, hence, indirectly supporting the movement of organisations towards a more project-based approach. Theoretical frameworks consistently point to the importance of a paradigm shift for projects to become vectors of an organisations strategy [23]. Consequently, it is surprising that a consistent review of the general management literature demonstrates that project, project management (PM) and project-based organisation (PBO) do not appear as keywords or in the titles of the management consulting or strategic management literature. Project management papers are often conned to either the project management journal (PMJ) or the international project management journal (IJPM); these are seldom read by the larger management community. Similarly, when questioned, few project managers seem to see themselves as Managers as demonstrated with the abundance of presentations at both the project management institute (PMI) and international project management association (IPMA) conferences and the publications in the PMJ and IJPM. When these issues arise, they focus mainly on the diculties and the importance, for project managers, to communicate with upper management levels. These considerations have led the authors to question the concept of professional identity and the subsequent elaboration of vocabulary as at least partly responsible for the CXO/PM dichotomy as outlined by such dialectic approaches as Foucault [24]. In this sense, an identity is communicated to others in our interactions with them. But this is not a xed thing within a person, it is a shifting, temporary construction. The identity issue would support ndings from Keegan and Turner [39] that language itself appears to be a strong barrier to acceptance of more intuitive and emergent forms of managing in general and even more so for project managers. The authors conclude that an important aspect of PBOs is yet unexplored and lies in the development of a collaborative relationship between the elds of project and general management and emphasises the importance of developing an overlapping zone of common identity and language between Project Managers and Managers at large that fosters dialogue. It also underlines the importance of establishing this two way relationship which recognises that project management practice can and will inuence organisational practices as well as the obvious reverse. 2. Context: project-based organisations (PBO) PBOs have received increasing attention in recent years as an emerging organisational form to integrate diverse and specialized intellectual resources and expertise [14,30,20, 40,46]: in [69, p. 1475]. We rst provide an overview of the dierent terms and denitions pertaining to project-based organisations since the concept rst started becoming more popular in the late 1990s. Firms in all types of industries are undertaking projects as a growing part of their operations Hob-

day [30] refers to these as project-led organisations and distinguishes them from project-based organisations. DeFillippi and Arthur [14] refer to similar yet dierent projectbased enterprises and more recent denitions such as those provided by Lindkvist [46] are discussed. DeFillippi and Arthur [14] have identied project-based enterprises as organisations that manage production functions within a temporary project organisation setting, e.g. cultural industries (lm production and theatre) and professional services (public relations and events management). For rms that conduct the majority of their activities in project mode and/or privilege the project dimensions over functional dimensions in their structure and processes, Lindkvist [46] talks about project-based rms. Expanding on Clark and Wheelwrights [9] four organisational structures for new product development organisations, Hobday [30] distinguishes six types of organisational forms from functional to project-based. He identies two types of project organisations: projectled organisations, in which the needs of projects outweigh the functional inuence on decision-making and representation to senior management, but some coordination across project lines occurs (p. 878) and project-based organisations, where the project is the primary business mechanism for coordinating and integrating all the main business functions of the rm (with) no formal functional coordination across project lines (p. 874). In this paper, we will use the term project-based organisations (PBO), which seems to be the most accepted, and concentrate on this type of organisation. Hobday [30] describes PBOs as pure projectized organisations with no functional links. For the purpose of this paper, projectled organisations will be considered as included in the PBO concept since the pure PBO is a relatively specialised type of organisation. Additionally, PBOs can refer to either entire rms (as in construction, consultancy and professional services) or multi-rm consortia or networks [29]; it is also possible that some large project-based organisations have functional support areas or that the PBO is nested within subsidiaries or divisions of larger corporations [69]. Many PBOs, as they move from single to multiple project management, have adopted enterprise level IT systems that aim to manage the data produced at project level and collate it at management level. Many have developed programme or project management oces (PMOs) which can have many functions, but are mostly used to generate data and develop standardised project management practices [2,28]. Others still, have implemented portfolio management practices, which have been described as the coordinated management of a collection of projects that may be related or independent of each other [48] or the process of analysing and allocating organisational resources to programmes and projects across the organisation on an ongoing basis to achieve corporate objectives and maximise value for the stakeholders [72]. In all these examples, the focus is on the management of single projects, with

M. Thiry, M. Deguire / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 649658

651

enterprise level control focusing on traditional project level measures (scope, quality, time and cost) and resource allocation. In the last few years, a number of project-based organisations have shifted from a contained project management model to a more strategic perspective. This shift has generated a greater interest in stakeholder management and the relatively new discipline of programme management (PgM) has stemmed from the need to manage benets from multiple interrelated projects [52,71]. This has created new challenges for PBOs. In the last few years, many PBOs have matured and project managers are more and more often sought to exercise organisational management roles. For example, a recent issue of the PMNetwork [63] contains a whole 32-page section on new career challenges and career development for project managers and especially focuses on moving up. Concurrently, individual project managers and organisations have progressively explored new knowledge and practices such as strategic management, value management, portfolio management, value chain management and others, to evolve beyond the traditional scope of project management as dened, for example, by the PMBOK Guide [62] and other systematic approaches. It is now well established that the growing popularity of programme/portfolio management and the emergence of PMOs as an organisational form have prompted an accelerated movement towards project-based organisational structures [31,33,5]. Most organisations have implemented PMOs and portfolio management structures that have evolved from the traditional pyramidal organisational structure (see Fig. 1). In this model, PMOs are playing a similar role to the quality department by monitoring and controlling project performance and developing project management (PM) competencies and methodologies [2,28,62]; portfolio and some PMOs are playing the role of nance by allocating resources across the organisation [62]. In this perspective, project-based structures simply mimic traditional organisational structures, replacing management rhetoric with project rhetoric and may therefore be losing some of the dynamism and exibility attributes that characterise project and programme management. Recently, a number of project-based organisations have shifted from a contained project management model to a more strategic perspective. This shift has generated a greater interest in stakeholder management2 and the relatively new discipline of programme(me) management (PgM) has stemmed from the need to manage benets from multiple interrelated projects [52,71]. Probably because the management of single projects is well documented and its practice well understood in principle (though actual results still often disappoint), most cur-

2 144 instances of the word stakeholder can be found in the PMBOK Guide 3rd ed. [62] versus 108 in the PMBOK Guide 2000 [60].

rent research on organisational project management still concentrates on singular aspects of the project approach. The dichotomy between managing single versus multiple projects has only just started producing empirical evidence or theoretical debates, like the need to link strategy to projects and vice versa [52]; or the focus on social sciences theories as opposed to engineering or systems analysis [81,11,32]; or still, the management of human resource in traditional and project-oriented organisations [27]; and nally, the dichotomy between the project approachs potential exibility and the desire of rms managers to exercise control [7,46,17]. Additionally, projects, as well as complex projects and programmes, which are generally of a more strategic nature, are social constructs on which there is currently substantial disagreement about how to translate the individual project knowledge to multiple project management and then to the management of strategic organisational goals. These disagreements, as well as the general inaccessibility of research to practitioners, seem to entrench practitioners and practice writers in simple, easy to understand mechanistic models of which the project management institutes a guide to the project management body of knowledge [62] is a good example. For example recent project management literature promotes the use of PBO models based on the extension of project management tools and grounded in linear relationships [12,18,41,45,50,67,75]. These views are exemplied in Fig. 1, which shows that these models are very hierarchical in nature and foster compartmentalisation and vertical control. In recent years, a number of management authors have claimed that these linear models are not adequate to manage the complex situations that are the essence of modern organisations [44,68,79]. Reality is also quite dierent from these simple models; based on their survey of 255 PMOs Brian Hobbs and Monique Aubry from UQAM [28] recently reported that the organisational reality surrounding PMOs is complex and varied. Organisations establish a great variety of dierent PMOs to deal with their reality (p. 7). Hobday [30] has identied this situation in very clear terms: The PBO is an intrinsically innovative form as it creates and recreates new organisational structures around the demands of each [. . .] project and each major customer (p. 871). Other authors [6,7,46,74] have also reported that the widespread practice of project and programme management in organisations generate both emergent strategies and behaviours and enacted business and corporate strategies. On the other hand, if standard governance models are used, the main strength of project-based organisations, which lies in coping with emerging situations and responding quickly to changing client needs, can also work against the wider interests of corporate strategy and business coordination [7,30,27,46,74]. All this points to the fact that there is a need to widen the perspective of PBOs and adopt more appropriate organisational models for PBOs [17,83].

652

M. Thiry, M. Deguire / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 649658

Fig. 1. Typical mechanistic PBO model as described in recent PM literature.

3. Evolving structures In the organisational literature one of the current key debates centres around two main perspectives of organisational purpose: some authors argue that it is the business of business to make money and therefore to pursue shareholders interests; others believe that companies exist to serve the interests of multiple stakeholders [56,35,10,3]. Stakeholders interests and value creation are two major issues that aect the make-up of organisations and, by consequence, PBOs. The need for more integrated PBOs could be provided by a coherent project governance approach. A particular problem, which is poorly understood, is how to create real added value for the organisation through the interaction of the project portfolio, programmes and the PMO, as well as the double loop eect of strategy on pro-

jects and programmes and their ongoing consequences on strategy. This iterative to and from process between implemented strategy through projects and the irreversibility of the eect of completed projects on the organisation is yet to be fully appreciated, researched and understood. As shown in Fig. 2, a well integrated PBO would be expected to display strong interrelationships between its projects and both its business and corporate strategies; in such an organisation project managers would be expected to be appointed in senior management roles, or senior managers would be expected to view project management as an integrative process. A less integrated PBO should reveal a focus on single project and multi-project management would focus on resource allocation and data gathering; project managers would be expected to play a purely product delivery roles.

Fig. 2. Vertical and horizontal integration in PBOs.

M. Thiry, M. Deguire / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 649658

653

Based on the literature review, research and experience, the authors have identied three major issues to improve PBO implementation and the perception of project management at organisational level: 1. A horizontal integration process of projects across the product life-cycle, from formulation of the business strategy to delivery of business benets. 2. A vertical integration approach of projects across the project portfolio, to link it to the corporate strategy. 3. Integrative project governance structures that close the gap between corporate goals and product delivery. Fig. 2 graphically displays these relationships. 3.1. Horizontal integration through programme management (PgM) Recent literature shows that PgM seems to have emerged as a distinct discipline from PM as practitioners and managers have started applying PM to the more strategic level or on the management of multiple interrelated projects to produce strategic benets [74]. This contradicts mainstream traditional project management literature that still holds the view that programme management is just an extension of project management where the same principles apply at every level of the hierarchy [80, p.52]. The OPM3 makes an attempt at distinguishing projects and programmes but states that the process groups are the same in projects and programmes and weakly adds that the challenge, however, is more complex [61, p.25]. One of the key issues with current programme management mainstream literature is that it maintains a clear boundary between the project and the business domains which can be illustrated with the following armation: Responsibility for the actual realisation of benets will fall to the business managers in the relevant areas [. . .]. The achievement of benets should be assessed independently from the process of delivery (that is the programme) [8, Sec. 5.9]. Because of their long-term characteristic, programmes will be subjected to contextual change and therefore must include not only deliberate strategies (typically projects) but also elements of emergent strategies. In emergent strategies the focus must be on expected benets and the process must display consistent patterns of actions over time [49]. This requires a learning approach where results are regularly appraised against benets during implementation and changes are managed against these stated benets. Recent research has shown that there is a need for a decision management process in which anticipated results are directly linked to the justication for the decision (expected benets) and the means to support their delivery (resources) [70,25]. It has also been observed that there is a lack of communication between the strategic and tactical levels of management [26,54,59,76]. This points to the need

for a strategic decision management process, to link strategic analysis and choice with strategy implementation. Some authors have suggested programme management could rise to this challenge [53,57,82]. In summary, taking into account most current denitions, programme management could be labelled as: The governance and harmonized management of a number of projects and other actions to achieve stated business benets and create value for the stakeholders. [72,73]

3.2. Vertical integration through portfolio management (PoM) Organisations that adopt projects as a means to achieve change and deliver results often nd it dicult to prioritise projects and to make best use of their resources. Portfolio management is a management approach that aims to align project eorts with the corporate strategy and optimise the ecient use of resources throughout the organisation. Many strategic management writers have also identied the lack of interrelationships as a key problem in portfolio decision-making as little attention is given to business unit interdependencies [4,65]. Unfortunately, the same can be said of project portfolio management, which often relies on computer tools that collect and collate nancial and quantitative performance data from individual projects without taking into account organisational interdependencies. It is well documented that decision-making at portfolio level is still resting on rst degree variable results developed through the risk management toolbox, when upper level strategic decisions have traditionally relied on a non-linear and very dierent toolbox [34]. Portfolio management is a management approach for project-based organisations; its objective is to guarantee ecient use of resources in support of the corporate strategy. As such, its role is to prioritize resources across potential and existing programmes and projects in a consistent and stable way. A consistent prioritization model based on the satisfaction of corporate needs and the wise use of resources must be developed for each organisation. It should take into account more than nancial feasibility and consider a systems perspective of organisational eectiveness and competitive advantage, as well as programme and project achievability. Additionally the process has to be implemented in a way that enables ongoing assessment and realignment of resources and project; a exible, dynamic decision model. Recently, organisational management authors have argued that organisations focus too much on facilitating the optimal utilization of existing productive resources and sharing of residual wealth, but do not take into account processes by which resources are increased or transformed [56,13,42,43]. Value creation is an essential

654

M. Thiry, M. Deguire / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 649658

element of good project portfolio management, privileging not only programmes and projects that limit risks, but also those that maximise opportunities. Except in stable markets or industries, good portfolio management, because it is meant to deal with fairly stable environments, can only be eective if combined with programme management which is meant to deal with more turbulent environments and emergent strategies. In summary, taking into account most current denitions, project portfolio management could be dened as: The process of analysing and allocating organisational resources to programmes and projects across the organisation on an ongoing basis to achieve corporate objectives and maximise value for the stakeholders. [72,73] 3.3. Governance through the programme management oce (PMO) Many organisations are using the PMO to manage multiple projects at organisational level. A recent study of over 750 PMOs by BIA [2] has indicated that the primary business case for implementing a PMO is to achieve more successful implementation of projects and to have predictable and reusable tools, techniques and processes. Therefore, PMO mandates most often include measurable improvement in the management of projects on time, on budget and meeting customer requirements. (p. 3). They also identify as a major success factor, the ability to align projects with the strategy and organisational goals and deplore the fact that PMOs are often used to consolidate and distribute data rather than provide a valuable service to the organisation. The dichotomy is interesting in the sense that based on this research, as well as that of Hobbs et al. [28], the primary task of a PMO seems to be monitoring, reporting, standardizing processes and procedures as well as ensuring training in project management skills, whereas success factors seem to be linked to the alignment with strategy. This operational view of the PMO is in line with that of Kwak and Dai [45], who stated that: the PMO is viewed as a central point for PM implementation throughout an organisation as well as a supportive element that applies PM tools and techniques eectively. Our view, which is based on recent organisational developments and practice, is that the PMO is a governance structure for organisational project management, as shown in Fig. 3. The studies described above show that most PMOs currently focus on the bottom part of the governance structure which consists of optimising eort and gathering data as well as setting standard processes and procedures. As more recently outlined by several authors [27,46,74,78], we believe that, in order to foster the exibility and dynamism of the project environment and deal with turbulent environments, the strategic link, which consists of interpreting the strategy and oering the means to reformulate it, is crucial. Strong statements in that direction have been made recently by the European foundation for quality manage-

Fig. 3. The PMO as a governance structure.

ment (EFQM) and the association for project mangement (APM). The EFQM business excellence model [19] clearly states that a sustainable organisation must rely on leaders (who) develop and facilitate the achievement of the mission and vision (and) develop values (p. 14) and be supported by relevant policies (through which) the organisation implements its mission and vision via a clear stakeholder focused strategy (p. 14). The recently published APM guide to governance of project management [1] identies portfolio direction and project sponsorship as two of the key four components of project governance; the two other being project management and disclosure and Reporting. 4. Analysis In the last 20 years, the essence of the rm has changed with important consequences. Human capital (industry or rm-specic skills and knowledge the know-how) has become more and more important compared to physical assets (the know-what), which is transferable and mobile. Two other factors, depending on human capital, have gained in importance: innovativeness and reputation for quality. Finally, this has initiated a break-up of traditional vertically integrated rms and created new boundaries for legal, economic and technical areas [4,13,15, 37,56]. This means that the organisations boundaries are becoming more uid and that they are more and more dened by complementarity rather than by imposed structures. It also means that strategies are harder to implement if they are structured from the top [7,46,79]. When set in traditional structures, project-based organisations (PBO) display certain weaknesses like: the diculty to coordinate organisational learning and development [30,7]; the linking of projects to the organisational business processes [20,46] and the dicult grouping of a

M. Thiry, M. Deguire / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 649658

655

number of stakeholders from dierent thought worlds [16] or the acceptance by traditional functional areas [17]. Few, if any, papers in the project community of research and practice discuss or investigate these issues by challenging the current dominant organisational paradigms; instead of looking for ways to adapt the organisation to the project-based approach, they look for ways to forcet the project approach to existing organisational paradigms of which the matrix organisation is a good example. In turbulent environments, the relative autonomy of project teams, constantly changing project conditions and ambiguity of the organisational context often result in emergent working practices that inuence the organisational environment [27,46,74,78]. This enactment process results in two basic praxeological implications: (a) the recognition that project management practice can and will inuence organisational practices and, in so doing; (b) that an alternate position may open a door for a redenition of organisations through projects by supporting the adoption of new challenging organisational theories for project-based organisations. The strategy process, in contrast to the project processes, is often not planned, linear and rational, but rather ongoing, emergent and enacted [15,52,6]. In project-based organisations, this stimulates potential for projects to shape or reshape strategies. Project-based organisations further enhance this tendency because the project is the primary business mechanism for coordinating and integrating all the main business functions of the rm [30, p.874]. In the same line of thought, Lindkvist [46] states that we have to move beyond such bureaucratic and cultural ruling in governing a highly individualized, project-based rm. Sydow et al. [69] also express some of the challenges facing the PBO and their managers: Project-based organizing seems to pose a recurring set of dilemmas for managerial practice that have implications for the theory of project-based organisation structure and project organisation practices. One such recurring dilemma or tension within project-based organisations is between the autonomy requirements of project participants and their embeddedness within organisational and interorganisational settings that demand integration of project activities within organisation command and control routines and/or interorganisational coordination eorts. (p. 1475) These inherent tensions observed in PBOs have been reported to create a complex interplay system between multiple projects and stakeholders with continually changing situations as well as decentralization and reorganisation of organisational frames which, in turn result in increased knowledge diusion, distributed and emergent

work practices [7,46]; cf. [78]. Management research has exposed pressures on decentralized organisations a characteristic of PBOs to move towards loosely coupled structures [55] and distributed knowledge [77] to ease tensions. Some authors [30] argue that project-based organisations are ideally suited to deal with complex and turbulent environments; additionally, others [40] argue that the use of traditional project management methods stie innovation and that project-based organisations need to adopt a more organic approach to succeed in turbulent environments. Gorog and Smith [21], argue that strategic management is based on continuous re-formulation and is a form of ongoing adjustment, whereas projects concentrate on achieving one single particular result within set time and cost constraints. Wijen and Kor [82] write that programme management strives for the achievement of a number of, sometimes conicting, aims and has a broader corporate goal than projects. Partington [57] argues that programmes require integration across strategic levels, controlled exibility, team-based structures and especially, an organisational learning perspective, which is able to accept paradox and uncertainty. Murray-Webster and Thiry [53] advocate a vision of interdependent projects and actions which includes mechanisms to identify and manage emergent change. Still, more recently, Lycett et al. [47], Jaafari [32], Morris [51] and Thiry [71] have advocated programme management as a strategic benet delivery process. Programme management, contrary to project management, is meant to deal with complex and ambiguous situations, where a number of actors interact with each other at dierent levels and is therefore essential to develop an integrative approach to PBOs. PBOs also create challenges for managerial practice. These challenges have consequences for both the theory and practice of project organisations. One area of tension that has been identied by many authors [55,69,46,7] is the autonomy requirements of project teams and the decentralized, distributed knowledge and structure of projects versus the organisational constraint to embed and integrate project activities within their planning and control processes and to coordinate strategies and resources at organisational level. This tension is even greater and more obvious in organisations that have adopted the dominant mechanistic, control-based organisational paradigm. Recently, Dovey and Fennech [17] have reported on a case where, although the value of the PMO had been measured and demonstrated, functional managers have succeeded in sabotaging it and senior management has disbanded it. They report strong preference for the traditional functional organisational form and its sequential assembly line approach to managing projects, over the autonomous cross-functional team approach supported by the Programme (p. 16). They conclude that upper management did not support the PMO because managing power downwards is a taken-for-granted situation embedded in the

656

M. Thiry, M. Deguire / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 649658

culture of the organisation and the upwards management of power created an unacceptable threat of political disharmony. Because traditional approaches to organisational change and design have been dominated by stability, routine, and order [78], there is a risk in trying to t projects into an organisational iron cage and losing project managements identity. In doing so, its main characteristics of exibility and dynamism will be lost and its contribution to the management world much reduced. PBOs feature a number of potentially interesting characteristics, among which: decentralization, short-term emphasis and distributed work practices [7]; structural characteristics: strongly decentralized but quite loosely coupled [55]; enacted strategies [6] distributed knowledge [77] and emergent working practices and behaviors [46,74,78]. In a recent study on the role of human resource management in project-oriented organisations, Huemann et al. [27] have conrmed that the environment in a project-oriented organisation is more dynamic and discontinuous. A review of the general management literature, using the academy of management (AoM) publications since 1999 demonstrates that PM does not appear as a keyword for papers or conferences. When references to the project eld are present it is more often through the concept of projectbased organisations (PBO) and solely under the operations management heading. Projects, project management (PM) and PBO do not appear in the management consulting or strategic management tracks. Project management papers are too often conned to either the project management journal or the international project management journal that are not usually read by the larger management community. As previously mentioned, many project managers do not see themselves as Managers nor do they actively take part in the general management communities, except at individual level. Our literature review shows that this relationship is the object of only very narrow systematic study [27,58]. When references to the relationship between projects and general management are made, it is often in the context of practitioner focused PM publications and conferences. Such titles as selling project management (a whole track in the PMI EMEA global congress) are appearing more and more in these conferences and publications, with paper titles such as: leading with power in a project-based organisation, how to bridge the managerial gap between strategy and projects, building the project managers credibility etc. . . [64]. These observations support the research ndings from Keegan and Turner [39] and Thomas et al. [76], who conclude that convincing managers of the ecacy of relaxing assumptions of linearity and rationality may depend, ultimately, on the development of concepts and vocabulary to carry that process forward. Keegan and Turner [39] further argue that the sensual descriptions of innovation management given by respondents seem to contradict their use of formal, rational, linear, mechanistic, and control laden concepts to describe real management. Lan-

guage would appear to be a strong barrier to acceptance of more intuitive and emergent forms of managing in general [39]. For these authors, models that are premised on language and emphasise consistency, rationality, linearity and formality, still seem to tap a chord with managers and management is thus more easily conceived of in terms of certainty, control, clarity and rationality. Interestingly, Thomas et al. [76] oer the same message for project managers in their quest to sell project management to executives. Studies in strategy implementation have demonstrated that strategies are seldom implemented as planned [15,49,66]. Strategy analysis, formulation and implementation are not a linear process, but the three activities are going on concurrently all the time and strategies are therefore formed incrementally [15]. If programmes and projects are used to implement strategies in relatively unstable environments, PBOs are expected to be designed to cope with emergence and enactment, therefore allowing great autonomy to programme managers, who would have responsibility for the business level strategy and displaying value chain principles of cooperation and collaboration between the stakeholders of a programme.

5. Conclusions This paper concludes that an important aspect of PBOs is yet unexplored and lies in the development of a collaborative relationship between the elds of project and general management and the importance of developing a common language that fosters dialogue. It also emphasises a two way relationship which recognises that project management practice can and will inuence organisational practices as well as the obvious reverse.  Although PBO originally stemmed from the desire to manage projects eectively without disrupting the traditional organisational model, the force tting of a project environment into existing mechanistic models has created negative eects that have minimized the positive eects of a project model.  This has emphasised the dichotomy between organisational management and project management as well as between the language and identity of managers at organisational and project levels.  This dichotomy is reected both from a theoretical and practical perspective through the publications and presentations of both groups. It translates through diculties experienced in developing an organisational structure that reects the dynamism of a project approach on strategy formation.  Little or no research has been conducted in the areas of the inuence of project approach on organisational structures and strategies, or either on project managers identity issues. Additionally, very few PM papers are exported to the general management audience.

M. Thiry, M. Deguire / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 649658

657

References
[1] APM. Directing change: a guide to governance of project management. High wycombe: association for project management; 2004. [2] BIA (business improvement architects). The impact of implementing a project management oce report on the results of the on-line survey. Extracted from: www.bia.ca on 09-06-05; 2005. [3] Blair MM. Closing the theory gap: how the economic theory of property rights can help bring stakeholders back into theories of the rm. J Manage Governance 2005;9:339. [4] Bolman LG, Deal TE. Reframing organisations. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass; 2003. [5] Bredillet C. Beyond the positivist mirror: towards a project management gnosis. In: Proceedings of the IRNOP IV conference. Turku, Finland; 2004. [6] Bredillet C, Thiry M, Deguire M. Enacting strategy through projects: an archetypal approach. In: Proceedings of 2005, Munich, May. European academy of management (EURAM); 2005. [7] Bresnen M, Goussevskaia A, Swan J. Embedding new management knowledge in project-based organisations. Organ Stud 2004;25(9): 153555. [8] CCTA. Managing successful programmes. London, UK: central computer and telecommunications agency (now called OGC-Oce of government communications) CD Rom Version; 2000. [9] Clark KB, Wheelwright SC. Organizing and leading heavyweight development teams. Californian Manage Rev 1992;34(3):928. [10] Clarke T, editor. Theories of corporate governance: the philosophical foundations of corporate governance. Abingdon, OX, UK: Routeledge; 2004. [11] Cooke-Davies T. De-engineering project management. In: Proceedings of the IRNOP IV conference. Turku, Finland; 2004. [12] Crawford JK. Strategic project oce, the: a guide to improving organizational performance. Marcel Dekker; 2001. [13] Dallago B. Corporate governance, governance paradigms, and economic transformation. In: Proceedings of the institutional and organizational dynamics in the post-socialist transformation conference, Amiens, 2526 January; 2002. [14] DeFillippi RJ, Arthur M. Paradox in project-based enterprise: the case of lmmaking. California Manage Rev 1998;40(2):12539. [15] De Wit B, Meyer R. Strategy: process context, content an international perspective. 3rd ed. London, UK: Thomson Learning; 2004. [16] Dougherty D. Interpretative barriers to successful product innovation in large rms. Organ Sci 1992;3:179202. [17] Dovey K, Fenech B. The role of enterprise logic in the failure of organisations to learn and transform: a case from the nancial services industry. Management Learning: The Journal for Managerial and Organizational Learning. Sage Publications, in press. [18] EDS. Extracted from http://www.eds.com/services_oerings/so_project_mgmt.shtml on 02-2004. [19] European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM). The EFQM excellence model. Retrieved 08 February 2004 from http:// www.efqm.org/model_awards/model/excellence_model.htm; 2000. [20] Gann DM, Salter AJ. Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced rms: the construction of complex products and systems. Res Policy 2000;29:95572. [21] Gorog M, Smith N. Project management for managers. Sylva, NC: Project Management Institute; 1999. [22] Grabher G. Temporary architectures of learning: knowledge governance in project ecologies. Organization studies special issue project organisations, embeddedness and repositories of knowledge 2004;25(9):1491514. [23] Grundy T. Strategy implementation and project management. Int J Project Manage 1998;16(1):4350. [24] Gutting Gary. Michel Foucault: a users manual. In: Gutting Gary, editor. A Cambridge companion to Foucault. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press; 1994.

[25] Hartman FT, Ashra RA. Project management in the information systems and information technologies industries. Project Manage J 2002;33(3):515. [26] Hatch MJ. Organization theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1997. [27] Huemann M, Turner R, Keegan A. The role of human resource management in project-oriented organisations. In: Proceedings of the 3rd PMI research conference. London, July; 2004. [28] Hobbs B, Aubry M. A realistic portrait of the PMOs: the results of an empirical investigation. In: Proceedings of the PMI North American global congress 2005. Toronto, Canada, Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute; 2005. [29] Hobday M. Product complexity, innovation and industrial organisation. Res Policy 1998;26:689710. [30] Hobday M. The project-based organisation: an ideal form for managing complex products and systems? Res Policy 2000;29:87193. [31] Hodgson DE. Disciplining the professional: the case of project management. J Manage Stud 2002:379. [32] Jaafari A. Project management in the 21st century. In: Proceedings of the IRNOP VI conference. Turku, Finland; 2004. [33] Jamieson A, Morris PW. Moving from corporate strategy to project strategy. The Wiley guide to managing projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2004. [34] Jennings D. Strategic decision making. In: Jennings D, Wattam S, editors. Decision making An integrated approach. Harlow, UK: Prentice Hall Pearson; 1998. p. 25182. [35] Jensen MC. Value maximisation, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Eur Financ Manage 2001;7(3):297317. [36] Johnson G, Scholes K. Exploring corporate strategy. 4th ed. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Prentice Hall Europe; 1997. [37] Jugdev K, Thomas J. Blueprint for value creation: developing and sustaining a project management competitive advantage through the resource based view. In: Proceedings of the PMI research conference 2002. Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute; 2002. [38] Kaplan RS, Norton DP. Having trouble with your strategy? Then map it. Harvard Bus Rev 2000(SeptemberOctober):16776. [39] Keegan A, Turner RJ. The organic management of innovation projects. Comportamento Organizacional e Gestao 2001;7(1):5770. [40] Keegan A, Turner RJ. The management of innovation in projectbased rms. Long Range Plan 2002;35:36788. [41] Kendall GI, Rollins SC. Advanced project portfolio management and the PMO: multiplying ROI at warp speed. NY: International Institute for Learning and J. Ross Publishing; 2003. [42] Kim WC, Mauborgne R. Value innovation: the strategic logic of high growth. Harvard Bus Rev 2004(JulyAugust):17280. [43] Kim WC, Mauborgne R. Blue ocean strategy. Harvard Bus Rev 2004:7685. [44] Kurtz CF, Snowden DJ. The new dynamics of strategy: sense-making in a complex-complicated world. IBM systems journal. Retrieved 04 December 2003, from www.ibm.com/services/cynen; 2003. [45] Kwak YH, Dai CXY. Assessing the value of project management oces (PMO). In: Proceedings of the rst PMI research conference. Paris; 2000. [46] Lindkvist L. Governing project-based rms: promoting market-like processes within hierarchies. J Manage Governance 2004;8:325. [47] Lycett M, Rassau A, Danson J. Programme management: a critical review. Int J Project Manage. Oxford, UK, Elsevier Science. 2004;22(4):28999. [48] Martinsuo M, Dietrich P. Public sector requirements towards project portfolio management. In: Proceedings of PMI research conference 2002. Seattle, Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute, July; 2002. [49] Mintzberg H, Waters JA. Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Manage J 1985;6(3):25772. [50] Moore T. An evolving programme management maturity model: integrating programme and project management. In: Project management institute 31st annual seminars and symposium proceedings, PMI communications, Drexel Hill, PA; 2000.

658

M. Thiry, M. Deguire / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 649658 [70] Thiry M. The development of a strategic decision management model: an analytic induction research process based on the combination of project and value management. In: Frontiers of project management research and application: proceedings of PMI research conference 2002 (Seattle, July 2002). Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute; 2002. p. 48292. [71] Thiry M. Programme management: a strategic decision management process. In: Morris PWG, Pinto JK, editors. The Wiley guide to project management. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 2004 [chapter 12]. [72] Thiry M. Managing portfolios of projects. In: Turner JR, editor. Gower handbook of project management. Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing; 2006 [chapter 4]. [73] Thiry M. Managing programmes of projects. In: Turner JR, editor. Gower handbook of project management. Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing; 2006 [chapter 3]. [74] Thiry M, Deguire M. Programme management as an emergent order phenomenon. In: Proceedings of the 3rd PMI research conference. London, July; 2004. [75] Thiry M, Matthey A. Delivering business benets through projects, programmes, portfolios and PMOs. In: Proceedings of the AsiaPacic PMI global congress 2005. Singapore: Project Management Institute; 2005. [76] Thomas J, Delisle C, Jugdev K, Buckle P. Selling project management to senior executives: whats the hook? In: Project management research at the turn of the millennium: proceedings of PMI research conference 2000. Sylva, NC: Project Management Institute; 2000. [77] Tsoukas H. The rm as a distributed knowledge system: a constructionist approach. Strategic Manage J 1996;17(Winter Special Issue): 1125. [78] Tsoukas H, Chia R. On organisational becoming: rethinking organisational change. Organ Sci 2002;13(5):56782. [79] Weick KE. Making sense of the organization. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing; 2001. [80] Wideman RM. A management framework for project, programme and portfolio integration. Traord, Victoria, BC; 2004. [81] Winch G. 2004. Rethinking project management: project organisations as information processing systems? In: Proceedings of the 3rd PMI research conference, London, July; 2004. [82] Wijen G, Kor R. Managing unique assignments. Gower Publishing; 2000. [83] Zubo S, Maxmin J. The support economy: why corporations are failing individuals and the next episode of capitalism. New York: Allen Lane; 2002.

[51] Morris P. Moving from corporate strategy to project strategy: leadership in project management. In: Proceedings of the PMI research conference 2004, London, UK; 2004. [52] Morris P, Jamieson A. Translating corporate strategy into project strategy: realizing corporate strategy through project management. Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute; 2004. [53] Murray-Webster R, Thiry M. Managing programmes of projects. In: Turner JR, Simister SJ, editors. Gower handbook of project management. Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing; 2000. [54] Neal RA. Project denition: the soft systems approach. Int J Project Manage 1995;131:59. [55] Orton DJ, Weick KE. Loosely coupled systems: a reconceptualization. Acad Manage Rev 1990;15:20323. [56] OSullivan M. The innovative enterprise and corporate governance. Cambridge J Econ 2000;24:393416. [57] Partington D. Implementing strategy through programmes of projects Gower handbook of project management, 3rd ed. In: Turner Simister, editor. Chapter 2. Aldershot, UK, Gower Publishing; 2000. [58] Pellegrinelli S, Partington D, Young M. Understanding and assessing programme management competence. In: Proceedings of the PMI EMEA global congress 2006. The Hague, Netherlands, May; 2003. [59] Pellegrinelli S, Bowman C. Implementing strategy through projects. Long Range Plann 1994;27(4):12532. [60] PMI. A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK Guide). 2000 ed. Project Management Institute; 2000. [61] PMI. Organizational project management maturity model (OPM3): knowledge foundation. Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute; 2003. [62] PMI. Guide to the PMBOK. 3rd ed. Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute; 2004. [63] PMI. Career track. PMNetwork, May 2005. Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute; 2005. [64] PMI. Proceedings of the PMI EMEA global congress. Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute; 2006. [65] Porter M. Competitive advantage. New York: Free Press (Simon & Schuster); 2004[1985]. [66] Quinn JB. Strategic change: logical incremetalism. Sloane Management Review 1978;1(20):721. [67] Richards D. Implementing a corporate programme oce. In: Proceedings of the 4th PMI-Europe conference, London, UK; 2001. [68] Senge PM. The fth discipline the art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday; 1994. [69] Sydow J, Lindkvist L, DeFillippi R. Project-based organisations, embeddedness and repositories of knowledge: editorial. Organ Stud 2004;25(9):147589.