Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the process of translation of an institutionalized governance framework as adapted to a major project in practice. Although infrastructure projects have been studied for decades, most studies have emphasized economic or contingency-based perspectives. Of those studies, some researchers have focused on governance frameworks for public infrastructure projects, and their impact for shaping the front-end phase of those projects. Yet, little is known about the way actors translate and enact those governance frameworks into practice. Understanding this translation process will lead to a better understanding of the overall performance of major infrastructure projects.

This qualitative research is based on a case study of one public infrastructure project in the health sector in Quebec, Canada. Through non-participant observation and interviews, the planning phase of the project is presented as it unfolds.

The process of translation is presented, from the ostensive, institutionalized governance framework, to appropriation into performative practices, which resulted in 12 specific practices: four “structuring” practices at the institutional level, five “normalizing” practices at the organizational level and three “facilitating” practices at the project level.

The main contribution of this paper is to enrich our understanding of the governance of major public infrastructure projects with process- and practice-based theories.

The purpose of this paper is to explore commonalities and differences between projects and processes, and between project management (PjM) and process management (PcM), with a view to challenge this dichotomic typology, clarify the gray areas in between and propose better ways to classify and manage different endeavors.

The research compares different tools and techniques used in both fields, explores the respective literatures and uses various examples to bring out similarities and differences.

The current paradigms engender a number of organizational endeavors, which are actually complex processes being managed as projects, using the PjM body of knowledge. Because each instantiation takes a somewhat different form, it is treated as a one-of-a-kind undertaking; whereby many of the opportunities for learning and continuous improvement associated with PcM are lost. A reframing and typology is proposed to clarify the central notions involved.

The proposed model has not been tested empirically and the authors could not agree on all aspects of the paper, though existing differences are more about degrees, nuances and wording than about the basic findings of the paper.

The research makes the case that two research and practice communities that are evolving independently have much to gain by adopting a unified model and integrating their respective bodies of knowledge. Practitioners would thus access resources that are better adapted to the management challenges they are facing and gain a sustainable source of strategic advantage.

The paper challenges long-established paradigms between two distinct research streams. A new typology and classification criteria are proposed.

This study focuses on the dynamic relationship between organizational actors and engaged scholars involved in a normative assessment conducted in a public organization managing major projects.

We build on a 15-month engaged scholarship experience carried out in the Ministry of Transport of Quebec. We explain and analyze the normative assessment process, using a storytelling approach and vignettes to explore four situated learning moments.

This study offers a deeper understanding of how normative assessment is conducted, and how situated and collective learning occur throughout. We find that both organizational actors and researchers learn through this process and synchronize their mutual learning such that researchers actually participate in a larger organizational transformation.

Like any qualitative endeavor, this research is context-specific. We offer several research avenues to extend the applicability of findings.

This article could inspire organizations and scholars to collaborate on normative assessment during organizational transformation. This approach is of particular interest in the context of a worldwide pandemic where public and private organizations all have to adapt to new sanitary, economic, technological and social realities.

In a context marked by growing concern for the research-practice gap and the relevance of scholarship, our study illustrates the development of a mutually beneficial collaboration between practitioners and researchers that enhances understanding of complex organizational phenomena and issues.

This research highlights the relevance of engaged scholarship and supports normative assessment as a social process to generate mutual learning.

The purpose of this paper is to summarise a doctoral thesis that has been defended in 2007 and to share scientific results on a recent organisational phenomenon, the Project Management Office (PMO), in a context where most of the literature is currently coming from consultants. The focus of this research bears on the PMO transformation process rather than on the description of their great variety. Results bring into question some established paradigms on PMOs.

The methodological strategy is based upon a constructivist epistemology. Just as organisations are complex social entities, so too are the specific organisational project management structures that encompass PMOs. The methodological strategy is designed to understand such complexity. Results reported in the thesis are based upon a grounded theory approach where over 60 interviews from four large organisations were analysed to uncover the process of transformation of organisational project management.

There are two primary findings. First, a PMO should not be considered as an isolated island in the organisation, but rather as one part of an archipelago, defined as the organisational project management. Second, the organisation project management and specifically the PMO evolve continuously adapting to changes in their external or internal environment or as an answer to internal tensions.

From an academic perspective, the originality of this research rests primarily on its non‐positivist epistemology to the study of PMOs and particularly with the mobilisation of a social conceptual framework. From the professional perspective, it provides PMO managers with a fresh look at their own configuration and it gives them means to understand their evolution through their particular history. Being able to do this reflection, managers making decisions on structural dimensions are more critical of the advices from outsiders.

Today's organisations still face the duality of organising for both innovation and projects through organic structures while at the same time maintaining stability within their hierarchical structures. Issues, tensions and conflicts arise at the interfaces between these two/competing modes of organising. The purpose of this paper is to explore what really happens at the interfaces between the structures and governance modes that result from the prevalence of project‐oriented organisations. The theoretical framework is based upon the actor‐network theory (ANT) in order to capture networks construction around project management offices (PMO) deliverables that cross multiple organisational boundaries.

This research is of explorative nature. Even though the number of cases is limited to two, a strong research design was obtained through maximizing together their homogeneity and heterogeneity. Data were primarily collected from semi‐directed interviews with 29 individuals. Data analysis were done within a grounded theory approach. This study focus on one particular PMO deliverable: the project status report. The itinerary of the project status report was followed within each organisation.

What this study shows is the complexity of the translation process followed by a project status report. It highlighted specifically the existence of multiple arenas for negotiation. Interfaces can then be seen as translation centers where multiple perspectives on the project are discussed. Issues, tensions and conflicts are to be resolved when converging towards an irreversible unique point of control. Translations are not free. They incurred significant transaction costs which are invisible to the management team.

While many other perspectives would permit a better understanding of what happens at the interface between hierarchy and projects, this research focused on networks constructlon within the ANT framework. This research is exploratory and as such there are certain inherent limitations. First, it was limited to two case studies only. Second, only one deliverable was scrutinised through ANT. Further research should also be undertaken to link project monitoring and control functions to project governance.

Practical implications relate to the capability of anticipating the consequences of organising within dual structures. This research leads to three major conclusions: PMO is part of the power system and politics; there are costs to hyper‐control; and interfaces could be seen as learning opportunities.

This originality of this paper is twofold: the research subject and the theoretical framework. First, the research subject looked at politics and power systems within the organisational project management. While previous researches have identified issues, tensions and conflicts surrounding the management of multiple projects, none has clearly focused on this subject. Second, this research adopted asocial approach based on an ANT framework. This approach focuses on the networks construction where issues, tensions and conflicts can be observed while they unfold.

The purpose of this paper is to present a theoretical framework and the preliminary results from a research programme on organisational project management. It aims at exploring how organisational project management can be conceptualised as a function within the organisation.

The methodological framework is based on a constructivist epistemology. This research programme contains two sequential phases based on a robust mixed method. The first phase of the qualitative approach, which is the focus of this paper, includes 20 interviews with executives and middle managers.

This approach is expected to be helpful in assessing the fit between organisational context, project management implementation and organisational strategy. The proposed theoretical framework draws from the exploration of organisational project management as a function. Preliminary results confirm that organisational project management can be best understood as a function within the organisation. Future research includes the second phase of this research programme based on a quantitative approach.

This research situates project management within the theoretical field of organisational design. It borrows from innovation literature the concept of function that serve as a foundation piece in the proposed framework, to integrate the various activities undertaken to manage multiple projects.

This research provides some evidence for the organisation design that serves articulating different activities undertaken for the management of multiple projects into a coherent function throughout the organisation.

This research explores what organisations really do when they face the challenges of managing multiple projects while at the same time pursuing their operations. Interviews with executives and middle managers clearly justify the identification of a function dedicated to the overall project management.

The purpose of this paper is to revisit Christophe Midler's contribution through L'auto qui n'existait pas (The car that did not exist), first published in 1993. The paper summarizes and examines the main themes of the book based on current knowledge and ends with suggestions for future research opportunities.

The paper is grounded in an in‐depth analysis of Midler's book and a one‐hour interview with him.

Midler argues that projectification is not a temporary managerial fashion; quite the contrary. At Renault, he witnessed a profound industrial transformation founded on collective learning. Central to this transformation was the establishment of project management as an engine of renewal within the permanent organisation.

Revisiting Midler's work on projectification generates new insights into understanding the current situation confronting organisations in all industries as they evolve in their approach to creativity and innovation.

Two original facets of Midler's seminal work still influence the field of project management. First, he provided a global understanding of the creative organisation. He described, analysed and explained how an organisation reinvents itself, not only in terms of project management, but more globally, from a permanent organisation perspective. Recent research developments focus on project‐oriented organisations, program and portfolio management, organisational project management, and others. Midler's work should be more widely known and referenced for its capacity to conceptualise what simultaneously happens in multiple, concurrent, organisational terms as a project is carried out (e.g. financial, commercial, technological and career development). Second, Midler conducted a study from within an organisation for four years. In this respect, he could be seen as a precursor of recent project management research practices.