Hardness and softness of project management approaches: the
influence of contingency factors
Leonie (C.J.H.) Roeterdink
S2463350
c.j.h.roeterdink@student.rug.nl
Supervisor: Dr. C. Reezigt
Co-assessor: Prof. Dr. A. Boonstra
June 2018
Word count: 13.408
Faculty of Economics and Business
Msc BA Change Management
1
ABSTRACT
Almost 70% of all projects fail. A major determinant in project success is the project management approach. Literature on project management is highly shattered, while it is extremely important for managers to understand how to choose among different project management approaches. In order to synthesize literature, hard and soft project management approaches are discussed, along with the role of contingencies in the choice for a project management approach. Unpredictability and structural complexity have been identified as the main contingencies in projects. A conceptual model on uncertainty, structural complexity and unpredictability is developed in order to help project managers make their choice on a project management approach. A multiple-case study is performed to refine theory. As a result of a within- and cross-case analysis, support has been found for the conceptual model. Some refinement of theoretical concepts has been done. The refined conceptual model can be used to identify the project situation and find which project management approach should be chosen based on the contingencies.
2
INTRODUCTION
“Management by projects is an interesting developing field, and one that is growing in influence.” (Leybourne & Sainter, 2012: p. 5). Project management has become a subject discipline among other management functions in literature, such as operations or finance (Kenny, 2003). Mir and Pinnington (2014) have found that project management is positively related to overall project success. To increase the chance of overall success of the project, the project management performance should be managed (Mir & Pinnington, 2014). Therefore, it is important to have a project management approach that fits with the contingencies at place. Pollack (2007: p. 272) concludes his paper with “No one perspective is appropriate to all situations. For project managers … it is necessary to be able to adapt the approach taken to suit the current demands.”
Literature on project management has given reasonable attention to two types of projects and their related management approach: ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ projects (Crawford, Costello, Pollack, & Bentley, 2003; Crawford & Pollack, 2004; Daniel, 1990; Leybourne & Sainter, 2012; Pollack, 2007). Considering a project as more hard or soft can be used as an analytical construction for defining differences in projects and their management approaches (Karrbom Gustavsson & Hallin, 2014). Therefore, hard and soft project have respectively hard and soft project management approaches. The distinction between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ project management approaches is often treated as a dichotomy, but it is important to see hard and soft approaches as two ends of an continuum (Karrbom Gustavsson & Hallin, 2014). Hard projects are often seen as the more traditional projects, with clearly defined objectives (Lane, 2000) and a focus on efficient delivery of goals (Crawford & Pollack, 2004). The project management approach connected to hard projects is based on command and control, where people are seen as interchangeable within the organizational system and are expected to behave in predictable ways within the ‘machine’ organization (Yeo, 1993). Soft projects, on the other hand, address ill-defined situations in which human beings and culture play an important part (Checkland, 1999). The focus here is on negotiation, interpretation and exploration of alternative options (Crawford & Pollack, 2004). Project management approaches within the soft paradigm are associated with “culture, meaning and values as central concerns” (Crawford & Pollack, 2004: p. 649), seeing people and their individual values and expectations as a part of the culture (Checkland, 1999).
3
few managers use the findings to improve their management. Therefore, another stream of literature adopts the contingency theory to project management to find “the extent of fit or misfit between project characteristics and project management approach” (Sauser, Reilly, & Shenhar, 2009: p. 666). As contingency factors influence each project differently, literature on different project types and industries will all benefit from the valuable insights of applying a contingency theory perspective (Hanisch & Wald, 2012). In line with Sauser et al. (2009), Howell, Windahl and Seidel (2010) argue for future research to find variables that contribute to the (mis)fit of managerial styles. An exploration on contingency factors is needed. Therefore, the following research question is proposed: How should contingency factors influence the choice on the hardness or softness of a project management approach?
Addressing this question enables organizations to link project management categorizations with appropriate management approaches (Sauser et al., 2009). As projects are “complex social systems that are embedded in and interact with their environments”, it is highly relevant for managers to understand factors that are influencing projects (Hanisch & Wald, 2012: p. 5). Another practical contribution will be that managers are able to better predict potential project success or failure (Sauser et al., 2009).
In order to answer the research question, this study reviews the highly shattered literature on project management approaches and its contingencies. A conceptual model will be proposed to synthesize the literature. Then, theory refinement will be performed by conducting a multiple-case study on three cases in a business setting. The results will show whether the literature is confirmed or disconfirmed, which will feed the discussion part, resulting in an overview of the theoretical and practical contributions.
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter addresses three sections. First, change and project management approaches are discussed. Then, the use of contingency theory is introduced accompanied with the main contingencies on project management approaches. Last, the conceptual model on uncertainty, structural complexity and unpredictability is provided and explained.
Change and project management approaches
4
The basics of hard and soft project management approaches can be found in literature on change management in the organizational management field. The importance of the change agent (i.e. change initiator) is recognized within the soft approach. The change agent places more emphasis on the creation and adoption of a planning in which flexibility and a long-term focus are featured (Daniel, 1990). In order to be effective, every change agent should see the impact of changes on the business (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2011) and has to be competent at change management (Pitagorky, 2011). Therefore, change management within project management is essential, as implementing a new IT aspect, for example, does not bring along some magical process that integrates IT with the business environment (Pitagorky, 2011). On the other hand, a project can also be seen as a ‘vehicle of change’ with a defined scope and a clear delivery time against certain costs (Geraldi, Lee-Kelley, & Kutsch, 2010; Pitagroky, 2011). Hence, change management and project management are strongly connected.
First, there is general agreement that two dominant categories in approaches to change are the planned and emergent approach (Burnes, 2004; Burnes, 2017; Kanter et al., 1992). The planned change approach is top-down driven, with a clear objective and timescale (Burnes, 2004). The field of organizational change has been dominated by this planned approach, but as of the 1980s the emergent change approach with a more incremental nature has arisen (Burnes, 2017). In the emergent approach, continuous adaptations are needed and decisions are strongly influenced by political and cultural processes within the organization (Burnes, 2004). Over the years, support for the emergent view has grown, but the often criticized planned approach is still in use as well (Burnes, 2004; Burnes, 2017). In line, the following major authors have found that the use of just one approach might be sub-optimal.
Kanter, Stein and Jick (1992) identified two streams of actions a change manager can take: ‘Bold Strokes’ and ‘Long Marches’. The Bold Strokes approach is a top-down change approach with a clear begin state and implies major strategic changes or economic change. The impact of the short-term Bold Strokes is rapid, but will rarely lead to changes in the organizational culture. Long Marches, on the other hand, are more incremental changes that lead to a transformation over a longer period of time (Burnes, 2004). According to Kanter et al. (1992) the approach starts with ambiguity, has an operational focus and aims to influence organizational behavior or culture. Similar to the findings of Kanter et al. (1992), Beer and Nohria (2000) identified two theories, Theory E and Theory O, about how and why changes should be made (Burnes, 2004). According to Beer and Nohria (2000) Theory E, with a similarity to Bold Strokes, is a hard approach to change in which success is measured in shareholder value or economic value. These quick changes aim to downsize or restructure the organization. Theory O, with a similarity to Long Marches, is a soft change approach, with the goal to create a corporate culture and human capabilities through individual and organizational learning.
5
organization in favor of Long Marches. On the other hand, Beer and Nohria (2000) show that it is possible to gain sustainable competitive advantage by simultaneously using Theory E and O. However, the study of Burnes (2004) reveals that it is all about understanding the organizational context in which the change takes place. More planned change needs a relatively quick and coordinated approach, while emergent change serves companies well in changing attitudes and behaviors of managers and staff. Therefore, planned and emergent change are not competitors, but each is more appropriate to a particular situation and neither is appropriate to all change situations. In line, Kanter et al. (1992) state that a solid diagnosis of the organization is important in choosing the right approach.
The complementary value of hard and soft approaches is not only discussed in literature on change management, but in project management literature as well. Söderlund and Maylor (2012) argue that combining hard and soft aspects in project management is necessary to implement projects successfully. In line, Crawford and Pollack (2004) elaborate on the entrance of hard and soft in project management literature. A strong link between project success and hard or soft aspects is found.
Project management approaches
Hard approaches are linked to ‘management’ and soft approaches are more seen as ‘leadership’. Business schools often focus on management and its sharp analytical skills when educating future managers, but fail to meet the requirements of leadership, namely understanding social problems (Söderlund & Maylor, 2012). Again, it is important to see the project management approaches as two ends of a continuum and not a dichotomy (Karrbom Gustavsson & Hallin, 2014).
Crawford and Pollack (2004) have created a framework to analyze hard and soft dimensions in projects. The dimensions within the framework interrelate within the project context. An overview of the seven dimensions can be found in Figure 1. The 0-100 scale is chosen to capture the amount complexity in reality. The numbers on the scale represent the hardness or softness needed within the project, where 0 is completely hard and 100 is completely soft (Crawford & Pollack, 2004).
6
As of the 1990s hard projects are seen as relatively ‘simple’, considering situations where stakeholders have the same objectives (Daniel, 1990). The connected approach is often considered as the rational and technical side of project management and is a closed system approach (Karrbom Gustavsson & Hallin, 2014). Hard issues and measures address the more traditional measures in project management like time, cost and quality (Cleland & King, 1997). Project management skills in line with hard approaches are contracting, cost and schedule control, monitoring quality and work performance and doing risk analysis (Frame, 2002). This more traditional approach to project management relies on a linear lifecycle that is plan-driven and characterized by development based on predefined requirements and designs (Ahimbisibwe, Daellenbach, & Cavana, 2017)
Soft projects, are seen as ‘complex’ projects, for example by pursuing different objectives (Daniel, 1990). Soft approaches are related to the human side of project management (Karrbom Gustavsson & Hallin, 2014). Soft issues include safety, stakeholders, communication, and environmental, political and social impacts (Jaafari, 2001; Thiry, 2002). Soft project management skills consider negotiation and addressing the needs of stakeholders (Frame, 2002). Agile methods can be considered as soft project management approaches (Karrbom Gustavsson & Hallin, 2014). Agile approaches to project management respond to the dynamic environmental aspects and are beneficial in situations that are poorly understood due to rapidly changing requirements (Ahimbisibwe et al., 2017).
Contingencies on project management approaches
Combining hard and soft approaches seems promising (Black, Boca, Bowen, Gorman, & Hinchey, 2009), especially in addressing different types of uncertainty (De Carvalho & Rabechini Junior, 2015). Therefore, it is important to find a project management approach that meets the characteristics of the project. Whereas project managers first felt uncomfortable to think about the soft approach (Daniel, 1990), nowadays the importance of the soft approach with its concerns for human behavior and organizational culture is largely accepted (Crawford et al., 2003; De Carvalho & Rabechini Junior, 2015; McElroy, 1996; Ravindranath, 2016). However, in organizations where more traditional approaches are common, problems might arise when changing towards a more people oriented, soft project management approach. Also, a lot of effort, time and management skills are concerned with managing according to the soft approach (Boehm & Turner, 2005). On the other hand, hard aspects can act as a sanity check and safety net within soft approaches (Black et al., 2009). In line, Atkinson et al. (2006) argue that hard project management approaches will always adopt some characteristics of the soft approach and vice versa. Project managers should find a combination of project management approaches that meets the contingencies of the project.
7
However, the question remains: how should contingency factors influence the choice on the hardness or softness of a project management approach?
Project management literature mostly addresses three contingency factors, namely uncertainty, risks and complexity, and sees them as complementary (Atkinson, Crawford, & Ward, 2006). However, Thomé et al. (2016) show that uncertainty and complexity both lead to risk. Also, Sauser et al. (2009) argue that project failure goes beyond technical reasons and state that failure often could have been prevented by better upfront assessment of the project’s uncertainty and complexity. Therefore, uncertainty and complexity can be seen as the basic contingencies.
Uncertainty can be defined as “the difference between the data required and the data already possessed; it is a ‘lack of information’ ”(Thiry, 2002: p. 222). Traditionally, projects are used to exclude uncertainty, but uncertainty appears to be a central issue in projects and project failure (Atkinson et al., 2006). Therefore, uncertainty is seen as the possible dominant contingency factor in projects (Howell, Windahl, & Seidel, 2010). Also, uncertainty and the organization surrounding the project attract the most attention in general project management literature (Hanisch & Wald, 2012). The organizational context of a project can be defined by several contingency factors and will therefore be strongly linked to the complexity of projects (Howell et al., 2010).
In complex projects it is beyond the capabilities of the project team to get an adequate representation of all factors that might influence the result (Pich, Loch, & Meyer, 2002). This lack of understanding makes it hard to manage complexity (Bosch-Rekveldt, Jongkind, Mooi, Bakker, & Verbraeck, 2011; Pich et al., 2002). Crawford and Pollack (2004) recognize the complexity of project as well, as the factors in their framework can contribute to complexity. According to the Project Management Institute (2014) complexity is an aspect that is always present and has increased due to globalization, technologies and more ambitious projects. This has resulted in an elaborated focus on project complexity in literature, even creating a new field of investigation within the project management research field (de Rezende, Blackwell, & Gonçalves, 2018). The next part provides a synthesis on the highly differentiated use of terms regarding uncertainty and complexity by introducing a conceptual model.
Conceptual model on uncertainty, structural complexity and unpredictability
8
complexity as aspects of the same variable: predictability. While some argued that uncertainty drives complexity (Oehmen, Thuesen, Ruiz, & Geraldi, 2015; Vaagen, Kaut, & Wallace, 2017), others see complexity as a type of uncertainty (Reezigt, 2014; Williams, 2005). Therefore, some papers merge the two views (Howell et al., 2010; Sommer & Loch, 2004; Sommer, Loch, & Dong, 2009).
To create more consensus, Table 1 provides a synthesis on the concepts that are mostly used in literature to describe uncertainty, complexity and predictability. To increase understanding, it can be argued that uncertainty consists out of ‘structural complexity’ and ‘unpredictability’ (Howell et al., 2010; Meyer, Loch, & Pich, 2002; Stingl & Geraldi, 2017). In this paper, the term ‘unpredictability’ is used when the project circumstances are unpredictable, face dynamic complexity and unforeseen uncertainty. The term ‘structural complexity’ refers to circumstances that are predictable, face structural complexity and foreseen uncertainty. The theoretical background of Table 1 is provided in Appendix I.
Concept Structural complexity
Unpredictability Related authors
Uncertainty Foreseen Unforeseen Hertog & Westerveld (2010); Meyer, Loch, & Pich (2002); Pich, Loch, Meyer (2002);
Complexity Structural Dynamic
Bosch-Rekveldt, Jongkind, Mooi, Bakker, & Verbraeck (2011); Brady & Davies (2014); Floricel, Michela, & Piperca (2016); Geraldi, Maylor, Williams (2011); Maylor, Vidgen, & Carver (2008); Oehmen, Thuesen, Ruiz, & Geraldi, 2015
Predictability Predictable Unpredictable
Brady & Davies (2014); Howell, Windahl, & Seidel (2010); Stingl & Geraldi (2017); Williams (2005)
Table 1. Synthesis on uncertainty, complexity and predictability.
9 Structural complexity Low High Unpredictability Low Technical orientation Linear approach
Technical and social orientation Linear approach
High
Technical orientation
Iterative approach
Technical and social orientation Iterative approach
Figure 2. Conceptual model on uncertainty, structural complexity and unpredictability.
As is shown in the conceptual model, projects face different levels of both unpredictability and structural complexity. Therefore, project teams might not only have to monitor and schedule activities, but should also be reactive and reinforce what the team has reached so far. Communication, alternative plans or outcomes, and constant monitoring are essential (Meyer et al., 2002). In line, Hertog and Westerveld (2010) argue that project management requires balancing control and interaction, especially in situations of high structural complexity and high unpredictability. Thus, when both structural complexity and unpredictability are present in a project, a combination of linear and iterative approaches might be needed. The next part will address this matter.
Levels of unpredictability and structural complexity
Unpredictability refers to situations where outcomes are unknown due to continually changing interactions (Daniel & Daniel, 2018; Maylor et al., 2008). When unpredictability is low managers can identify risks and are able to plan for it and include buffers. Alternative paths need to be taken in consideration before deciding on a plan, and control limits should be set. The project manager should monitor tasks and performance, and keep stakeholders informed to motivate them (Meyer et al., 2002). When the situation is low on unpredictability and thus predictable, the project manager should aim for best practices and standardization (Oehmen et al., 2015). This is in line with the linear project management approach.
10
Structural complexity can be defined by the amount of elements in the project, the extent to which these elements are heterogeneous and the interdependence between the elements (Geraldi, Maylor, & Williams, 2011; Reezigt, 2014; Sommer & Loch, 2004). Projects that face low structural complexity can be seen as projects with a technical orientation. There are clear cause-and-effect relationships which make the execution of the project controllable (Bakhshi, Ireland, & Gorod, 2016; Oehmen et al., 2015). Technical projects are stable and predictable, with knowledge and expertise as the answer to understanding the situation and find proper practices (Bakhshi et al., 2016). Therefore, a linear approach fits the circumstances.
Projects with a technical and social orientation are on the other end of the continuum, with high levels of structural complexity (Bakhshi et al., 2016; Oehmen et al., 2015). It is hard to manage those projects as they “consist of ambiguity …, interdependency, non-linearity, unique local conditions, autonomy, emergent behaviors and unfixed boundaries” (Bakhshi et al., 2016: p. 1201). When a project orientation is more towards the social side along with the technical view, adaptability is beneficial, accompanied by flexibility in the connection of the different elements of the projects (Bakhshi et al., 2016; Gorod, Gandhi, Sauser, & Boardman, 2008). Also, projects with a technical and social orientation are facing unpredictability, like the unpredictable actions of other organizations and stakeholders (Brady & Davies, 2014). Therefore, as the project becomes more orientated towards the technical and social domain, an iterative project management approach should be obtained.
In conclusion, the choice for a linear or iterative approach can be defined by both unpredictability and structural complexity. Low unpredictability leads to a linear approach, where high unpredictability requires an iterative approach. Low structural complexity implies a technical project which requires a linear approach, while high structural complexity can be found in projects with a technical and social orientation which leads to an iterative approach. When the factors are combined in the conceptual model, it becomes apparent that different circumstances create four situations that require (a combination of) different approaches. Before empirically testing this model, it is important to discuss two elements that might influence the choice on a project management approach in case of structural complexity, namely the urgency of the project and the nature of structural complexity in the project. It should be mentioned that the approach regarding highly unpredictable projects will always be an iterative approach, as managers cannot plan upon something they do not know or understand.
Urgency and structural complexity
11
and resources in upfront analysis to plan and control, with the risk of being inflexible to respond to unpredicted events; or (2) putting less time and resources in upfront analysis and reserve room for flexibility during the project roll out. The first solution is in line with the traditional, linear approach (Reezigt, 2014). However, when urgency is ignored, project managers might be blind for the possible unpredictable aspects that occur (Gersick, 1994). The second solution matches the agile, iterative approach (Reezigt, 2014) and keeps the organization adaptive to unpredictability. The iterative approach can be performed by the use of a general plan with temporal milestones to break the momentum and by creating room for new ideas or a change of plans (Gersick, 1994). Thus, urgency changes a situation facing structural complexity into a situation facing unpredictability. The possibility to have a linear approach will disappear and project managers are forced to obtain an iterative approach.
Structural complexity and iterative approaches
Every change situation varies in the level of structural complexity and the problems connected to it, which might be caused by various circumstances. Paton and McCalman (2000) developed the TROPICS test to identify these circumstances on a continuum from low to high structural complexity. The TROPICS test can be found in Figure 3. The distinction between the different dimensions of structural complexity (Paton & McCalman, 2000) resembles with the work on difficulties and messes by Stacey (2002) and the circumstantial dimensions by Crawford and Pollack (2004).
Structural complexity
Low High
Timescales clearly defined/short to medium term
__________________ Timescales ill-defined / medium to long term
Resources needed for the change clearly identified
__________________ Resources needed for the change uncertain
Objectives clearly stated and could be quantified
__________________ Change objectives subjective and ambiguous
Perceptions of the problem and its possible solution shared by all
__________________ No consensus on what constitutes the problem / conflicts of interest Interest in the problem is limited
and defined
__________________ Interest in the problem is widespread and ill-defined Control is maintained by the
managing group
__________________ Control is shared with people outside the managing group Source of the problem originates
from within the organization
__________________ Source of the problem originates from outside the organization
12
In order to find the overall nature of the problem, each TROPICS factor can be positioned towards the low or high end to characterize and understand the circumstances involved in the project (Rees & Hall, 2013). This enables managers to better understand the situation and determine how to guide and implement the change, as low structural complexity is in line with the technical orientation and a linear approach, and high structural complexity is in line with the technical and social orientation and an iterative approach (Paton & McCalman, 2000). As project circumstances differ, the approach will be different as well based on the nature of the project. When the circumstances are on the side of low complexity, the situation is bounded as it has, among other things, a clear timescale, clear objectives and resources are identified. These circumstances can be managed by diagnosing the circumstances and defining the solution before implementing it according to the plan. Here, a linear approach will be the optimal response to the nature of the project. However, when the circumstances are on the side of high complexity, social and emotional dimensions are involved (Paton & McCalman, 2000). Problems are unbounded, difficult to define and require engagement of people in finding a solution to the problem. Therefore, high complexity problems can be caused by several circumstances that are out of the project team’s control. Different natures will require different ways of performing an iterative approach to address the nature of the problem. To illustrate this, two examples are provided.
First, structural complexity can be caused by shattered power, or shared control in terms of the TROPICS (Paton & McCalman, 2000). Here, project implementation success is jeopardized by conflict of the stakeholders in power, as they control certain resources during the implementation process (Matland, 1995). Independent actors in power can refuse to participate when they disagree with the policy and when the project manager is not having enough control. Therefore, the approach should focus on reaching agreement on the actions towards the problem by negotiating and fostering participation (Matland, 1995). Second, when structural complexity faces a nature – in terms of TROPICS (Paton & McCalman, 2000) – with no consensus about the problem solution, the project will face high ambiguity. Here, the process can be described, but the means of reaching the goal are unknown. Implementation is based on experimentation and learning. As knowledge is lacking on how to connect different elements within and external of the project, it is not wise to aim for participation and unity as this might limit learning and individual thinking. On the other hand, evaluation and feedback are essential parts of learning (Matland, 1995).
13
METHODS
Research design
The former part showed that literature on the influence of contingencies on project management approaches was highly shattered, so more explorative research was requested to refine theory. This was done by first having an extensive literature review and then performing a multiple-case study. According to Yin (2002) a multiple-case study allowed theory replication, in which emerging conceptual insights were confirmed or disconfirmed based on a series of cases.
Cases were selected based on the following criteria: (1) each selected project was performed in a different organization; (2) the project had to be completed; (3) the selected project had to be guided by a project team; (4) each project team did at least have a project manager, a project sponsor and a minimum of two project team members; and (5) the matter a project is addressing and the project management approach that was used should differ between the selected projects. Three finished projects (i.e. cases) were selected according to the criteria. Three recently completed projects (>2016) within different companies were studied from initiation to project outcomes.
The selected cases were within: (A) a cleaning company in facility services; (B) a dairy corporation in the food industry; (C) a food service company in facility services. Outcomes of the cases varied from successful to less successful in meeting expected outcomes. Case A aimed to increase the effectiveness and innovativeness of the marketing project team towards a large marketing event. They obtained an iterative scrum approach towards project management. Here, innovative ideas were realized and a higher effectiveness was achieved in comparison to earlier attempts with a linear approach. Case B performed a transformation in the way of working of all operating locations after a merge between two companies. They used a linear approach based on planning and managed transformation within the determined timeframe. However, the project was only successful after a period of aftercare with an iterative approach. Case C merged the financial administration from several regions into one location at the head office. They obtained the linear approach, using upfront identification of all possible elements to plan the implementation. Iterative elements were used to a limited extent. Although the departments were merged in time, the expected outcomes in terms of efficiency and customer satisfaction have not been met until recently. Appendix II provides more background on the cases.
Data collection
14
influences and extensive explanations (Yin, 2013). Four respondents were interviewed per case, resulting in twelve interviews in total. During a one-day site visit per case, at least (one of) the project manager(s), the project sponsor and (one of) the project team member(s) were interviewed. An overview of the interviewees can be found in Appendix IV. According to Aken, Berends & Bij (2012), research results will be improved when attention is paid to controllability, validity and reliability. To secure controllability, a journal was kept to describe the process in a way that allowed replication.
In order to make the research more reliable, potential biases needed to be controlled (Yin, 2002). The biases addressed are: researcher bias, instrument bias, respondent bias and situation bias (Aken et al., 2012). To lower researcher bias, guidance and feedback were given by an experienced researcher in the field of interest and a colleague student. However, the interviewer was part of the research setting and might have influenced respondents, and thereby, interview outcomes. Instrument bias was limited by using semi-structured interviews and by formulating questions differently during different interviews. Respondent bias formed a problem, since only a limited amount of participants of a project team was interviewed, leaving room for non-random selection of participants. The bias was lowered by interviewing at least the project manager, the project sponsor and a team member. Situation bias was of small influence, because all interviews were conducted within projects that have (almost) been completed, thereby limiting or even eliminating the influence of project progress and team dynamics on data.
Validity can be divided into construct, internal and external validity (Yin, 2002). Construct validity was addressed by covering literary building blocks of the conceptual model in the interview questions. For example, the models on hard and soft circumstances of Crawford and Pollack (2004) and Paton and McCalman (2000) were incorporated in the interview questions. Internal validity was covered by using the technique of ‘pattern-matching’ and by including interview questions that address potential alternatives that influence causal relationships (Appendix III question 5, 6 and 7). Last, external validity was addressed by including multiple cases and having analytical generalization to aim for theoretical replication.
Data analysis
15
point of theoretical saturation was achieved and no new concepts or links arose during category development (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The codebook can be found in Appendix V. Afterwards, a cross-case analysis helped finding cross-case patterns (Eisenhardt, 1989). A qualitative analysis called ‘pattern matching’ could be performed, which implied comparing an observed pattern with the expected pattern. Thus, data was compared to literature to find similarities and differences that might be interesting for the remainder of the paper (Eisenhardt, 1989) and that would help in refining theory. The aim was to identify patterns that show the influence of contingency factors on the choice for the hardness or softness of a project management approach, and the consequences of these choices.
RESULTS
The results will be discussed according to the performed analysis. First, the results from the within-case analysis will be presented, followed by an overview of all findings from the within-within-case analysis. Thereafter, the results of the cross-case analysis are provided.
Within-case analysis
Every case will be discussed from initiation till outcomes. First, the circumstances the project team is facing are considered. Then, the choice for the project management approach is discussed and subsequently the outcomes that follow from the chosen project management approach will be addressed.
Case A
16
should result in a linear project management approach. Therefore, a combination of iterative and linear project management approaches can be expected.
The chosen project management approach is an iterative one, namely the scrum approach. The choice for this project management approach has been made as it is “determined on higher levels within the organization in order to do a pilot on a ‘faster’ way of working” (PMA). To validate the choice, it is argued that: “As a digitally oriented project we are open to work in innovative ways and to obtain innovative approaches like scrum” (PSA). Also, “Normally we did not check how consumers responded to our actions. This year we decided to see what is relevant for the consumer. Scrum is introduced as a suitable method to do that” (PMA). Although the project team is open to the iterative project management approach, the approach is chosen as a pilot initiated by the management team. Afterwards, it is determined that this project fits the purpose. The iterative project management approach is performed with an exploration of alternatives, temporal milestones, and a plan that is only detailed until the next reference point. Also, the practitioner has a facilitative role and stakeholders are involved in the project. On the other hand, the project management approach shows linear aspects that are plan-driven with predefined requirements and designs: “About 80% was already determined based on what we did last year and we worked towards that. Although the project was delivered in a kind of iterative way, there was no space to end up in a totally different place than was determined upfront” (PTA/2). In line, some concerns regarding the match between project circumstances and the project management approach are shared: “The question is whether this marketing event is a good project for scrum as the end product is already defined and you cannot iterate on this to a large extent” (PTA/2).
17
In conclusion, given the circumstances a combination of iterative and linear aspects is expected in the project management approach. At first, the project manager tried to use an iterative project management approach, but it turns out to be a combination of iterative and linear aspects. The project management approach is in line with the conceptual model and results in positive outcomes.
Case B
The circumstances of case B are straightforward. The situation is low on structural complexity and also low on unpredictability despite the considerable size of the project. This is explained by the project sponsor: “If you compare the project with what we do in our daily business, there are few differences. There is only a difference in scale and time” (PSB). The low amount of structural complexity is shown by clear objectives, a tangible goal and clearly defined timeframes. Progress is measured based on quantitative data and the resources needed are clearly defined. Control is maintained by the management group and the source of the problem originates from within the organization, namely from the performed merger. However, it is recognized that the project is subject to external influences, which increases the amount of structural complexity. The impact of external influences is limited by the project team as they are always “on top of everything that happened. We kept our distance but could intervene at the moment something is changing” (PSB). Also, unpredictability is low as the stakeholders only need to be informed and are limitedly involved. Overall, the project faces low structural complexity and low unpredictability. According to the conceptual model, the technical focus and the low amount of unpredictability both suggest a linear project management approach. However, considering the amount of urgency the project faces, a different conclusion can be made. As the large-sized project should be performed at a high pace, the time to identify all elements and their effects is limited. This makes the project more unpredictable and therefore an iterative project management approach should be chosen.
The chosen project management approach can be described as linear with some iterative aspects. The choice for this project management approach follows in response to an assignment of the board of directors. In terms of a linear project management approach, the project team has adopted the expert practitioner role and does not involve stakeholders. The approach is plan-driven with predefined requirements and designs, where the quality and work performance are monitored. This resembles the operationally focused Bold Strokes approach. Subsequently, a Long March is performed by a period of aftercare. Some more iterative elements are incorporated by negotiation with stakeholders and addressing stakeholder needs. Although there is a plan, verification points are used to define details. Besides, the importance of human beings and culture are recognized.
18
got their payment and locations were operating within the determined timeframe” (PMB/2). This is in particular the result of the organizational culture and the commitment of employees towards their work. The project sponsor argues: “The project worked out well. To a large extent it is in the organizational culture. However, we as people are the culture. Apparently there is something that we hold that made this a success”. Culture appears to cause negative outcomes as well, since two organizations, and thus two cultures, are merged: “Sometimes we explained things and then it worked out in a completely different way. We seemed to explain it wrong, as we thought terms meant the same. However, there was a large difference in the business language” (PMB/1). The tasks that need to be performed are not far from daily business, which might have lowered the effect of urgency. Urgency might have resulted in a considerably high workload for all involved employees, not only having a high impact on social lives, but also on the general operation of the business. To a large extent, employees’ regular tasks made room for tasks connected to the project. The project manager argues that considering the framework the project was placed in, the linear project management approach was the only way to make the project successful. However, more preparation time would have been beneficial and could have prevented the problems in the first months after transformation. More attention should have been paid to the differences between the cultures and the way of working of the two merged organizations: “Content-wise most parts were covered, but we forgot to prepare the softer part“ (PMB/2). Also, “all political parts were covered. However, we performed the operational execution too fast. Afterwards we did some damage control, but this could have been better” (PMB/1).
In conclusion, based on the circumstances the conceptual model suggests a linear project management approach. However, the project faces urgency as well and therefore the project management approach should be iterative. The project manager adopted a predominantly linear project management approach with an additional period of iteration. In line with the conceptual model this should lead to success, but, given the urgency, negative outcomes can be expected. The outcomes resemble this line of reasoning; they are positive in general, but only after a period of aftercare – with an iterative approach – to make things right.
Case C
19
Additionally, unpredictability appears to be low as it was not mentioned during the interviews. In line, it is argued that "except from what we expected to happen, no other unexpected things occurred. Especially since it concerns internal departments that are merged” (PMC). So, structural complexity is both low and high in this project, while unpredictability is low. According to the conceptual model, the project has a predominantly technical focus with some social orientation as well, which suggests a combination of linear and iterative project management approaches. Also, the low amount of unpredictability should result in a linear project management approach. Overall, this points towards a linear project management approach with iterative elements. However, urgency is considered high in terms of pace and size. Therefore, a more iterative project management approach can be expected.
“Centralization means bureaucratization and implies structuring” (PSC). In line with this argument, the chosen project management approach is predominantly linear. The response to the question why the linear approach is chosen: “That is a questionable question, as I believe that a transition cannot do without a plan-based execution. Why? There are people involved that you need to handle with care and who need clarity. I would not know another way to do it, it must be planned” (PSC). Linear aspects of the approach are a Bold Stroke with a focus on monitoring quality and work performance. Also, the project is plan-driven with predefined requirements and designs. “Our organization is focused on facts, for example: does everything run according to the plan? The focus on facts results in a lack of attention to the people” (PMC). In contradiction of this argument, some iterative aspects appeared to be incorporated. The main iterative aspects are high stakeholder involvement, negotiation with stakeholders and addressing their needs. Also, the important role of human beings is recognized.
20
In conclusion, following the conceptual model, case C’s circumstances point towards a linear project management approach with iterative aspects. However, urgency is present as well, which makes the iterative approach most suitable. The project manager has chosen a predominantly linear project management approach with a few iterative aspects. Although the chosen approach is in line with the conceptual model, outcomes are negative. Based on urgency, a negative outcome is expected. A summary of the findings from the within-case analysis can be found in Table 2.
Case Results
Case A Case B Case C
Project circumstances
Structural complexity High Low Low and high
Unpredictability Low Low Low
Urgency Low High High
Project management approaches Expected approach
based on the model
Linear and iterative Linear Linear with iterative aspects
Expected approach based on urgency
- Iterative Iterative
Chosen approach Linear and iterative Linear with iterative aspects
Linear with iterative aspects
Outcomes
Expected outcome based on the model
Positive Positive Positive
Expected outcome based on urgency
- Negative Negative
Realized outcome based on chosen approach
Positive Positive, but only after subsequent period with iteration
Negative
Table 2. Overview of the findings from the within-case analysis.
Cross-case analysis
21 Choice of project management approach
It is interesting to see that all three project managers appeared to have limited till no influence in choosing a project management approach. In case A, the board of directors initiates the iterative approach and gives the project manager the task to use the approach as part of a pilot. The project manager has changed the iterative approach into a way that works for the project team. This choice is based on the organizational culture that includes a linear way of working. Therefore, hierarchy and organizational culture are the determinants for the project management approach.
Second, case B shows a predominantly linear approach as a result of “common sense in the organization” (PMB/2), also the organizational culture. Besides, all tasks have been performed before, the only difference is in size and timeframe. Also, the board of directors has given the project manager (2) the assignment to create a plan for the transformation of the business locations and, subsequently, transform them. So, organizational culture, experience and hierarchy result in the choice for a linear project management approach. It should be noted that the approach is chosen despite awareness of imperfections, because the project has to be finished on the first of July. Thus, although urgency is recognized, the project manager decides on a linear approach.
Last, case C chooses a predominantly linear approach as well. A work council needs to approve and give advice on the plan, which requires a linear approach with predefined plans. In line, the way of working in the organization, better said the organizational culture, and a small personal preference have led to the choice. Urgency is not mentioned as a determinant in choosing the approach. Therefore, the hierarchy, organizational culture and some personal preferences result in the choice for a project management approach.
In general, it can be seen that politics, organizational culture and previous experience lead to the choice of a project management approach. Project circumstances are not taken into account. Therefore, it is remarkable to see that all project management approaches are in line with the expectations based on the conceptual model – without considering urgency – that does take project circumstances into account.
Urgency
From the previous part it becomes clear that project managers do not choose for an iterative approach in case of urgency. Based on the literature review, it is expected that urgency changes a situation facing structural complexity into a situation facing unpredictability. Therefore, it is remarkable that during the interviews on cases with high urgency, unpredictability is not mentioned. Both cases B and C are facing urgency, but do not account for it in the choice for an approach, or even choose a more linear project management approach. Why is this?
22
linear approach, other circumstances are ignored. On top of this, in situations with urgency it is impossible to find all elements that influence the project. In order to continue the process, managers prefer to just make decisions. In situations where project teams recognize that problems occur due to the linear approach, they argue that more time is needed to prepare and plan all parts and thus, again, argue in favor of a linear project management approach. The amount of planning and preparation of the project team becomes higher in case of urgency. Project teams do not believe that results would have been achieved when the project allows for flexibility and they argue that all actions and events must be planned.
Despite the preference for the linear project management approach, all project teams recognize that iterative elements are lacking. A larges investment should have been made in time and space for the iterative approach (case A), cultural differences (case B) and the importance of human beings (case C). An explanation for this commonality may lay in the assumptions towards iterative, agile project management approaches. In all cases, the most common assumption made on the iterative project management approach is that it takes more time to complete the project, especially in comparison to a linear approach. The iterative approach is considered as difficult in practice, in particular in case B and C. “Although the iterative project management approach created more commitment and it will ease transitions, it will be too expensive and take too much time” (PSC). Also, “the project team needs a certain amount of space to experiment and learn. A common mistake made by project managers is having a clear and tangible goal instead of a learning-based objective. Therefore, it is hard to combine an iterative project team while working in an organization that follows a linear way of working” (PTA/2). The iterative approach as such is fine, but for the most part it is up to the people as they must be willing to work this way and learn how to do so. Another assumption: “It is easier to perform an iterative approach in a less complex situation as it takes more time to address the ‘softer’ aspects” (PMB/2). Overall, arguments are in favor of the use of a linear approach in projects with urgency, especially since the iterative approach is seen as a more difficult and time consuming approach.
Structural complexity and iterative project management approaches
In line with the last sub-chapter of the literature review, different natures of high structural complexity result in different kinds of iterative project management approaches. Case A and C are high on structural complexity. Case A is predominantly facing high structural complexity caused by external influences, shared control and widespread interest in the problem. Also, project elements are strongly interrelated and the resources needed for change are uncertain. Case C is both low and high on structural complexity. Circumstances on the high end are the intangibility of the goal, widespread interest in the problem, shared control and influence of external sources. Overlapping circumstances are ignored and this analysis will be limited to unique circumstances resulting in:
23
Again, Case A’s iterative approach focuses on exploration of alternatives, temporal milestones, and a plan that is only detailed until the next reference point. Also, the practitioner has a facilitative role and stakeholders are involved in the project. Case C’s iterative approach focuses on high stakeholder involvement, negotiating with them and addressing their needs. Also, the important role of human beings is recognized. It can be confirmed that different circumstances create different kinds of high structural complexity, which will lead to different kinds of iterative project management approaches.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Project management literature could benefit from the insights of contingency theory, so further exploration is needed (Hanisch & Wald, 2012; Howell et al., 2010; Sauser et al., 2009). In this paper, few interviewees mentioned the influence of contingency factors (i.e. project circumstances) as an important determinant in choosing a project management approach. Much more often, the characteristics related to the organization in which the project is performed appear to be the main determinants in the choice for a project management approach. According to institutional theory, this is a rationalization of institutional rules. Institutionalized rules function as myths (i.e. rationalized concepts) that are legitimized by the organization. They often conflict with efficiency criteria and thereby hinder the organization’s competitive position (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). This suggests the need for refinement of theory on organizational contingencies in choosing a project management approach. Thus, the overall idea of this paper to develop a conceptual model to grasp the influence of contingency factors on the choice for a project management approach is supported.
24
terms of the conceptual model, outcomes are not all positive. Therefore, the model cannot be confirmed.
There is, however, a commonality in both cases that have not (immediately) obtained a positive result: high urgency. The influence of urgency is either not seen as a major determinant in choosing a project management approach, or the presence of urgency resulted in a more linear approach. However, urgency requires an iterative approach towards project management (Gersick, 1994; Reezigt, 2014). Therefore, the possible cause of the negative outcomes is urgency and the conceptual model might need some refinement to be appropriate after all. Urgency can be considered as the third main contingency factor in project management, along with unpredictability and structural complexity. According to the literature review, urgency should influence the project in such a way that a situation facing structural complexity becomes highly unpredictable. It can be argued that urgency is actually connected to unpredictability instead of structural complexity. Therefore, it might be better to state that in case of urgency a situation with structural complexity and low unpredictability will become a situation with structural complexity and high unpredictability. The next paragraph provides an illustration based on case B and C revealing that the conceptual model will be more complete if urgency is placed within the concept of unpredictability.
In case of high unpredictability, the conceptual model suggests an iterative project management approach. In both case B and C, urgency should lead to high unpredictability. For case B, the conceptual model expects a combination of linear (low structural complexity) and iterative (high unpredictability) approaches. A linear approach and a period of aftercare with an iterative approach are chosen. In line with the model, the outcome is positive. Also, in case C, the conceptual model expects a linear and iterative approach (low and high structural complexity) and an iterative approach (high unpredictability). This suggests an iterative approach, while the project manager chooses a linear approach. In line with the model, the overall outcomes are negative. In conclusion, urgency can be placed within the concept of unpredictability, in such way that urgency makes a situation high on unpredictability and, therefore, managers should choose a more iterative approach. With this refinement, the conceptual model can be confirmed.
However, a critical note has to be made: the positive relationship between urgency and the iterative project management approach is only limitedly explored. The most common argument made in the cases is that the iterative approach takes more time. Therefore, the linear approach is expected to be more suitable in situations with urgency (i.e. limited time). However, the results reveal that cases with urgency that have not chosen an iterative approach do have negative outcomes. This suggests that the literature might be right and that the positive relation between urgency and the iterative approach is there. More exploration of this relationship is needed.
25
a large extent. Therefore, the implementation of the iterative project management approach will differ as well. Case A and C have validated that, in case of high structural complexity, different circumstances lead to different kinds of iterative approaches.
Theoretical contribution
The theoretical contribution of this paper can be described as an exploration of contingencies on project management approaches, in particular on contingencies that should influence the choice for a certain project management approach. The value of applying contingency theory in project management literature is confirmed. The conceptual framework synthesizes literature on project management, especially on uncertainty, complexity and unpredictability. This way, main contingencies that contribute to the fit or misfit of a project management approach have been identified. The main contingencies are unpredictability, structural complexity and urgency. Also, the view on linear and iterative project management approaches is extended and deepened, resulting in four new situations that a project manager might have to face. Last, it is shown that different project circumstances require different kinds of iterative project management approaches.
Practical implications
The conceptual model on uncertainty, structural complexity and unpredictability provides a tool for project managers to categorize the situation and make an informed decision on the most suitable project management approach for a project. Also, project managers are provided with some frameworks (Crawford & Pollack, 2004; Paton & McCalman, 2000) to identify the circumstances. More importantly, it makes project managers aware of the importance of project circumstances in deciding on a project management approach. As the cross-case analysis reveals, most managers make the choice for a project management approach based on politics, organizational culture and previous experience. This is a subjective choice, and does not take contingencies on the project into account. However, as every project faces unpredictability and structural complexity, it should be addressed appropriately in order to overcome failure (Atkinson et al., 2006; Bosch-Rekveldt et al., 2011; Sauser et al., 2009). Additionally, urgency has been found as the third major contingency factor influencing the choice for a project management approach. Therefore, project managers should make the choice for a project management approach based on the specific contingencies of the project. In case of an iterative approach, project circumstances should be considered in the implementation of the approach.
Limitations and further research
26
to find more empirical results. Second, only a limited amount of studies are performed within two industries. More research is needed to investigate the applicability of the conceptual model in all industries. Elements might have to be added to enable application in different industries. This reveals the third limitation: the presented conceptual model cannot be seen as complete yet. Also, most literature in project management is based on ICT or construction projects. Therefore, findings in one sector might differ from literature, while other sectors might match literature. Last, a focus on the most dominant contingencies is applied. One new dominant contingency factor has already been found: urgency. Further research could explore other important contingencies on the choice for a project management approach.
Conclusion
To help project managers choose the appropriate project management approach, this paper presented a conceptual model on uncertainty, complexity and unpredictability to identify the project circumstances. Highly shattered literature on project management approaches and the main contingencies in project management literature – unpredictability and structural complexity – was synthesized. A multiple-case study with predominantly deductive codes allowed theory refinement. For the most part, replication of theory was found in the cases. However, some refinement was found towards the concept of urgency. An interesting conclusion that could be drawn from the analysis is that project managers base the choice for a project management approach on politics, organizational culture and previous experience. The importance of making an informed choice on a project management approach and the influence of contingencies (i.e. project circumstances) on the project is underestimated in project management.
Acknowledgements
27
REFERENCES
Ahimbisibwe, A., Daellenbach, U., & Cavana, R. Y. (2017). Empirical comparison of traditional plan-based and agile methodologies: Critical success factors for outsourced software development projects from vendors’ perspective. Journal of Enterprise Information, 30(3), 400–453. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-01-2014-0022
Aken, van, J. E., Berends, H., & Bij, van der, H. (2012). Problem solving in organizations – A methodological handbook for business and management students. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Atkinson, R., Crawford, L., & Ward, S. (2006). Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the scope of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 24(8), 687–698.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.09.011
Bakhshi, J., Ireland, V., & Gorod, A. (2016). Clarifying the project complexity construct: Past, present and future. International Journal of Project Management, 34(7), 1199–1213.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.06.002
Black, S., Boca, P. P., Bowen, J. P., Gorman, J., & Hinchey, M. (2009). Formal versus agile: Survival of the fittest. Computer, 42(9), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2009.284
Boehm, B., & Turner, R. (2005). Management challenges to implementing agile processes in traditional development organizations. IEEE Software, 22(5), 30–39.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2005.129
Bosch-Rekveldt, M., Jongkind, Y., Mooi, H., Bakker, H., & Verbraeck, A. (2011). Grasping project complexity in large engineering projects: The TOE (Technical, Organizational and
Environmental) framework. International Journal of Project Management, 29(6), 728–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.07.008
Brady, T., & Davies, A. (2014). Managing Structural and Dynamic Complexity: A Tale of Two Projects. Project Management Journal, 45(4), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj
Burnes, B. (2004). Emergent change and planned change – competitors or allies?: The case of XYZ construction. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24(9), 886–902. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MRR-09-2015-0216
Burnes, B. (2017). Managing change (7th edition). Harlow, United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited.
Cleland, D.I., King, W.R., (1997). Factors affecting project success. In: Baker, B.N., Murphy, D.C., Fisher, D. (Eds.), Project Management Handbook, second ed. John Wiley & Sons.
Crawford, L., Costello, K., Pollack, J., & Bentley, L. (2003). Managing soft change projects in the public sector. International Journal of Project Management, 21(6), 443–448.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00099-6
Crawford, L., & Pollack, J. (2004). Hard and soft projects: A framework for analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 22(8), 645–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.04.004 Daniel, D. W. (1990). Hard problems in a soft world. International Journal of Project Management,
8(2), 79–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(90)90040-I
28
regulation to a paradigm of emergence in project management. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 184–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.07.004
De Carvalho, M. M., & Rabechini Junior, R. (2015). Impact of risk management on project
performance: The importance of soft skills. International Journal of Production Research, 53(2), 321–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.919423
de Rezende, L. B., Blackwell, P., & Gonçalves, M. D. P. (2018). Findings on Project Complexity : A Bibliometric Network Analysis of. Project Management Journal, 49(1), 42–56.
Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M.J., (2005). Assessing leadership styles and organizational context. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 105–123.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–555.
Floricel, S., Michela, J. L., & Piperca, S. (2016). Complexity, uncertainty-reduction strategies, and project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 34(7), 1360–1383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.11.007
Frame, J., (2002). The New Project Management, second ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Geraldi, J., Lee-Kelley, L., & Kutsch, E. (2010). The Titanic sunk, so what? Project manager response to unexpected events. International Journal of Project Management, 28(6), 547–558.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.10.008
Geraldi, J., Maylor, H., & Williams, T. (2011). Now, let’s make it really complex (complicated) - A systematic review of the complexities of projects. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31(9), 966–990. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MRR-09-2015-0216
Gersick, C. J. G. (1994). Pacing Strategic Change: the Case of a New Venture. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), 9–45. https://doi.org/10.2307/256768
Gorod, A., Gandhi, S. J., Sauser, B., & Boardman, J. (2008). Flexibility of System of Systems. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 9(4), 21–31.
Hanisch, B., & Wald, A. (2012). A Bibliometric View on the Use of Contingency Theory in Project Management Research. Project Management Journal, 43(3), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj
Howell, D., Windahl, C., & Seidel, R. (2010). A project contingency framework based on uncertainty and its consequences. International Journal of Project Management, 28(3), 256–264.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.06.002
Jaafari, A. (2001). Management of risks, uncertainties and opportunities on projects: Time for a fundamental shift. International Journal of Project Management, 19(2), 89–101.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00047-2
Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. & Jick, T.D. (1992). The Challenge of Organizational Change: How Companies Experience It and Leaders Guide It. New York (NY): Free Press.
Karrbom Gustavsson, T., & Hallin, A. (2014). Rethinking dichotomization: A critical perspective on the use of “hard” and “soft” in project management research. International Journal of Project Management, 32(4), 568–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.10.009
