Hard and soft approaches in project management: from diagnosis
to approach
Duco (D.W.) Abma
S3541800
d.w.abma@student.rug.nl
Supervisor: Dr. C. Reezigt
Co-assessor: Dr. I. Maris-de Bresser
June 2019
Word count: 13.196
Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc BA Change Management
Master Thesis
ABSTRACT
Project management positively influences project success. But how to choose among the large variety of project management approaches? Since there is no one best approach for every project in every situation, it is important for project managers to understand which project management approaches are most applicable in which situations. Different project circumstances in terms of complexity and predictability and the project management approaches that are most applicable in the different circumstances are discussed based on the literature. A conceptual model is used to define the most applicable project management approaches based on the complexity and predictability facing the project aspects: project content, internal context and external context. In order to refine and validate the theory, a multiple-case study was conducted. Validations and refinements have been found as a result of a within-case and cross-case analysis. Refinement was found in terms of uncertainty influencing the choice of project management approaches and the importance of social aspects in project management. This refinement of the conceptual model will help increase the explanatory power and the applicability of the model in different project circumstances.
Keywords: project management; project contingencies; complexity; predictability; uncertainty; urgency;
INTRODUCTION
“Projects have become an important way to structure work in most organizations and constitute one of the most important organizational developments.” (Svejvig & Andersen, 2015: p. 5). Growth in the adoption of project management to accomplish work in different industries and sectors is significant (Too & Weaver, 2014). It becomes apparent from the research of Joslin and Müller (2015) that project management has a positive influence on the overall success of a project. To successfully execute projects, it is important to select the appropriate project management approach (Mir & Pinnington, 2014). To be able to select the appropriate approach, managers need to consider the project circumstances (Pich, Loch, & Meyer, 2002; Mir & Pinnington, 2014; Shenhar, 1998; Collyer & Warren, 2009). But what is the right approach for which project circumstances?
The literature on project management makes a distinction between two approaches to managing projects: ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ approaches (Karrbom Gustavsson & Hallin, 2014). This distinction is made, because one approach might be more applicable to a project than the other, depending on the type of project (Atkinson, Crawford, & Ward, 2006). So, it could be said that there are ‘hard’ as well as ‘soft’ projects, which are two ends of a spectrum (Crawford & Costello, 2015). “There is no distinct line between “hard” and “soft” when it comes to projects, project management, project management skills, etc. Even though “hard” and “soft” are treated as a dichotomy in everyday speech, it is not a true dichotomy, but two opposites on a continuum.” (Karrbom Gustavsson & Hallin, 2014: p. 568).
Hard projects are described as projects in which the goals are clearly defined and need no further examination (Lane, 2000). The most important aspect of hard projects is how to most efficiently reach the defined goals (Crawford & Pollack, 2004). Because the goals of hard projects are clearly defined, it, typically, is easier to measure the success of hard projects (McElroy, 1996). This is also why the successfulness of hard projects is mostly measured on the basis of quantitative data (Williams, 1999).
Soft projects are commonly described as projects in which the goals and objectives are not clearly defined at the beginning of the project and are seen to be applied more in situations that are ill-defined and involving human beings or cultural aspects (Crawford & Pollack, 2004). Since the goals are ill-defined, it is harder to measure the successfulness of these projects (McElroy, 1996). Based on this issue, the successfulness of soft projects is mostly measured on the basis of qualitative data (Williams, 1999).
Which project management approach do project managers select in response to a project’s complexity and predictability? And what are the consequences?
The goal of this study is to validate and refine the project contingency model using a multiple-case study. This way the model can be improved and refined so that it will be more applicable for business use.
The research will contribute to the literature in that it provides project managers with guidelines for analyzing what approach or combination of approaches might best fit the project at hand. Another contribution is that managers get an overview of the different kinds of project management approaches available. This will facilitate them in choosing between the different approaches. Lastly, this research will relate different levels of complexity and predictability to approaches for dealing with these constructs.
This research is the second stage of a two-stage research. The first stage focuses on how organizations diagnose a project based on complexity and predictability. This research builds on this by investigating which, based on this diagnosis, project management approach is selected and what the consequences of this choice are.
To be able to answer the research question, this study will review the literature on project management diagnosis and approaches. After that, a conceptual model will be proposed. Then, a multiple-case study will be conducted on five business cases, which will be used for theory refinement. In the results, it will be shown if the cases confirm or contradict the literature, which will be the input for the discussion part. Finally, an overview of the theoretical and practical contributions will be given.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In this chapter, four main sections will be described. Firstly, project management will be addressed. Next, the connection between project and change management will be made, accompanied by some change management approaches. After that, the project contingency model will be explained and finally, this model will be linked to the change management approaches identified.
Project management
analysis and systems engineering (Yeo, 1993), which shows the technological and rational background of the concept. Both aspects are related to the hard approach of project management, since systems analysis needs setting clear and rational goals and systems engineering is about the search for goals and communication and feedback control (Yeo, 1993).
Since not all projects can be managed using a hard approach, since it ignores the soft aspects of projects like social structures, power structures and culture, a lot of projects were perceived to have failed (Wateridge, 1999). This led to the rise of more soft approaches to project management (Wateridge, 1999). Soft approaches are used to achieve more intangible results, like introducing changes in the human side of companies like culture and systems (McElroy, 1996).
Change management
In their research, Griffith-Cooper and King (2007), explain that change management refers to the human aspect of projects. It is aimed at influencing intrinsic acceptance and at the same time reducing resistance towards a project (Griffith-Cooper & King, 2007).The change agent is acting as the intermediary or interpreter of the project and puts emphasis on creating and sticking to a planning, which is flexible and robust (Long, Wan Ismail, & Amin, 2013). Besides that, the change agent should be able to see the impact of the change on the business (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2005). The main aim of change management is to integrate the outcomes of the project into the business environment (Pitagorsky, 2011), and guiding the ones affected by a project through the stages of human response to change (Griffith-Cooper & King, 2007). This shows that change management is part of and adds to project management, since project management mainly focuses on project scope, schedule, costs, quality, procurement and risk (Griffith-Cooper & King, 2007). Because of this interrelationship between the two concepts, both will be treated as equals in the remainder of this thesis.
is not seen as having a beginning and an end but rather is a process that is ongoing to adapt or transform an organization (Burnes, 2017; Weick, 2000; Boonstra, 2004).
In line with the planned and emergent approach to change, Kanter et al. (1992) also distinguished between two approaches to change, which might be used as complements: ‘Bold Strokes’ and ‘Long Marches’. The Bold Strokes approach to change management are initiatives that are implemented top-down and are intended to have a clear and rapid impact on the organization’s performance (Burnes, 2017). The disadvantage of this approach is that it rarely leads to long-term changes in for example habits or culture. This shortcoming is where the Long Marches approach comes in. The Long Marches approach focuses on changes that are relatively small-scale, which are slowly implemented and that lead to benefits in the long-term, rather than the short-term (Burnes, 2017). In line with the findings of Kanter et al. (1992), Beer and Nohria (2000) identified two archetypes of change: Theory E and Theory O. Similar to the Bold Strokes approach, Theory E is a hard change approach that aims at rapid changes to improve the financial performance of an organization. The main objective is to maximize shareholder value by downsizing and restructuring of the organization. Theory O is similar to the Long Marches. It aims at incremental development of organizational culture and the human capabilities and it promotes organizational learning. This is more of a soft change approach.
Although both approaches are aimed at different outcomes, Kanter et al. (1992) and Beer and Nohria (2000) argue that the approaches are complementary. When a company, for example, wants to restructure, this could be done using the Bold Strokes approach, although if the company wants to use this restructuring to lead to a culture change, it might shift to the Long Marches approach. Boonstra (2004) adds a warning to this argument. In his article he argues that a sequence of first Theory E and then Theory O is difficult to apply for managers. He states: “Switching strategies seems to be difficult because change managers are unable to alter their style and thinking” (Boonstra, 2004: p. 450). This does not indicate that it is impossible to sequence both approaches or to integrate them, but that each approach demands different managers with different management styles. This shows that choosing a certain approach is dependent upon certain situational factors called contingencies (Boonstra, 2004; Burnes, 2017), because different situations put different demands upon managers and their management styles.
So, it can be concluded that planned and emergent change approaches are not mutually exclusive. Each approach might be more applicable in specific projects or situations. This leads to that companies should, before choosing an approach or a combination of approaches, analyze the company and the intent of the project to make the best choice regarding the approach.
Project management approaches
hard approaches, developing management skills to quantitatively analyze projects which has led to a shortfall of management and organization’s understanding of the social aspects (Söderlund & Maylor, 2012). Rather than hard and soft being a dichotomy, they are more two ends of a continuum, since there is no distinct line between the two (Karrbom Gustavsson & Hallin, 2014; Crawford & Pollack, 2004; Shi, 2011). Although hard and soft might not be a dichotomy, some research suggests that it can be split up into different dimensions that can indicate the hardness or softness of a project.
In their research, Crawford and Pollack (2004), identified seven dimensions of hardness and softness of projects (see figure 1). The main use of the framework is to map the hardness or softness of a project on different dimensions. It provides a basis for comparing projects and allows for a more informed choice of management approaches. The 0 to 100 scale was chosen to provide sufficient scope for participants to score their perception of the complexity in reality. On this scale, “0 represents ultimately hard and 100 represents ultimately soft” (Crawford & Pollack, 2004: p. 649).
Figure 1. Hard and soft dimensions framework (Source: Crawford & Pollack, 2004).
Soft projects are defined by unclearly or vaguely specified goals valuing relationships, meaning and culture, managed by discussion and negotiation and that measures success in qualitative terms (Atkinson et al., 2006; Karrbom Gustavsson & Hallin, 2014). Soft projects focus more on ambiguity reduction (Crawford & Pollack, 2004) and use participative, collaborative and facilitative approaches in which many views on issues are sought (Daniel, 1990). Agile and scrum are approaches that fit soft projects (Boonstra & Reezigt, 2019).
Although there are differences in the approaches towards hard and soft projects, the best way to manage a project should be a combination of various aspects of hard and soft approaches. This could for example mean that certain parts of the project are carried out using a top-down approach (hard), but in order to make these changes stick, participation and collaboration (soft) approaches are needed. It could be argued that both approaches are not opposites, but rather view the project from different perspectives (Karrbom Gustavsson & Hallin, 2014). This leads to that different aspects of a project can be managed using different hard and soft approaches and that there is not a one-best-way approach to managing a project (Shenhar, 2001). This contingent approach towards project management has been widely studied over the years (Souder & Song, 1997; Yap & Souder, 1994; Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995; Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Balachandra & Friar, 1997; Song, Souder, & Dyer, 1997).
Project contingency model
Figure 2. Project contingency model.
Complexity
Project complexity can be described as “the degree of differentiation of project elements, interrelatedness between project elements, and consequential impact on project decisions” (Kermanshachi & Safapour, 2019: p. 381). The higher the degree of these three elements, the higher the project complexity. For example, the more interrelated different elements within a project, the higher the complexity of a project (Williams, 1999b; Bakhsi, Ireland & Gorod, 2016; Pich et al., 2002). To be able to successfully manage a project, complexity should be taken into account, because when complexity is not managed well, it might negatively affect the project’s successfulness (Qazi, Quigley, Dickson, & Kirytopoulos, 2016).
Complexity can relate to project content and the internal and external context in which a project is carried out. Table 1 gives an overview of projects with high and low complexity.
Table 1. Complexity. (Source: Boonstra & Reezigt, 2019)
Predictability
from the fact that, due to continuously changing interactions, outcomes are unknown (Daniel & Daniel, 2018; Maylor, Vidgen, & Carver, 2008) Table 2 gives an overview of projects with high and low predictability.
Table 2. Predictability. (Source: Boonstra & Reezigt, 2019)
Design-oriented projects
The first quadrant in the conceptual model is characterized by high predictability and low complexity. These projects are called design-oriented projects. Here, the user requirements and the goals are clear (Špundak, 2014). Besides that, there are enough resources available to reach the desired goals (Boonstra & Reezigt, 2019). For these projects, all information is available which means that the actors know their tasks and responsibilities and there are few decision-making options (Rumeser & Emsley, 2018; Matland, 1995). This is mainly due to the fact that predictability is high and the complexity is low, which leads to the expectation that no changes will have to be made to, for example, the planning or the approach during the execution of the project (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007). Projects that fall into this quadrant are more amenable to planned project management approaches, since there is less uncertainty and there is a lower chance of having to make changes to the plan during the execution (Kvalnes, 2016).
of this traditional or thinking first approach is to successfully finish the project according to time, budget and scope (Špundak, 2014). An overview of the suggested approaches in this quadrant can be found in table 3.
Table 3. Overview of suggested approaches for design-oriented projects.
Negotiation projects
The second quadrant is defined by high predictability and high complexity. Here, interest groups think fundamentally different about the project’s goals and resources (Boonstra & Reezigt, 2019). Because of the disagreement and the high complexity, managers have to identify risks, develop contingency plans and prevent threats from happening (De Meyer, Loch, & Pich, 2002). Power determines the outcomes of these projects. Sometimes an actor or a group of actors possess sufficient power to impose their will upon other participants, whereas in other cases actors may need to bargain to get to an agreement (Matland, 1995). For projects in this quadrant, a trade-off can be made: managers can choose to not fully map a complex but predictable system and incorporate flexibility in the approach. This means that the managers accept a certain amount of unpredictability (Boonstra & Reezigt, 2019).
for different foreseeable events that might influence the course of the project (De Meyer et al., 2002). An overview of the suggested approaches in this quadrant can be found in table 4.
Table 4. Overview of suggested approaches for negotiation projects.
Development projects
This quadrant in the model is represented by low predictability and low complexity. Due to the low predictability, these projects cannot be fully planned. Managers have to continuously solve new problems and adjust goals and approaches (De Meyer et al., 2002). As sufficient new information emerges, managers and other actors in the project must be willing to learn and define new solutions (De Meyer et al., 2002). The goals in these projects are unclear or incomplete and it can be assumed that these change during the course of the project (Conforto & Amaral, 2010; Coram & Bohner, 2005). The human side of projects, and in particular communication between project team members and external stakeholders, is important in these projects (Boehm, 2002; Coram & Bohner, 2005; Highsmith, 2009).
Iterative approaches leave room for making adjustments as a response to the unpredictability facing the project. This also helps to faster execute projects by delivering short-term benefits and to obtain better control (Benediktsson & Dalcher, 2005). This approach could also be described as ‘doing first’ in terms of Mintzberg and Westley (2001). This means that project managers try out various methods, tactics or approaches, then determine which of them works, try to learn from these and then repeating the successful ones and renounce the rest (Mintzberg & Westley, 2001). An overview of the suggested approaches in this quadrant can be found in table 5.
Table 5. Overview of suggested approaches for development projects.
Negotiation and development projects
that allow the project to ‘emerge’ rather than to fully plan the project (Williams, 2005; Daniel & Daniel, 2018).
Approaches for dealing with these projects need to have the greatest flexibility (De Meyer et al., 2002). As a result of the low predictability and high complexity, fully planning the project is not possible. Using contingency plans is insufficient, because changes to the product structure might be made due to learning, which consequently leads to a redefinition of the entire project (De Meyer et al., 2002). Because stakeholders in the projects fundamentally disagree, the main orientation of the approaches should be social (Špundak, 2014). Due to the disagreement and high goal conflict, the necessity for bargaining and coercion arises and modifications have to be made (Matland, 1995). These projects are associated with a more collaborative and participative approach (Paton & McCalman, 2008). Project managers are “developing and maintaining close but loose contacts with customers and opinion leaders” (De Meyer et al., 2002: p. 7). This emphasizes a bottom-up and iterative approach towards the project. An overview of the suggested approaches in this quadrant can be found in table 6.
METHODS
To identify the project management approaches that are used in practice, depending on the project’s complexity and predictability, first a thorough literature review was performed, after which a qualitative multiple-case study has been conducted. This study will refine and validate the theory on approaches in project management, by developing a framework for using different project management approaches, to deal with the influence of complexity and predictability on the project. Yin (2002) describes that a multiple-case study is applicable to theory replication and refinement, which is the case in this study.
Since this study is focused on project management, five organizations that are deploying project management have been analyzed. Within each organization one project was selected for analysis. Requirements for the projects were that (1) the project needed to be finished or at least in the final phase, (2) the project should be finished recently (at most 1.5 years ago), (3) the project should at least have one change-agent and two project team members and (4) each individual case should differ from the other selected cases in terms of the predictability and complexity of the project aspects: content, internal context and external context. In accordance with these four criteria, five finished projects (i.e. cases) were selected. All projects were finished recently (i.e. at least in 2018) within different industries and were studied from initiation to completion.
predictability. The approach that was chosen was an iterative, agile approach with a technological focus. More background on the cases can be found in Appendix I.
Data Collection
To answer the research question, primary data was collected between April and March 2019. This was done via semi-structured qualitative interviews of about one hour with each respondent individually (the interview protocol can be found in Appendix II). The choice for semi-structured interviews was made, because this allowed for addressing the topics of interest and gaining insightful data with extensive explanations (Yin, 2002). In four out of the five cases, three respondents were interviewed. In case A, four respondents have been interviewed, since information saturation had not been achieved after three interviews. This resulted in a total of sixteen interviews. In three out of the five cases all interviews were conducted in a one-day site visit. In cases B and C, one out of the three interviews were done during a site visit. The other two interviews were conducted via a video conferencing application. Due to the limited availability of these interviewees, an on-site interview was not possible. In all cases at least one project manager or project sponsor, and one project team member was interviewed. In cases D and E also one project recipient was interviewed, due to the interest in their perspective. An overview of all interviewees can be found in Appendix III. The interviewer has paid attention to controllability, reliability and validity (Aken, Berends & Bij, 2012). In order to make the research controllable, the process was described in a journal in such a way that replication was facilitated.
Controlling potential biases is necessary to increase reliability (Yin, 2002). Aken et al. (2012) describe the following biases: researcher bias, instrument bias, respondent bias and situation bias. A colleague student and an experienced researcher in the topic of project management provided feedback and supervision during the process. This lowers the researcher bias. Nevertheless, the respondents might be influenced by the interviewer, since the interviewer participated in the research setting. The use of semi-structured interviews and the fact that in each interview different questions and different formulations of questions were used, limited the instrument bias. Since in all cases respondents were non-randomly selected by the project manager or sponsor, respondent bias might be an issue. Although the researcher requested to appoint the respondents randomly, in all cases, the project sponsor or manager insisted on appointing the respondents. Although, in two out of the five cases the researcher selected two recipients of the project as interviewees, the respondent bias is a problem and might have influenced the outcomes. Lastly, the situation bias had minimal to no impact on the research, since all interviews were conducted about projects that had been finished. This led to the respondents not being affected by team dynamics or the progress of the project.
Crawford and Pollack (2004) were used in constructing the interview questions. In order to increase internal validity, pattern-matching was used by incorporating questions regarding possible alternative influences on the causal relation. These questions are questions 5 and 6 in Appendix III. Using multiple cases and performing a cross-case analysis to find overarching patterns helped to secure external validity.
Data Analysis
After collection, the data was analyzed on a project level (Yin, 2002)using Eisenhardt’s (1989) method for data analysis. This method first starts by reading, coding and interpreting the interviews (i.e. analyzing) of each project participant. The coding process was done according to Glaser and Strauss (1967) and the qualitative data analysis tool Atlas.ti was used. The process started with open coding, in which deductive and inductive codes were applied to each dataset individually. Deductive codes were based on the models, constructs and concepts found in the literature review. Next, axial coding was used to group the first-order codes, from the open coding, into sub-categories. The coding process was finalized by the application of selective coding, in which the main categories and mutual relationships between the concepts were identified. To increase the understanding of a case, one interview was coded at a time. When no new concepts were found and theoretical saturation was achieved, the coding process was finished. In Appendix IV the codebook can be found. When the within-case analysis was completed, a cross-case analysis was conducted. In this cross-case analysis outcomes of the analysis of each individual case were compared to the outcomes of the other four cases. This gave insight in patterns (Eisenhardt, 1989). This pattern-matching compared expected with observed patterns and helped to compare the data to literature and find interesting similarities or differences that could be used to refine and validate the theory (Eisenhardt, 1989).
RESULTS
In this section, the results from the analysis will be discussed. First, the results form the within-case analysis will be shown, after which an overview of all findings of the within-case analysis will be presented. This section will end with the results of the cross-case analysis.
Within-case analysis
successful or unsuccessful. The extensive research in the area of project success and project management success falls outside the scope of this research, but for the degree of solidity and consistency, the following criteria were used to describe the successfulness of a project: (1) the project was completed within the timeframe determined at the initiation of the project (when no timeframe was defined, this criterion can be neglected), (2) the goals that were determined at the initiation of the project, or that came about during the project, have been achieved, and (3) during the project, no extra resources (e.g. time, money and manpower) were issued to complete the project. A project can only be labeled as successful if each criterion is met.
Case A
This case could be described as a relatively simple project. The project faced relatively low complexity and was relatively predictable. Due to the familiarity with the project and the availability of the technology, at T1 the project was relatively predictable and had a low complexity. Although at T2 it turned out to be less predictable and more complex than anticipated. This was mostly due to that the project was subject to external influences, the ill defined timescale and the fact that some resources were unclear, unavailable or insufficient. Overall, the project could be classified as a design-oriented project and a planned and traditional project management approach was expected. The placement of the different project aspects in the conceptual model can be found in figure 3.
Figure 3. Positioning of the project aspects of case A in the conceptual model.
“Then we said, lets just start, then we will see how it goes. We will find out what is needed and how it really works in practice” (PMA). This approach could be described as a doing first approach. During the project less time was invested in planning and thinking out the project and, instead, the execution of the project was just started. As a project team member stated: "After that just do, just do, don’t float in thinking too long” (PTA3). This approach was relatively beneficial to the project, because: “Now we directly have all information available within three months” (PMA). This allowed the project team to directly tackle issues and to seize opportunities when they arose. This also explains why some agile and scrum type of approaches were used. “We made short sprints to make progress” (PMA). After and during each sprint, the outcomes were analyzed and, if necessary, changes or adaptations were made. In order to quickly adapt, bi-weekly meetings were held to “see if it goes well, if things have to change, if things have to be improved and where we have to switch” (PTA2). The choice for bi-weekly meetings was made consciously, since a project team member stated: “you should not sit together every week, because then you keep on changing” (PTA1). Besides those meetings, there was a lot of communication between the different project team members individually. The team members are “actually always approachable. That makes things a lot easier” (PTA1). Even though project team members, between themselves, communicated a lot, communication towards other stakeholders was less well organized. There was minimal to no communication towards other stakeholders, which caused that it was not clear what was expected of them, what the exact intention of the project was and what the duration of the project was. This led to some irritation between stakeholders and project team members. “People were pointing at each other” (PMA). This could also be caused by the frequent changes in the project that were not communicated to the other stakeholders and left them confused.
Overall, the project could be described as successful, since there was no strict time frame determined, the goals were achieved and no extra resources were issued. As a project team member described: “This brings so much peace to the connected warehouses, that everyone is very enthusiastic” (PTA1). The fact that the project delivered short-term benefits caused an overall positive attitude towards the project. Mainly the increased efficiency and reduced workloads caused the enthusiasm. Since the company was familiar with these types of projects, might also have contributed to the project’s success. Lastly, the fact that urgency was not an issue, might have contributed to the success of the project. As the project manager stated: “When it does not go well, then we shift back and nothing is wrong” (PMA).
Case B
In this case the different project aspects faced various circumstances. Although most of the aspects faced relatively high predictability, the degree of complexity varied between relatively low and relatively high complexity. The clarity of the goals and objectives and that the project could be planned, made this project relatively predictable at T1. The different levels of complexity at T1 could be explained by different levels of external influence facing the aspects. External collaboration and external influences affected the aspects at T2, except for the internal aspect. This stayed the same during the course of the project. Overall, the project could be classified as a combination of a design-oriented and a negotiation project and a combination of a planned, traditional project management approach and a facilitative, contingency planning approach could be expected. The placement of the different project aspects in the conceptual model can be found in figure 4.
Figure 4. Positioning of the project aspects of case B in the conceptual model.
suppliers were involved, “we then made a detailed planning, which was an important success factor” (PSB). The choice for performing this project in a planned manner was consciously made, because “this was a project that was under pressure in terms of time. It had an end date that we had to meet” (PSB). In order to make the planning as accurate as possible, both the supplier that was handing over and the supplier taking over the work collaborated in composing the planning. This collaborative nature was also enforced towards the project leaders, which was a group of three people consisting of a project leader of company B, a project leader from the transferring company and a project leader from the receiving company. This group had to report jointly towards the project management team. This way the project management team made sure that the project leaders had to communicate and negotiate, before reporting. By doing this “we made sure that we as the project team had one story” (PSB). This made fixing any issues during the project easier than if each project leader had a different story. The main reason for this tactic was that “the main angle of the project team is making the project managers [project leaders] successful” (PSB).
All in all, this project could be labeled as successful. The project was finished within the determined timeframe, the goals were achieved and no extra resources were issued. As a project team member stated: “for the most part, it has all gone to plan and what we had as a goal was actually achieved” (PTB1). Mainly the fact that both suppliers were really cooperating and took ownership made this project into a success. “The collaboration between the two suppliers, yes that is what has boosted the success of the project” (PTB2). Also the fact that the technology was available and known freed the way to make this project successful. As a project team member described: “We actually only changed the supplier and we did not introduce or change technology” (PTB1).
In conclusion, based on the positioning in the conceptual model, a combination of a planned, traditional project management approach and a facilitative, contingency planning approach could be expected. The approach used for this project is a planned approach in which the project team had a facilitative role. The approach is in line with the conceptual model and leads to a successful project.
Case C
Figure 5. Positioning of the project aspects of case C in the conceptual model.
Overall, this project was unsuccessful. Although, the goals of the project have been achieved and no extra resources were issued, the project was not completed within the time frame determined at the initiation of the project. As the project manager stated: “ Eventually we had to move it [the end date] once and then we managed it a bit tighter” (PMC). Since this project was highly dependent on the capabilities, competence and planning of the supplier of the technology and that the company is split up into different branches, contributed to the project exceeding its initial time frame. As a result of this project being implemented top-down and in a more hierarchical way, might explain why, in the end, the goals were achieved. This might also explain why some resistance from the administrators was present. Since this project had been attempted a few times before and did not succeed then, the urgency to complete the project this time increased. This might explain why a more top-down, hierarchical approach was chosen.
In sum, regarding the positioning in the conceptual model, a mainly planned and traditional project management approach could be expected with some aspects of facilitative approaches. However, the approach used in this project was a combination of a planned and iterative approach, and no facilitative approaches were used. Based on the conceptual model, the project should be mainly successful, but unsuccessful on the facilitative aspects. Still, the outcomes of the project were unsuccessful. The urgency facing this project, which led to the top-down and hierarchical implementation of the project, might have caused these negative results and the absence of the facilitative approaches.
Case D
Figure 6. Positioning of the project aspects of case D in the conceptual model.
happened several times” (PMD). Eventually the project took three years instead of the planned one year. “I noticed that people were just dropping out, because the project took too long” (PMD). As a result, the project team had to get a more social focus, to make sure that the employees did not forget about the project. This was done by facilitating dialogue between project team members and end-users of the new system. To do this, meetings and trainings were organized to build knowledge and to let people voice their wants and needs. As a project recipient described: “Yes, in the end the communication was arranged very well” (PRD1).
All in all, this project was unsuccessful. Even though, in the end, the goals were achieved, the project exceeded the determined time frame with two years and extra resources needed to be issued. The main cause of this exceeded time frame and initial resources was the dynamism of the scope. Due to this, the project team was not able to select an adequate approach for the entire project, but had to alternate between approaches depending on the changes in the scope. This might also explain why the project was managed in a top-down and hierarchical way, since incorporating stakeholders in the decision process every time an approach had to be chosen, would be highly time consuming.
To conclude, regarding the positioning in the conceptual model, at the start mainly planned and traditional project management approaches could be expected, which turned into more contingency planning, social and iterative approaches during the later phases of the project. The approach used in this case can be described as a combination of planned and iterative approaches, with a more social focus towards the end of the project. The overall approach was planned, but the approach used in the different phases or after a change in the scope, alternated between planned, PRINCE 2, and iterative, scrum. Although, this approach is relatively in line with the conceptual model, except for the fact that iterative approaches were also used at the start and planned approaches were used in later phases, the project was unsuccessful. This might be due to the dynamism of the scope, which restrained the project management team from choosing a specific approach for the entire project.
Case E
Figure 7. Positioning of the project aspects of case E in the conceptual model.
delay in the in the new implementation” (PME). Since the go-live date moved a few times, communication was a lot harder. This caused employees to lose trust in the project team.
In the end, a go-live date was pushed top-down. Due to some unforeseen dependencies, this resulted in a large crisis, as a result of a rapid increase in the amount of complaints from clients. In response a crisis team was compiled, which used a planned and participative approach to resolve the crisis.
Overall, the project was unsuccessful. Although, no clear timescale was defined at the initiation of the project and, eventually, the goals of the project have been achieved, extra resources had to be issued to finish the project. This was mainly due to the unrealistic deadline, which led to the need of running the old systems alongside the new system. Due to this, the process became less effective and the costs became higher. In turn, the urgency of the project increased, since the impact on the company became even larger. This might explain why a more top-down and hierarchical management approach was chosen.
Table 7. Summary of the findings from the within-case analysis. Case Results At T1 Design-oriented project Combination of design-oriented and negotiation project Design-oriented with a small aspect of a negotiation project Design-oriented Combination of design-oriented and negotiation project At T2 Design-oriented project Combination of design-oriented and negotiation project Design-oriented with a small aspect of a negotiation project Negotiation and development project Negotiation and development project Expected approach based on the model Planned and traditional project management approach Combination of planned, traditional and facilitative, contingency planning approach Planned, traditional with facilitative aspects Planned and traditional project management approach that turns into a social and iterative approach Combination of planned, traditional and facilitative, contingency planning approach that turns into a social and iterative approach Chosen approach Iterative Planned approach with facilitative aspects Combination of planned and iterative approach Iterative with planned aspects Iterative, agile approach with a technological focus Expected outcome based on the model
Unsuccessful Successful Mainly unsuccessful, but successful on the planned aspects Successful Unsuccessful Realized outcome based on chosen approach
Successful Successful Unsuccessful Unsuccessful Unsuccessful
Project management approaches
Outcomes
Case A Case B Case C Case D Case E
Cross-case analysis
In this section the interesting patterns across the five cases are described. First, the impact of communication is described. Next, the influence of urgency on the choice of project management approaches is discussed. Lastly, the relationship between urgency and top-down and hierarchically managed approaches is presented.
Communication
It is interesting to see that in four out of the five cases communication towards stakeholders outside of the project team was not taken into account in the approach and had a negative effect on the commitment to the project. In case A this led to that other stakeholders did not know what was expected of them, what the exact content of the project was and what the timescale would be. In case C this caused that the end-users did not know that something was about to change and the concerns and advice of this group could not be taken into account. In case D this led to the fact that, within the organization, there were different interpretations and low commitment to the project. In case E, different than in the other three cases, the communication had been taken into account in the planning, but it was not carried out. This was caused by ambiguity about the role of the project leader. This led to end-users not knowing in which stage the project was and lost their trust in the project group.
As can be seen, communication is an important aspects of project management. Not just the communication within the project team, but, more importantly, to other stakeholders. The absence or lack of communication has a negative effect on the commitment towards a project.
What is also interesting is that communication is also important in projects that have a more technical orientation. Although the conceptual model suggests that communication is mainly important in projects that face high complexity, the results show that it is also deemed important in projects facing low complexity. However, there might be a difference in the function of communication. In projects facing low complexity, communication might have a more social function in keeping the stakeholders informed about the project. Although this is also important in projects facing high complexity, the purpose of communication might be more focused on successfully implementing the project. Due to this, the absence or lack of communication might have a more substantial impact in those types of projects, than in projects that face low complexity.
Influence of urgency on the choice of project management approaches
In three out of the five cases the project management approaches chosen were not, or not entirety, congruent with those suggested in the conceptual model. In line, in two out of the three cases, this led to an unsuccessful project. However, in the other case, the project was successful. These three cases have in common that they were influenced by urgency.
should lead to an unsuccessful project. Nevertheless, the project was successful. The fact that the urgency was relatively low might explain this outcome. As the project manager stated: “When it does not go well, then we shift back and nothing is wrong” (PMA). This low urgency provided the project team with room to experiment, try out different things and solve issues in innovative ways. The fact that there is a back-up scenario if problems appear also decreased the urgency. In turn this also means that the project is not under time pressure. This fact might also have contributed to the choice for the iterative approach.
In case C, the expected approach was a planned, traditional approach with facilitative aspects. The approach used was a combination of a planned and iterative approach, and no facilitative approaches were used. This should lead to a mainly unsuccessful project, but successful on the planned aspects. In line with the conceptual model, the project was unsuccessful. The fact that the urgency was relatively high might also have a share in this outcome. The fact that this project had been attempted a few times before and that the company wanted to finish it this time increased the urgency. Due to this, a more top-down and hierarchical approach was chosen. This style of managing might have provided less room for the application of the facilitative approaches. The fact that this aspect is taken away by this management style might explain why the project was unsuccessful.
In case E, a combination of planned, traditional and facilitative, contingency planning approaches that turn into a social and iterative approach were expected. In line with the conceptual model, this should lead to an unsuccessful project. This outcome might be influenced by the relatively high urgency. Besides the fact that this project should increase the efficiency of the process, the fact that the deliverables had an impact on the entire organization might have caused this urgency. Just as in the previous case, due to this, a more top-down and hierarchical approach was chosen. This style of managing the project might have provided less room for having a social focus and might explain the more technological focus. Beside that, the urgency might also explain why the project manager chose to manage this project using an, by the IT-department favorited, iterative approach. Because of the high urgency and the fact that the IT-department, which always used an iterative approach in projects, was one of the main stakeholders in the change, might have provided less room to use a different approach in this project.
Relationship between high urgency and top-down and hierarchically managed approaches
As indicated in the previous part, there is a relationship between urgency and top-down approaches. Cases C, D and E faced high urgency and were managed in a top-down and hierarchical way. The projects in the three cases were all unsuccessful. This makes it interesting which factors of urgency contributed to the choice of a top-down and hierarchically managed approach?
A first commonality between the three cases is that they all had a clear deadline. In cases C and D a deadline was selected in the initiation phase of the project, whereas case E started without a clear deadline, but defined the deadline during the project. Urgency might explain why a deadline was put on the project, but in turn, this deadline might increase the feeling of urgency in the project team. This feeling of urgency might explain why a more top-down and hierarchical approach was chosen, since this approach might provide the project team with an increased feeling of control. This might be caused by the fact that this approach makes it possible for the project team to make decisions independently from the other stakeholders. This decreases the dependency on influences outside the project team. It might be concluded that if a project has a clear deadline, the feeling of urgency increases. Whereas if the project has no clear deadline it might decrease the feeling of urgency. This could possibly explain why in cases in which a clear deadline was put, a more top-down and hierarchically managed approach was chosen.
A second similarity between the cases is that all projects had a large impact within the organization. In cases C, the outcome had an influence on all financial departments of all 14 locations of the company. In case D, a new system was implemented that had an influence on about 500 employees in the organization. In case E, the impact on the organization was high, because the new system would have an impact on almost the whole organization. It can be concluded that all three projects had a relatively large impact within their organization. The impact a project has on the organization can also be described as a type of urgency. When a project has a relatively low impact on the organization, the urgency is decreased, as well as the feeling of urgency in the project team. If a project has a high impact on the organization, the urgency and feeling of urgency, increase. The fact that the degree of impact influences the urgency and feeling of urgency might explain that in cases of high impact, a more top-down and hierarchically managed approach is chosen. This might be explained by the fact that this approach provides the project team with a feeling of control.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Only in two out of the five cases, the chosen approach was congruent with the suggested approach in the literature. In the other three cases the project management approach was not, or only partly, in line with the suggested approach in the literature. Although in some cases the project management approach was consciously chosen by the project manager or the project management team, in other cases, the project team was steered towards a certain approach, or the choice was influenced by other factors. This suggests the need for refinement of the conceptual model in terms of the factors influencing the choice of a project management approach. This research aimed at finding out which approach project managers selected in response to the complexity and predictability of the different project aspects and, for this, made use of a conceptual model to compare literature to practice.
To answer the research question “Which project management approach do project managers
select in response to a project’s complexity and predictability? And what are the consequences?”, a
conceptual model is proposed. This model is based on the contingencies predictability and complexity, which can be either low or high. As indicated in the results, given the predictability and complexity facing the project aspects and the positioning in the model, certain approaches are suggested that should lead to success. In case A, the suggested approach is not used, but the project resulted in a success. In case B, the suggested approach was used and led to a successful project. In case C, the suggested approach was partly used and resulted in an unsuccessful project. In case D, the suggested project management approach was used, but led to an unsuccessful project. In case E, the approach was not in line with the suggested approach, which led to the project being unsuccessful. Because not all projects followed the suggested approach, but regardless, sometimes, were successful, the conceptual model cannot be confirmed.
management approaches. This might be explained by that, because of the low urgency, the need for control is also low, which gives room to experimentation. However, this does not mean that in projects that face low predictability, only iterative approaches can be used. Although, the need for control seems to be lower in these projects, also planned approaches can be used to manage the project. This shows that in projects that face low urgency, the project manager has more room to use different approaches.
Relatively in line with the previous paragraph, the findings also indicate that high urgency leads to a more top-down and hierarchical project management approach. In line with the research of Giltinane (2013), just as with the choice for planned approaches in these types of projects, this might have to do with the project managers’ feeling of control. This approach provides less room for other stakeholders to have an influence on the project or its approach, which might increase the project managers’ feeling of control. This is also understated by the research of Cuny (2000), in which it is stated that in more urgent projects, a more directive management style will be most effective.
To estimate the degree of urgency facing a project and the feeling of urgency facing the project team, the insights from the cases suggest that the impact of the project within the organization and the presence of a deadline should be taken into account. The impact of the project, in terms of resources, people involved or efficiency, appears to influence the degree of urgency in that a higher impact increases the urgency and feeling of urgency. This urgency and feeling of urgency might be caused by the perceived organizational pressure and risk of the project, due to the organizational impact. A low degree of impact on the organization will work the other way around. This will decrease the urgency and feeling of urgency, which might be caused by lower organizational pressure and a lower perceived risk. Regarding the presence of a deadline, the results suggest that the presence of a strict deadline will increase feeling of urgency facing the project team. This could be explained by the fact that in those cases the project and project team are put under time pressure, which provides a limited time frame in which the project has to be carried out. The research of Howell et al (2010) suggests that time pressure leads to managers focusing more on control over the project. This is congruent with the findings of this research. On the other hand, the absence of a strict deadline might lead to decreased feeling of urgency. This might be explained by the fact that these projects have a decreased need for control.
Theoretical implication
The theoretical implication of this research can be defined as an analysis of the different project management approaches that can be used in different types of project circumstances and how this relates to approaches used in practice. Literature on project management approaches is synthesized in the conceptual model, based on the degree of complexity and predictability facing a project. As a result, the approaches best used in different combinations of high and low complexity and predictability were identified. Besides that, factors were identified that influenced project managers in their choice of a certain project management approach. Also, how these factors can explain why a projected negative outcome based on the conceptual model, can in practice lead to a positive outcome. Lastly, two factors that contribute to the urgency facing a project were identified.
So this research refines the conceptual model firstly in that it adds social aspects to projects facing low complexity. Currently the model suggests that projects facing high complexity should have a social focus, but the findings suggest that projects facing low complexity should also incorporate social aspects. However in projects facing low complexity this is mainly aimed at keeping stakeholders informed, whereas in projects facing high complexity, it is more crucial for successfully implementing the project. Adding this to the conceptual model will give it a more complete view of the importance of the social aspects in project management. A second refinement is the influence of urgency, which can be determined by a project’s impact and the presence of a strict deadline. In order to accurately choose an approach from the model, urgency should be added as a contextual factor. When urgency is high, relatively independent from the complexity and predictability facing the project aspects, more planned and directive approaches should be used to successfully implement a project. In projects facing low urgency, there is more room to use different approaches and still deliver a successful project
Managerial implications
Limitations and further research
A first limitation is that the cases used in this study deal with different types of projects, in different industries and that faced different project circumstances. To explore the application of the conceptual model, this diversity is desirable. Although, to verify the results of this research, one type of project, within one industry and with similar project circumstances should be chosen. Another limitation is that in neither of the five cases, the project aspects were scored as being a development project. This implies that this type of project has not been taken into account in the analysis. Incorporating this type of projects into the analysis might lead to different outcomes. Further research should try to verify the model by incorporating projects in all four quadrants, to verify the whole model. Thirdly, the possible respondent bias is another limitation of this research. Due to the fact that the respondents were nonrandomly selected. This might have affected the outcomes of this research. Lastly, further research should explore the relationship between urgency, how to diagnose the urgency and how this influences the choice of a project management approach.
Conclusion
This paper provided a conceptual model on complexity and predictability and the different types of project management approaches that are most applicable in different levels of complexity and predictability. The literature on project management approaches and project circumstances was reviewed. The main aim was to refine the conceptual model using a multiple case-study, with deductive and inductive codes. Refinement towards the model was found in the amount of urgency facing a project. Interestingly, from the analysis the conclusion could be drawn that the degree of urgency determines whether top-down and hierarchical management approaches will be used. Besides that, it is shown that the degree of urgency can be determined using the project’s degree of impact on the organization and the presence of a strict deadline. Lastly, the importance of communication towards stakeholder outside of the project team is minimal to none existent in almost all cases analyzed in this paper.
Acknowledgements
REFERENCES
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.
Andersen, Erling S. (2016). Do project managers have different perspectives on project management?
International Journal of Project Management, 34(1), 58–65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.09.007
Andersen, E.S., Dyrhaug, Q. X., & Jessen, S. A. (2002). Evaluation of Chinese projects and
comparison with Norwegian projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(8), 601–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0263-7863(02)00011-x
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.
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
Balachandra, R., & Friar, J. H. (1997). Factors for success in R&D projects and new product
innovation: a contextual framework. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 44(3), 276–287. https://doi.org/10.1109/17.618169
Bartunek, J. M., Balogun, J., & Do, B. (2011). Considering Planned Change Anew: Stretching Large Group Interventions Strategically, Emotionally, and Meaningfully. The Academy of
Management Annals, 5(1), 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.567109
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Breaking the Code of Change. Boston, USA: Harvard Business School Press.
Benediktsson, O., & Dalcher, D. (2005). Estimating size in incremental software development projects. IEE Proceedings - Software, 152(6), 253–259. https://doi.org/10.1049/ip-sen:20050019
Boehm, B. (2002). Get ready for agile methods, with care. Computer, 35(1), 64–69. https://doi.org/10.1109/2.976920
Boonstra, J. (2004). Dynamics of Organizational Change and Learning. Hoboken, USA: Wiley.
Boonstra, J. J. (2004). Dynamics of Organization Change and Learning: Reflections and perspectives. In J. J. Boonstra (Ed.), Dynamics of Organizational Change and Learning. Wiley handbooks
in the psychology of management in organizations (pp. 447–475). Retrieved from
https://www.jaapboonstra.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Conclusion.pdf
Boonstra, A., & Reezigt, C. (2019). Diagnosticeren van projecten op basis van complexiteit en
voorspelbaarheid. Unpublished working paper: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. 1-7.
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The Art of Continuous Change: Linking Complexity Theory and Time-Paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations. Administrative
Burnes, B. (2004). Emergent change and planned change – competitors or allies? International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24(9), 886–902.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570410552108
Burnes, B. (2017). Managing change (7th ed.). Harlow, United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited.
Collyer, S., Warren, C., Hemsley, B., & Stevens, C. (2010). Aim, Fire, Aim—Project Planning Styles in Dynamic Environments. Project Management Journal, 41(4), 108–121.
https://doi.org/https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1002%2Fpmj.20199
Collyer, S., & Warren, C. M. (2009). Project management approaches for dynamic environments.
International Journal of Project Management, 27(4), 355–364.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.04.004
Conforto, E. C., & Amaral, D. C. (2010). Evaluating an Agile Method for Planning and Controlling Innovative Projects. Project Management Journal, 41(2), 73–80. https://doi.org/https://doi- org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1002%2Fpmj.20089
Coram, M., & Bohner, S. (2005). The impact of agile methods on software project management. Presented at the 12th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems, Greenbelt, USA. https://doi.org/10.1109/ECBS.2005.68
Crawford L, Costello K. (2000). Towards a transferable methodology for managing strategic change
by projects. In: Crawford L, Clarke CF, editors. IRNOP IV Conference - Paradoxes of Project
Collaboration in the Global Economy: Interdependence, Complexity and Ambiguity. Sydney, Australia: University of Technology.
Crawford, L., & Pollack, J. (2004). Hard and soft projects: a framework for analysis. International
Journal of Project Management, 22(8), 645–653.
Cuny, F. C. (2000). Principles of Disaster Management Lesson 7: Management Leadership Styles and Methods. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 15(1), 78–86.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X0002495X
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
Daniel, P. A., & Daniel, C. (2018). Complexity, uncertainty and mental models: From a paradigm of 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
Dawson, P. (1994). Organizational Change: A Processual Approach. London, United Kingdom: Paul Chapman Publishing.
De Meyer, A., Loch, C. H., & Pich, M. T. (2002). Managing Project Uncertainty: From Variation to Chaos. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(2), 60–67. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-ub.rug.nl/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=5982685&site=ehost-live&scope=site
DeCarlo, D. (2004). EXtreme Project Management: Using Leadership, Principles, and Tools to
Deliver Value in the Face of Volatility. Hoboken, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (2005). Assessing leadership styles and organisational context. Journal of
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Brown, S. L. (1998). TIME PACING: COMPETING IN MARKETS THAT WON’T STAND STILL. Harvard Business Review, 76(2), 59–69. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-ub.rug.nl/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=297772&site=ehost-live&scope=site Eisenhardt, K.M., & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995). Accelerating Adaptive Processes: Product Innovation in
the Global Computer Industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 84–110. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393701
Giltinane, C. L. (2013). Leadership styles and theories. Nursing Standard, 27(41), 35–39. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns2013.06.27.41.35.e7565
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research. New Brunswick, USA: Aldine.
Griffith-Cooper, B., & King, K. (2007). The partnership between project management and
organizational change: Integrating change management with change leadership. Performance
Improvement, 46(1), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.034
Highsmith, J. R. (2009). Agile Project Management: Creating Innovative Products (2nd ed.). London, UK: Pearson Education.
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
Howell, G., & Koskela, L. J. (2002). The underlying theory of project management is obsolete. The
PMI Research Conference. Retrieved from http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/9400/
Joslin, R., & Müller, R. (2015). Relationships between a project management methodology and project success in different project governance contexts. International Journal of Project
Management, 33(6), 1377–1392.
Kanter, R. M., Stein, B., & Jick, T. D. (1992). The Challenge of Organizational Change: How
Companies Experience It and Leaders Guide It. New York, USA: 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.
Kermanshachi, S., & Safapour, E. (2019). Identification and Quantification of Project Complexity from Perspective of Primary Stakeholders in US Construction Projects. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 25(4), 380–398. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2019.8633
Kvalnes, Ø. (2016). Living with the Unknown Unknown: Uncertainty in Projects. Project
Management Journal, 47(3), 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281604700309
Lane, D. C. (2000). Should System Dynamics be Described as a Hard or Deterministic Systems Approach? System Research and Behavioral Science, 17, 3–22.
