From the Front to the Back: Complex Stakeholders, too Much to Handle?

(1)

From the Front to the Back: Complex Stakeholders, too Much to

Handle?

A multiple case study on stakeholder complexities and stakeholder management

strategies over a project life cycle

Master Thesis

MSc Change Management

Faculty of Economics and Business

University of Groningen

Student & Student Number: Daan de Weger (s2564238)

Supervisor: Dr. C. Reezigt

Co-assessor: Drs. H. P. van Peet

Date: 20-01-2020

(2)

1

Abstract

A changing business environment has brought along an increase in project complexity. Stakeholder management as one of the pillars of project management needs to adapt to this new complex project context. Yet, current research on stakeholder management is hampered by a lack of coverage of more than one phase of a project life cycle. Moreover, there is a lack of empirical research on stakeholder dynamics. To investigate how complexities of stakeholders change and how stakeholder management strategies are applied over a project life cycle, a multiple case study was designed. Data was gathered through 15 semi-structured interviews at four case sites, of which three were in the educational and one in the construction sector. The data was analyzed by the use of the software Atlas.ti through a process of coding. The findings show how stakeholder complexities possess the ability to change in various ways throughout different project stages. A variety of stakeholder management strategies were observed that were applied at different stages throughout the project life cycle. Academics focusing on stakeholder management would be advised to push beyond the present research that limits itself to one phase of the project life cycle. The study provides project managers with evidence of the value of analysis and assessment of the stakeholder network, considering the occurrence of stakeholder dynamics on various fronts

(3)

2

Introduction

The accelerated developments in the present-day business environment have demanded of the field of project management (PM) to evolve (Lenfle & Loch, 2010; Pollack, 2007). As such, PM methods have undergone an expansion from traditional to modern ones (Andersen, 2014; Pollack, 2007). This development can be illustrated in particular, besides unpredictability, by increasing complexity within projects (Crawford & Pollack, 2004; Winter et al., 2006). To enhance our understanding of contemporary PM approaches, investigating complexity is thus of great importance. Stakeholder management is considered one of the pillars of the PM discipline (Cleland, 1986). There are several ways through which stakeholders might influence a project and its direction. This emphasizes the importance of appropriate project stakeholder management to reach a project’s intended goals (Aaltonen & Kujala, 2016; Vaagaasar, 2011). However, the development of heightened project complexity requires a new look at stakeholder management approaches that are contingent to the modern project context (Shenhar et al., 2007).

A part of project complexity comprises stakeholder complexities. Stakeholder complexities are a key characteristic of the stakeholder network (Aaltonen & Kujala, 2016). Throughout this paper, the definition of stakeholder complexities put forward by Aaltonen and Kujala (2016) is used, dividing the dimension of complexity into stakeholder element complexity and stakeholder relationship complexity. The former is determined by the number of project stakeholders, the variety of project stakeholders and their goals, and stakeholder’s internal complexity. The latter is determined by the number of relationships among stakeholders, the variety of relationships, patterns of relationships, relationships’ internal complexity and external stakeholder relationships. These project stakeholder complexities can prevail in both a static as in a dynamic state, making them susceptible to change (Maylor et al., 2008; Missonier & Loufrani-Fedida, 2014; Ramasesh & Browning, 2014). Understanding these stakeholder element and relational complexities within the stakeholder environment is crucial for project managers, as these complexities affect the difficulty of managing stakeholders (Maylor et al., 2008).

(4)

3

Furthermore, current research on project stakeholder management is hampered by a lack of coverage of more than one phase of a project life cycle. The existing body of research predominantly focuses on conceptual tools and theoretical frameworks to advance our understanding of managing stakeholders (Aaltonen & Kujala, 2016; Eskerod et al., 2015; Littau et al., 2010; Olander & Landin, 2005). However, this focus on conceptualizing has brought about a rather static view on projects (Eskerod & Vaagaasar, 2014; Jepsen, 2013; Turkulainen et al., 2016), neglecting a coherent perspective on stakeholder development during the phases of a project’s life cycle. This is because previous research has not taken into account changes in the relationships between stakeholders and in their influence on a project (Yang et al., 2009). Moreover, a sequence of project phases can create changes in the process of stakeholder management, since in dynamic contexts it becomes much more relevant for essential stakeholder goals to be continuously aligned with goals of the project (Geraldi et al., 2011; Freeman, 1984). Recent work has provided important information on the management of stakeholders within the front-end phase of projects (Aaltonen et al., 2017; Aaltonen et al., 2015). Nonetheless, a clear lack remains concerning analyses of stakeholder management that covers more parts of the project life cycle.

This research seeks to fill the gap of a lack of empirical research on stakeholder dynamic by describing such dynamics. Specifically, the focus lies on describing how stakeholder complexities change over a project life cycle. Additionally, this research aims to shed more light on what strategies project managers use to manage their stakeholders in the contemporary project environment. Specifically, this thesis contributes to project stakeholder management research by including stakeholder management analysis of more phases of the project life cycle than just the front-end. This investigation is done through the use of a multiple case study. To research these topics, the following research questions are adopted: “How do stakeholder complexities change over a project life cycle?” and “How are stakeholder management strategies applied over a project life cycle?”

In the remaining sections of this paper, first, the literature concerning stakeholder theory and stakeholder management strategies will be covered. A deepening of stakeholder complexities and their relevance for stakeholder management practice is provided as well. Next, the adopted research methods are discussed. In the section afterwards, the findings of this research and the analyses of the results are presented. The final part consists of a discussion, including implications for scholars and managers, plus suggestions for future research.

Literature Review

Stakeholder Theory and Stakeholder Management Strategies

(5)

4

Freeman argued it is through understanding business as a web of relationships involving several parties with distinct needs, that one can try to create the appropriate amount of value for each individual or group (Freeman, 1984). His definition of stakeholders as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the firm’s objectives” is commonly used within project management research (PMI, 2013). While Freeman had a stakeholder view of the firm, Cleland (1986) was the first to incorporate stakeholder management in the project environment. Since then, much research has been attributed to project stakeholder management, although it is only since about the last decade that a more practically applied view has started to appear (Jepsen & Eskerod, 2009; Yang et al., 2011).

The value of a proper understanding of one’s stakeholders cannot be underestimated, considering the significant effect that either their support or opposition on a projects’ goals can have. Indeed, scholars have repeatedly shown that correct stakeholder management positively influences project outcomes (Achterkamp & Vos, 2008; Jepsen & Eskerod; 2009; Olander & Levin, 2005; Yang et al., 2011). Success of a project is often measured through the eyes of the stakeholders (Eskerod et al., 2015). Furthermore, managers are reliant on the individual contributions to the project of the several project parties (Aaltonen & Kujala, 2016). Despite often having limited resources, the project manager should strive for stakeholders to contribute to the best of their abilities (Jepsen & Eskerod, 2009). Conflict and challenges can arise when managers fail to properly address the individual expectations and interests of the projects’ stakeholders (Artto & Kujala, 2008). Stakeholder theory as an instrument lends itself particularly well for improved understanding of stakeholders and consequently for adjusting one’s stakeholder management strategies accordingly (Eskerod & Vaagaasar, 2014). A critical purpose of stakeholder management thus revolves around creating an overview of the several key stakeholders in the project context and aligning the objectives of these different parties with the project goals (Aaltonen & Kujala, 2016). Especially in a dynamic project context in which many changes occur, it is of importance to have the stakeholder’s goals continuously in parallel with the aim of the project (Geraldi et al., 2011).

(6)

5

the stakeholders, which should lead to changes in stakeholders’ support. Another significant piece of work is the study of Frooman (1999). He addresses the “means” of stakeholders or their influence strategies. He argues stakeholder behavior can be understood and managed better if managers have a clear overview of the different types of influence strategies stakeholders use and their reasons behind specifically adopting those. In the same line, Bourne and Walker (2005) proposed a visualization tool through which managers could explore the amount of influence that was exerted by project stakeholders. In turn, managers could prioritize stakeholders accordingly. Olander and Levin (2005) added to the discussion about stakeholder influence through the conceptualization of the power-interest model. This model can be used to identify and evaluate stakeholder influence on project decisions. The influence of those decisions on stakeholders can be identified in turn. All of these strategies have in common that they aid in the understanding of the stakeholder network.

Despite the academic significance of the aforementioned models, not all allow for the possibility of interrelations between stakeholders or changes within the stakeholder network. For example, the authors of the model of Mitchell et al.’s (1997) did not provide insights on how the stakeholders attributes power, legitimacy and urgency might change over time. They also only focused on a dyadic relationship between the stakeholder and the firm. Besides, while the model of Bourne and Walker (2005) can certainly aid the manager in understanding and managing stakeholders, it lacks a reflection of the various relational patterns found within a stakeholder network. Yet, earlier prominent research already acknowledged the relationships between stakeholders to be interdependent, rather than just dyadic (Rowley, 1997). Only a few scholars have contributed by tackling these models’ gaps (Aaltonen et al., 2015; Khurram et al., 2015; Turkulainen et al., 2016). To fully understand one’s stakeholder network in practice, managers can adopt one or more of the aforementioned strategies. However, in doing so, it is important to take into consideration the ties between the different stakeholder groups and the possibility of changes within the stakeholder network.

Additionally, the process of understanding stakeholders is not limited to the front-end of a project. Some researchers have provided insights regarding this topic. From a managerial perspective, stakeholder analysis should be continuously revised throughout a project rather than only thoroughly outlined in the early project stage (Jepsen & Eskerod, 2009). Similarly, a significant lesson for project managers is that the influence of stakeholders might change during the different project phases (Olander & Levin, 2005; Pajunen, 2005). To calibrate on this as a project manager, they argue that prior to every major decision followed by a new phase of the project, the consequences of such a decision for the stakeholders should be analyzed. Nonetheless, how such stakeholder management strategies develop during a project life cycle is yet unclear (Aaltonen et al., 2015).

Stakeholder Element Complexity and Stakeholder Relationship Complexity

(7)

6

managing stakeholders and how to understand the network. An important dimension of the stakeholder environment they put forward is complexity. In a similar fashion as Ramasesh and Browning’s (2014) depiction of project complexities, they divided the dimension of stakeholder network complexity into stakeholder element complexity and stakeholder relationship complexity. This is shown in figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Key dimension stakeholder complexity of the project stakeholder network and their managerial challenges (Aaltonen & Kujala, 2016).

In figure 1, “number of project stakeholders” refers to the number of elements within the stakeholder network. In general, a higher number of elements, or stakeholders, has been linked to more difficult stakeholder management (Artto et al., 2008; Aaltonen & Kujala, 2016;). The “variety of project stakeholders and their goals” points out the differentiation among stakeholders in terms of their attributes, backgrounds and goals (Aaltonen & Kujala, 2016). For example, from a managerial perspective, the higher the diversity in stakeholder’s goals in comparison to the project’s goals, the more challenging the situation becomes. “Stakeholder internal complexity” revolves around the differences in the stakeholder network itself in terms of interests. More heterogeneous stakeholder groups increase the challenge of stakeholder management, for example due to internal conflict (Aaltonen & Kujala, 2010).

(8)

7

stakeholders also increases the managerial stakeholder challenge. “Patterns of relationships” can be regarded as the number of ties within the network per single stakeholder (Rowley, 1997). Well-connected stakeholders have a higher chance of being able to successfully influence the project (Aaltonen & Kujala, 2016). If such a stakeholder’s goals are not aligned to the project goals, managers will have more difficulty to reach the intended project outcomes. “Relationship’s internal complexity” is defined as “the complex relationships among project organization and single stakeholders” (Aaltonen & Kujala, 2016), meaning the more complex the relationship between a specific stakeholder and the project team, the more difficulties in managing this relationship. “External stakeholder relationships” refers to all relationships with stakeholders outside of the direct project context that are still affected by or can still affect the project. The context of large and complex projects brings along more influence of external parties because of the higher probability of interference of for example residents, governments or community groups (Aaltonen et al., 2008; Aaltonen & Kujala, 2016).

Complexity and Understanding of Stakeholders

Recently, Kermanshachi and Safapour (2019) argued project complexity to be “the degree of differentiation of project elements, interrelatedness between project elements and consequential impact on project decisions”. Part of this project complexity comprises the stakeholder network complexities described above. The amount of knowledge within project management is dependent on one’s understanding of what is happening (Williams, 2005). With an increase in project stakeholder complexity, it becomes more difficult to grasp what is going on within the stakeholder network. For managers, comprehending the project stakeholder network is thus dependent on the amount of complexity within this network.

A gap can originate between knowledge that is needed and what is available, leading to uncertainty in a project. This gap is partly the result of unpredictability. This concept can be explained as a form of variety (the probability and chance of a circumstance), known unknowns (variables and their interrelationships that are known, but their specific states or measures are not) and unknown unknowns (variables and their interrelationships that are completely unknown) (Geraldi et al., 2011; Padalkar & Gopinath, 2016; Pich et al., 2002). Change is inherent to time. It is with time that unpredictable events have a chance of happening. For project managers dealing with stakeholders, unpredictability might appear in the form of unknown changes within the stakeholder network due to undergoing several stages of a project. To address the consequent uncertainty within a project, every phase of the project life cycle should be taken into account when managing stakeholders (Ward & Chapman, 2008).

(9)

8

component. For example, the number of stakeholders can change, just as the patterns of relationships that form the ties of the stakeholder network. Other scholars have provided more evidence of the ability of stakeholder elements and relationships to be dynamic (Missonier & Loufrani-Fedida, 2014; Sage et al., 2011). Yet, such emergent behaviors are hard to predict and continuous changes within interactions lead to unpredictability in the outcomes of projects (Daniel & Daniel, 2018; Maylor et al., 2008; Whitty & Maylor, 2009). In the process of tackling unknowns during a project, project management challenges can arise (Ramasesh & Browning, 2014), such as difficulties in identifying the most relevant stakeholders (Jepsen & Eskerod, 2009), in making sense of the stakeholder network (Aaltonen, 2011) and in coping with the various changes that might occur within a stakeholder network (e.g. Olander & Levin, 2005).

Stakeholder management strategies that overlook stakeholder dynamics are incomplete (Maylor et al., 2008), and can affect managerial comprehension of the stakeholder network. This might result in a lack of effectiveness in reaching the intended project goals. Attempts throughout a project to restrict unpredictability can result in more knowledge to better understand the stakeholder network. Doing so becomes more relevant when the amount of complexity within the project stakeholder network is higher. Stakeholder management strategies thus depend on stakeholder complexities including managers understanding thereof, and stakeholder dynamics fueled by unpredictability. Because of the development of these aspects over time, the continuation of stakeholder management practice during a project life cycle is of significant importance. Nonetheless, clear gaps remain in how stakeholder management strategies unfold over a project life cycle. Furthermore, empirical research to provide real-life evidence of changes within the stakeholder complexities can be significantly increased. The next section is concerned with how this research is set up to address these issues.

Methodology

The first part gives an overview of the research design of this study. This is followed up by a description of the research setting. Afterwards, the setup and way of collecting data are described.

Research Design

(10)

9

rounded, detailed illustrations and descriptions of the concepts covered in the literature review (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2014). Furthermore, a case-study approach suited the situation because a contemporary set of events was researched over which the researcher had little to no control at all (Yin, 2014). A multiple case study setting was adopted, as this is prone to a more robust study and it opens up higher external generalizability of the findings, contributing to the level of external validity (Herriott & Firestone, 1983; Yin, 2014). Initially, five cases were selected to investigate. However, two cases did not provide useful enough information in comparison to the other cases. First, because of a lack of possibility to interview stakeholders on the client-side, impairing the validity of the claims of the participants. Second, due to a lack of coverage of more than just the front-end phase of the project life cycle, which limited the usefulness of the cases for this research. Consequently, the research method was redesigned and an alternative case was selected (Yin, 2014).

Setting Description

The research sites were all situated in The Netherlands, with Dutch-speaking employees. This simplified consulting the interviews because of a lower language barrier due to the researcher being Dutch. In total, four cases were used in this study. The units of analysis were an educational organization within three cases and a mega construction project in the fourth case. All cases were chosen because of their similar complex nature, their coverage of multiple project phases, and their possession of a varied and extended stakeholder landscape. The usage of cases from two different sectors increased the generalizability of this study.

(11)

10

running since 2010 and currently in the execution phase. Its planned ending is 2023. The goal of the project is to redesign and rebuild a ring road that forms an important connection with a major city in the Netherlands, to increase the reachability of the city and to provide smoother traffic.

Data Collection

For the process of data collection, semi-structured interviews were held. This allowed the researcher to keep some guidance throughout the interview, but to allow room for flexibility at the same time (Kumar, 2014). All the interviews were recorded and executed face to face. The type of questions in the interview comprised several key concepts, including the stakeholder management strategies of the project manager, the stakeholder network, complexities within this network and the dynamics of both stakeholder management approaches and stakeholder complexities throughout the project. Subjects of the interviews included both project management team members as stakeholders with a client or principal perspective. This provided an honest representation of subjects involved with the cases, limiting the researcher’s bias and thus increasing the reliability of the study (Van Aken et al., 2012). A slightly different set of questions was used for interviews with the project manager and interviews with the stakeholders (see Appendix 1.1 and 1.2). The questioning started with broad, open questions such as: “To what extent would you consider project X as complex?”, “How would you define your stakeholder management approach within this project?”, and “How would you define the relationships between the stakeholders within the stakeholder network?”. According to the answers of the interviewee, more specific, sometimes closed questions were asked based on the reviewed literature, for example “How did you deal with conflicts of interest?” and “Was there a difference in terms of importance between the relations of the stakeholders?”. Using the same interview protocol for on the one hand all project managers and on the other hand all stakeholders ensured adequately measuring the constructs of interest, contributing to the amount of construct validity (Yin, 1994). In addition, structuring the data collection procedure helped with establishing a chain of evidence, increasing the construct validity of this research as well (Yin, 2017).

(12)

11

of documentation. This increased the possibility of adopting triangulation, thereby strengthening the research method through enhancing construct validity. The secondary data consisted of progress reports, external advice reports and letters. It was mainly used to confirm the information obtained from the interviews about the members of the stakeholder group and significant events during the project. An overview of some of the granted secondary can be found in Appendix 2.

Case Gender Tenure Code Interview duration (hrs:min:sec) A M 2 years A01 0:48:48 M 11 years A02 1:14:37 F 8 years A03 0:47:22 M 7 years A04 0:49:52 F 8 years A05 0:55:50 B M 9 months B01 1:01:44 M 11 years B02 0:35:15 F 11 years B03 0:59:35 C M 2 years C01 0:56:16 M 8 years C02 0:54:05 M 7 years C03 0:56:22 D M 4 months D01 0:57:29 M 8 years D02 0:1:02:18 M 4 years D03 0:1:02:03 M 4 years D04 0:36:01

Table 1: Disclosure of information of the interviewees per case.

Data Analysis

(13)

12

and relationships out of the (sub)categories of the axial coding stage. The phases of coding were iteratively repeated until theoretical saturation emerged. The codebook can be found in Appendix 3. Interviewing in a setting four different cases opened up the possibility to treat each project as an individual case (Yin, 2014), which in turn enabled within-case analysis. Afterwards, cross-case pattern search was possible to counteract information-processing biases (Eisenhardt, 1989). Applying these procedures together comes with the benefit of improved internal validity (Van Aken et al., 2012). To finalize the analytical strategy, the theory and the data were examined in contrast, iterating the two to end up with a close fit and compare the findings with a wide range of present academic work. The latter increases the generalizability and internal validity of this thesis (Eisenhardt, 1989).

Results

In this chapter, the results of the data will be presented. Visual representations of the stakeholder network during each phase of the project life cycle in the particular case are shown. Each case is discussed in terms of stakeholder dynamics and how stakeholder management strategies were applied over the project life cycle of the particular case, all in chronological order of the project events. The section afterwards concerns a cross-case analysis in which the findings of the four cases are compared. Appendix 4 gives an overview of the stakeholder management styles of the project managers and of the stakeholder dynamics throughout the projects for all cases.

Case A

Stakeholder dynamics front-end phase The main goal of the project within case A was digitalization of the educational practices by adopting a

(14)

13

Figure 2: Visual representation of the stakeholders and their relations during the front-end phase of case A.

Stakeholder dynamics execution phase

Figure 3: Visual representation of the stakeholder network during the execution phase of case A.

(15)

14

ownership. A02: “That was done through a governmental decision, as war started to break out about the issue within the departments”. As such, at this time stakeholder’s internal complexity increased. This also happened later on in the project between the stakeholder groups of School Directors and the stakeholder group SIM, when a critical decision in the project context had to be made. A02: “Before the summer holidays, we wanted to finalize definitive decision-making, but it just did not work because of such a conflict of interest… what the directors of the schools wanted… and what Staff Information Management wanted …” Towards the end of the execution phase, the contract manager within the client organization decided not to extend the contract of the project manager. It changed the attitude of the project manager towards the project, showing an increase of the relationship’s internal complexity with the client.

Stakeholder management strategies front-end phase

From the start, the project manager wanted to set clear boundaries for the project direction so it was clear where the project is going. As such, if necessary, he could react quickly to align stakeholder’s goals and interests with the project goals. A01: “I believe it is very important to put up clear boundaries and the aim of the vision at the front. So in case people do not support the vision and boundaries of the project anymore, I can see that happen as soon as possible”. Since the main goal of this phase was vision formation, it mostly played out in the top layer of the organization with directors. Interactions with the bottom layers of the organization were not yet taken into account that much. The project manager did not make use of the stakeholder groups Teachers, Teams and Students yet.

Stakeholder management strategies execution phase

(16)

15 Case B

Stakeholder dynamics front-end phase

The main goal of the project in case B consisted of a merger of seven existing staffs to three overlapping clusters of services. The project manager was supposed to pay extra attention to which departments would form the new Control cluster. The plan for the merge was presented and started at the end of the front-end phase. The number of staff departments decreased, meaning a decrease in the number of project stakeholder groups. In terms of interests, the clusters were all quite similar in that most of them experienced a lot of uncertainty due to the experienced changes. They wanted things to be clear. B03: “What happened is that certain staffs were pulled apart. Finance, for example, has been divided among all new clusters. … That shift, plus new leadership, it really got to people. There were a lot of questions and uncertainty.”

Figure 4: Visual representation of the stakeholder network at the start of the front-end phase of case B.

Figure 5: Visual representation of the change within the stakeholder network during the front-end phase of case B.

(17)

16

eliminating four stakeholder groups to get connected to. This, in turn, decreased the possibility of ties within the network per single stakeholder, decreasing ‘patterns of relationships’. The relationship’s internal complexity was stable. External parties did not change their influence on the project.

In the execution phase, the decision was made to expand the three clusters to four. An extra quartermaster had to be appointed as well to lead the new cluster. This new stakeholder group increased stakeholder element complexity. Furthermore, the extra cluster created more distinctive ties between stakeholders, and as such increased ‘variety of relationships’, exemplified by B03: “We already were quite a diverse club as board advisors, where it sometimes was difficult to pinpoint what connected as. And now with a club of 60 and a director who is also still uncertain about things… it doesn’t make it any better.”. The upcoming new department also increased ‘patterns of relationships’. The project changes decreased the number of relationships between the staff employees at first because of the uncertainty that was present. B01: “If tension increases within the project, everyone pulls back towards themselves. So it does affect the relations between each other.” Later on, the number of relationships between the clusters increased again. B03: “So what is happening now, is that employees start to engage with others from other staffs, that goes for both ways.” Other stakeholder complexities remained stable in this phase.

Figure 6: Visual representation of the stakeholder network during the execution phase of case B.

(18)

17

influence the project manager. Some still attempted to position themselves favorably in the process. By the usage of other powerful stakeholder parties, the project manager could solve this. B01: “And when it comes to stakeholder management, I really have to be very explicit in that area then, so I will just check with the board whether it is right what they are saying, otherwise I get all kinds of noise”.

Transitioning from the front-end to the execution phase, there was a shift in focus from the project manager in terms of involvement of the several stakeholder groups. Whereas at first most attention was given to direct stakeholders such as the staff directors, now the indirect stakeholder group of staff employees started to get more involved. More effort was put into communication towards the affected staff employees, starting with a newsletter after summer. Additionally, through interventions such as informational meetups to provide information about the organizational change, stakeholders were more informed and clarified about the process. B01 explained:

“Well, in the beginning, we examined that in the quarter that we were responsible for, relatively few people were actually engaged with and supportive of the project. People gave all kinds of signals that

showed they did not know what was going on. So later we decided on purpose to actively mingle with employees during meetings and activities, just to be able to tell them in what kind of process we all were situated, and what we were doing exactly at that time. Sometimes we could not tell everything about the project content, but we could tell about the process itself. That is also a type of stakeholder

management”.

Yet, while the aim of these interventions was to increase project support, this was not achieved, or as B01 said: “Well, winning over… that is a big word.” Stakeholder’s goals did thus not necessarily change in favor of the project, despite the attempts to do so.

Case C

(19)

18

from IT in this project phase. C03: “I think CIT is a part of the organization that we really need to go live, but they haven’t felt engaged since the beginning, due to the governance. Through which you get a difficult internal interest throughout the whole project.” Yet, this was a continuous stable complexity throughout. A team of external experts remained a constant factor within the network throughout the project.

Figure 7: Visual representation of the stakeholder network during the front-end phase of Case C.

The next phase started with a new stakeholder group that entered the stakeholder network in the form of the supplier of the new systems. ‘Number of project stakeholders’ thus increased, just as the variety of relationships within the stakeholder network. Over time, the internal relationship with the supplier and project management became more complex. The way of working of the supplier was different than predicted beforehand, stated by C01:

“… they told us before they had a standard in-house solution for our problem. And communication-wise, we just miscommunicated for months about that, before we realized what we were doing. On our

side, that realization came too late, and we were not able to express that clearly.”

(20)

19

there were a lot of possibilities, a lot of goods made to measure. While, at the end of all this, you want to get back to standardization.” After the entry of the supplier, patterns of relationships increased. For example, IT employees were sent to the supplier to get insights into the functional administration, increasing the number of ties within the network for that stakeholder group. Another example was a new relationship with the board and with the supplier, where one of the board members started being in contact with the supplier. This also points to an increase in ‘number of relationships among stakeholders’.

Figure 8: Visual representation of the stakeholder network during the execution phase of Case C.

(21)

20

four layers down into the organogram of the organization, there is just a lot of difficulty. And the people in the layers below, they will follow, that’s fine.”

At the start of the summer, the relationship with the IT department improved due to more concrete execution of the implementation plan. This was the result of changes in the stakeholder management style of the project manager. He adopted “a more blue approach”, as C03 said, for example by giving out agendas during meetings. Similarly, caused by the complex internal relationship with stakeholder group Supplier and the project organization, the project manager had to adjust his stakeholder management approach towards this group in order to minimalize project delay. C02: “From September and on, due to that, the pressure increased and as such, we took on a more directive approach to reach the live-going on Januari 1st 2020. … Like, this is the way we’re going to do it, otherwise, we won’t make it.”. Adopting a more structured stakeholder management approach enhanced the collaboration with the supplier, as the project achieved to go live on the set date.

Case D

For project D, the goal was to rebuild a ring road that was an important connection to a major city. The stakeholder group Operator consisted of the municipality, the province and the state, representing the client as a coalition. While off to a rough start, the relationship’s internal complexity decreased along the way of the project’s front-end phase, illustrated by D03: “So first the Operator was seen as a difficult party, but that changed to a view about them as a group that brought a lot of valuable information to the table to improve the design with”.

(22)

21

‘Variety of project stakeholders and their goals’ stayed constant through the consensual aim of building a respectable ring road from the beginning. Attributes nor backgrounds changed throughout the front-end phase. ‘Number of relationships among stakeholders’ did not alter, as no new stakeholder groups started engaging with each other. The variety of relationships and ‘patterns of relationships’ remained stable as well. At the beginning, the client coalition of the State, Province and Municipality was more heterogeneous when it came to their interests, but their stakeholder internal complexity decreased at the end of the front-end phase. D01: “But then after that, you see at a certain point a kind of collaboration, those parties then go along on the same foot. While they still have their own interests in mind”.

Figure 10: Visual representation of the stakeholder network at the beginning of the execution phase of Case D.

The execution phase was at the start defined by the entry of a new stakeholder group, the Contractor. This brought along an increase in the ‘stakeholders internal complexity’, because of interfering interests with the other parties, resulting in an increased conflict of interest. The contractors did have the same goal of constructing a good railroad as the other parties, but their different backgrounds made ‘variety of project stakeholders and their goals’ increase. ‘Number of relationships among stakeholders’ increased as well because the operator had informal contact with the municipality, more formal connections with the province and a new connection with stakeholder group Citizens.

(23)

22

complexity’ again. D04: “What does happen, is that when things start to break down, everybody starts to defend their own interest more. If a project goes well, then everybody is relaxed. But if it is endangered, everybody is at the edge of their seats.”

‘External stakeholder relationships increased’ due to the upcoming of an action committee that defended bats. Project management did not expect this group to become as powerful and influential as they did. D02: “We’ve had them in sight since the start, but that group went from very little to very large”. This occurrence increased ‘number of relationships among stakeholders’ by a new relationship between the contractor and the action committee Bats. It also increased the internal complexity between the project organization and the action committee, as an extensive legal trajectory started to defend both sides’ interests.

At first, the Contractor worked and delivered as promised. and as such took into account the interests of the municipality and the province. More alignment was then created between the interests of the stakeholder group Operators and the project direction. This decreased the relationships’ internal complexity between project management and the operators even more. Yet, after some time ‘relationships’ internal complexity’ increased again due to issues with the construction process. These problems in the project had an effect on the stakeholder network, increasing the ‘stakeholder internal complexity’ again. D04: “What does happen, is that when things start to break down, everybody starts to defend their own interest more. If a project goes well, then everybody is relaxed. But if it is endangered, everybody is at the edge of their seats.”

‘External stakeholder relationships increased’ due to the upcoming of an action committee, defending bats. Project management did not expect this group to become as powerful and influential as they did. D02: “We’ve had them in sight since the start, but that group went from very little to very large”. This occurrence increased ‘number of relationships among stakeholders’ by a new relationship between the contractor and the action committee Bats. It also increased the internal complexity between the project organization and the action committee, as an extensive legal trajectory started.

(24)

23

Due to the hindrance of the construction activities, project management also increased the relationships internal complexity with stakeholder group Citizens. Local citizens intensified their usage of their connection with the press. As a reaction to the negative publicity, project management started to draw back and became less approachable. This increased the internal complexity of the relationships with the citizens and the press again. Because of all the issues, the project was on the verge of failing. Therefore, at the end of 2018, an external advisory group was consulted to provide advice on how to revive the project. The number of project stakeholders thus increased, the rest of the stakeholder complexities stayed the same.

During the front-end phase, increasing knowledge about stakeholders was mainly done by holding conversations. D03: “Look, when it comes to stakeholder management, it is difficult to get a sharp image about who is responsible for what and who has the final say in matters. But you can get that clear by talking about it with each other.” Stakeholders were also being mapped and registered as such. Additionally, stakeholders were involved by collecting their wishes and demands, as to increase their project engagement and to better align their interests with the project goal. That way, conflict of interest could be managed better. Another way project management handled this was by focusing on the common interest, and by testing whether this was still the case throughout the project. D04: “They will do everything ‘best for project’ ”.

With the entry of the contractor, the increase in the number of relationships among stakeholders heightened interactions between stakeholders. This was particularly the case when the project experienced problems. This posed additional managerial challenges for project management. The importance of quickly acting upon a negative flow like that by holding conversations and creating goodwill was emphasized by D01: “And then you have to keep in touch with a lot of people, now and then also speak with people in a more informal setting… now and then, for example, also arrange small things for people to create some goodwill for something bigger.”

(25)

24

“You can see a clear difference in the past year in the way the communication strategy from the project organization has changed by being much clearer about what they do and do not know, or about the planning of construction activities. So there really is more clarity and being straight about

things. For example, hindrance due to the construction of the dam-wall was communicated to the outside really well and very frequently. Direct citizens have been informed clearly about that. Almost too much, you could say. But that was a very clear stakeholder strategy at the time, to be transparent to the outside. In that, you can definitely see a difference in our stakeholder management approach in

comparison to earlier in the project.”

Cross-Case Analysis

Stakeholder dynamics over a project life cycle

The findings seem to indicate that stakeholder complexities tend to increase over a project life cycle

.

In the front-end phase, case B experiences the most stakeholder dynamics of all the projects and is the only case where the number of project stakeholders changes, by a decrease. Similarly, during the execution phase of the projects, the entrance of a new stakeholder member within the stakeholder networks of cases B, C and D seems to result in a ripple effect onto stakeholder relational complexities. When ‘number of project stakeholders’ increases, ‘number of relationships among stakeholders’ changes too, just as ‘patterns of relationships’. In comparison to the front-end phase of the projects, during the execution phase, more cases experienced the addition of a new stakeholder (group), which seems to enable other stakeholder dynamics. In turn, in case A there is no change in ‘number of project stakeholders’ in either of the phases and most other complexities stay stable as well. Thus, the tendency for stakeholder complexities to increase over a project life cycle of the cases could be explained by the entrance of new project stakeholders within the stakeholder network. Extending this, the findings also seem to portray a pattern of a similar amount of dynamics within stakeholder element as stakeholder relational complexities, in every case. This might also be explained by the aforementioned ripple effect. Thus, stakeholder element complexities seem to experience a similar amount of dynamics over the course of a project life cycle in comparison to stakeholder relational complexities.

(26)

25

phase of case B, uncertainly mainly arose for the staff employees who were insecure due to the new way of working and due to different relationships with new colleagues. For both cases C and D, an unexpected poor collaboration with the supplier and the contractor resulted in a chain reaction of stakeholder dynamics. Only case D experienced an increase in the influence of external stakeholder parties. This can also be attributed to unforeseen events within the execution phase, in the form of the need for an external advisory group, and the upcoming action committee for bats. Thus, the frequency of stakeholder dynamics over a project life cycle seems to be related to unpredictability and the consequent uncertainty during the projects.

Stakeholder management strategies over a project life cycle

It seems preferable across all cases to start with exploring the stakeholder network. How project managers engaged in that was diverse, yet the reason was in all cases to increase managerial understanding about the stakeholders. Because of this increased understanding, the project managers could more easily start with aligning stakeholder’s interests with the project goal. It seems the earlier in the project, the better. Thus, in all cases, project management uses some form of stakeholder analysis to increase the understanding of the stakeholder network, but only during the front-end phase.

(27)

26

support within the bottom stakeholder groups. Within case B, this was done through informational meet-ups for and mingling with staff employees. During case D, there was a large increase in transparent communication towards affected citizens. These findings imply that the focus of alignment of stakeholder’s interests and goals with the project goals shifts throughout the project life cycle from top layer stakeholders to bottom layer stakeholders.

Furthermore, within cases B, C, and D a significant change in stakeholder management strategy was adopted in the execution phase, whereas in case A this was not the case. In case A, B, and D, this can be explained again by the degree of support of the stakeholders. Case A did not experience a significant lack of support throughout the project, neither from top or bottom stakeholders. The reason was that all stakeholders agreed upon the necessity for the project. However, within cases B and D, mostly during the execution phase, project activities affected the bottom layers and as such these stakeholders became more active. This elicited a reaction from project management in order to keep the stakeholders engaged and supportive of the project, resulting in an adjustment of their stakeholder management approach. Both in case B and D, the new strategy revolved around providing information to the stakeholders through enhanced communication. Moreover, within case C, and again for D as well, the change in stakeholder management strategy can be explained by the importance of the new stakeholder in the stakeholder network. In both cases, there was poor collaboration with new stakeholders, yet these new players were vital for the project execution. So, the stakeholder management strategy to deal with the supplier and contractor had to be improved. These findings indicate that change in stakeholder management strategy throughout a project life cycle is related to the degree of project support of stakeholders and the importance of stakeholders.

Discussion & Conclusion

In this section, the results are interpreted and discussed in the context of this study. Theoretical and managerial implications are proposed. Next, strengths and limitations of this thesis are examined, and suggestions for further research are put forward. Finally, this thesis ends of with a set of conclusions.

General Findings and Interpretations

(28)

27

dynamics over a project life cycle in comparison to stakeholder relational complexities. Lastly, the findings seem to suggest that stakeholder dynamics occur more frequently in later stages of the project life cycle than in the front-end phase.

The tendency for stakeholder complexities to increase over a project life cycle of the cases could be explained by the entrance of new project stakeholders within the stakeholder network. The complexity literature supports the explanation of the existence of a ripple effect upon entry or leaving of a stakeholder, due to the interconnections of complex elements (Jacobs & Swink, 2011; Vidal & Marle, 2008). It is argued that more complex projects experience more interactions between the project components (Baccarini, 1996; Williams, 1999; Chapman & Hyland, 2004). However, this literature does not support that stakeholder complexities necessarily have to increase over a project life cycle. Stakeholder complexities could also decrease, due to members leaving the stakeholder network, as portrayed at the start of case B. It appears that stakeholder dynamics throughout a project life cycle are more so dependent on changes in the number of project stakeholders, then to tend to increase per se. Considering the effect that a new stakeholder has on other stakeholder complexities, the interconnectedness could also explain why element complexities change in equal ratio to relational complexities. ‘External stakeholder relationships’ seems to be unaffected by such interconnectedness, however. In this study, only external stakeholder groups in the case of the infrastructure megaproject, in the form of citizens, environmentalists, and the press, could increase their influence on the project. This is in line, however, with the notion that such a type of project is inherently interfering with these types of external stakeholder groups (Chapman, 2016; Di Maddaloni, Davis, 2017).

Additionally, the more frequent occurrence of stakeholder complexities in the later stages of a project life cycle seems to be related to the amount of unpredictability and the consequent uncertainty during the projects. This is in line with the idea that both unpredictability as uncertainty influence project complexity (Antoniadis et al., 2011; Cooke-Davies, 2011). In the researched cases, this unpredictability seems to occur more frequently in the execution phase of the project, in turn eliciting stakeholder dynamics. One can make the case for non-linearity within project management, particularly regarding socio-organizational problems (Antoniadis et al., 2011). This idea supports the findings, as the unpredictability within cases B and D originated from poor unexpected collaboration with a new stakeholder, and in case C the merge had to be adjusted due to organizational difficulties. In contrast, from a systems-thinking perspective, one would argue that project complexities and its dynamic interactions would ultimately settle down in a state of equilibrium (Sheffield, 2012). However, this study contradicts this view by showing that it is possible for stakeholder dynamics to occur more often later on in the project life cycle.

(29)

28

project goals. Finally, critical changes in stakeholder management strategies over the project life cycle were made based on the perception of project support and due to key stakeholder relationships.

In all cases, project management uses some form of stakeholder analysis to increase the understanding of the stakeholder network, but only during the front-end phase. This reinforces the value of the theoretical notion that stakeholder identification and analysis of stakeholder relations are two of the most researched areas within stakeholder management (Yang et al., 2009). Besides, this finding supports the work of other studies in this area linking stakeholder analysis with the project’s front-end (De Schepper et al., 2014, Heywood & Smith, 2006, Mok et al., 2015). However, questions can be raised about the effectiveness of ignoring stakeholder analysis later on during projects, as contradicting work has demonstrated the relevance of continuous stakeholder analysis in the execution phase as well (Bourne & Walker, 2008).

Furthermore, the focus of alignment of stakeholder’s interests and goals with the project goals seems to shift throughout the project life cycle from top layer stakeholders to bottom layer stakeholders. Both a dependency on particular stakeholders as a lack of project support among certain parties, and as such a need for engagement of those stakeholder groups, seem to influence this managerial shift in stakeholder focus. This occurred mostly during the execution phase, which is somewhat surprising from the classic stance of project management that views a PM cycle as condensing into stability. However, the appearance of major stakeholder management interventions during the projects’ execution phase is in agreement with recent findings (Daniel & Daniel, 2019). It is suggested that in the softer project paradigm of today, project management processes of larger projects are much more about adaptation throughout the project life cycle as a result of collaborative interactions between project management and stakeholders. This could be a possible explanation for the observed shift in focus.

(30)

29

Martinsuo & Lehtonen, 2009). Other research also emphasized the criticality of taking into account the most salient stakeholders as a project manager (Aaltonen et al., 2008).

Theoretical Implications

Theoretically, this study suggests that stakeholder dynamics are more associated with the execution phase than the front-end phase of projects. This emphasizes the importance of taking into account multiple project phases to thoroughly examine stakeholder dynamics. Besides, the present work implies that certain stakeholder management strategies occur more frequently in specific project stages. This underlines the value of taking into account the course of a project life cycle when examining stakeholder management strategies in the complex project context of today. A key theoretical implication of this case study is that academics focusing on stakeholder management would be advised to push beyond the present research that limits itself to one phase of the project life cycle. Consequently, researchers might arrive at a deeper understanding of how stakeholder complexities evolve during a project. Moreover, scholars could enhance the knowledge about the conditions under which stakeholder management strategies are applied in the contemporary project context. Lastly, studies that specifically look into how the stakeholder complexities of the work of Aaltonen and Kujala (2016) are addressed by project managers seem to be absent. However, the results of this thesis indicate the applicability of this framework to current project contexts.

Managerial Implications

In practice, the findings of this paper would be predominantly helpful in aiding project managers with understanding the stakeholder network. The managerial challenge of alignment of stakeholder’s interests and goals is an integral purpose of stakeholder management practice. Being aware as a manager of different complexities that comprise the stakeholder landscape and the possibility of changes within this stakeholder network can improve one’s result in managing stakeholders. Transitioning from one phase to the other seems to bring along changes in the stakeholder complexities, requiring extra attention on the side of project managers. In addition, managers should be particularly focused on an entry of a new stakeholder group, as this might result in an accumulating dynamic effect on the other stakeholder complexities.

(31)

30

considerable focus on communication and on informing stakeholders, especially later on in the project, seems to be of particular value when it comes to creating project support within the stakeholder network due to its effect of eliciting stakeholder engagement with the focal project.

Strengths & Limitations

A strength of this study is that it expands the knowledge of how stakeholder complexities and stakeholder management strategies develop over a project life cycle. The framework of Aaltonen and Kujala (2016) proved to be useful in the empirical examination of stakeholder complexities. With the current project context increasing in complexity, the relevance of investigating these topics becomes only more prominent. Furthermore, another strength of this study is that the data was vigorously analyzed. A starting point with more than 2100 labels attached across 15 interviews allowed for a weighty and detailed analysis of the interviews. As such, greatly valid findings could be extracted from the data.

Some limitations need to be addressed. The setting of case D differed from that of the other cases in terms of project size, significantly changing the project context and the role of the project manager. To counter this, more members of the project organization were interviewed in comparison to the other cases. However, this could still have resulted in a decrease of construct validity concerning the claims about project management strategies in this project. Lastly, the researcher was acquainted with some of the interviewees and possessed bits of knowledge about case A before the interviews were held. While a clear interview protocol was adhered to, some bias might have occurred during the interpretation of the results of this case. The reliability of this case results might thus be impeded due to the relationships with the interviewees (Pratt, 2009).

Future Research

(32)

31 Conclusions

(33)

32

References

Aaltonen, K. (2011). Project stakeholder analysis as an environmental interpretation process. International Journal of Project Management, 29(2), 165–183.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2010.02.001

Aaltonen, K., Ahola, T., & Artto, K. (2017). Something old, something new: Path dependence and path creation during the early stage of a project. International journal of project

management, 35(5), 749-762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.03.004

Aaltonen, K., Jaakko, K., & Tuomas, O. (2008). Stakeholder salience in global projects. International journal of project management, 26(5), 509-516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2010.09.001

Aaltonen, K., & Kujala, J. (2016). Towards an improved understanding of project stakeholder landscapes. JPMA, 34, 1537–1552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.08.009

Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J., Havela, L., & Savage, G. (2015). Stakeholder dynamics during the project front-end: the case of nuclear waste repository projects. Project Management Journal, 46(6), 15-41.

Achterkamp, M. C., & Vos, J. F. (2008). Investigating the use of the stakeholder notion in project management literature, a meta-analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 26(7), 749-757.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.10.001

Andersen, E. 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, P. (2014). Rethinking project management: A structured literature review with a critical look at the brave new world. JPMA, 33, 278–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.06.004

Antoniadis, D. N., Edum-Fotwe, F. T., & Thorpe, A. (2011). Socio-organo complexity and project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 29(7), 808–816.

Artto, K., & Kujala, J. (2008). Project business as a research field. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1(4), 469–497. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538370810906219

Baccarini, D. (1996). The concept of project complexity - A review. International Journal of Project Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)00093-3

(34)

1199-33 1213.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.06.002

Bourne, L., & Walker, D. H. T. (2005). Visualising and mapping stakeholder influence. Manag. Decis. 43(5), 649-660.

Bourne, L. and Walker, D. (2008), Project relationship management and the Stakeholder Circle. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1(1), 125-130.

Burnes, B. (2005). Complexity theories and organizational change. In International Journal of Management Reviews (Vol. 7).

Butt, A., Naaranoja, M., & Savolainen, J. (2016). Project change stakeholder communication. International Journal of Project Management, 34(8), 1579-1595.

Chapman, R. J. (2016). A framework for examining the dimensions and characteristics of complexity inherent within rail megaprojects. International Journal of Project Management, 34(6), 937-956.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.05.001

Chapman, R., & Hyland, P. (2004). Complexity and learning behaviors in product innovation. Technovation, 24(7), 553-561.

Choi, T. Y., Dooley, K. J., & Rungtusanatham, M. (2001). Supply networks and complex adaptive systems: control versus emergence. Journal of Operations Management, 19(3), 351–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(00)00068-1

Cooke-Davies, T. (2011). Aspects of complexity: Managing projects in a complex world. Project Management Institute.

Crawford, L., & Pollack, J. (2004). Hard and soft projects: A framework for analysis. International Journal of Project Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.04.004

Daniel, E., & Daniel, P. A. (2019). Megaprojects as complex adaptive systems: The Hinkley point C case. International Journal of Project Management.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.07.004

(35)

34

Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.006

De Schepper, S., Dooms, M., & Haezendonck, E. (2014b). Stakeholder dynamics and responsibilities in Public-Private Partnerships: A mixed experience. International Journal of Project

Management, 32(7), 1210–1222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.006

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

Eskerod, P., Huemann, M., & Savage, G. (2015). Project stakeholder management-past and present. Project Management Journal, 46(6), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21555

Eskerod, P., & Vaagaasar, A. L. (2014). Stakeholder management strategies and practices during a project course. Project Management Journal, 45(5), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21447

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.

Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder Influence Strategies. In Source: The Academy of Management Review (Vol. 24).

Geraldi, J.,

Maylor, H., & Williams, T. (2011

). Now, let’s make it really complex (complicated) A systematic review of the complexities of projects. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571111165848

Heywood, C., & Smith, J. (2006). Integrating stakeholders during community FM’s early project phases. Facilities, 24(7–8), 300–313. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632770610666152

Howell, D., Windahl, C., & Seidel, R. (2010). A project contingency framework based on uncertainty and its consequences. International Journal of Project Management.

Jacobs, M. A., & Swink, M. (2011). Product portfolio architectural complexity and operational performance: Incorporating the roles of learning and fixed assets. Journal of Operations Management, 29(7-8), 677-691.

Jepsen, A. L., & Eskerod, P. (2009). Stakeholder analysis in projects: Challenges in using current guidelines in the real world. International Journal of Project Management.

Jepsen, L. B. (2013). Complex new product development projects: How the project manager’s

information sharing with core actors changes over time. Project Management Journal, 44(6), 20– 35. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21378

(36)

35

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

Khurram, S., Sandra, & Petit, C. (2015). Investigating the Dynamics of Stakeholder Salience: What Happens When the Institutional Change Process Unfolds? Journal of Business Ethics, 143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2768-0

Kumar, R. (2014). Research methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd

Lenfle, S., & Loch, C. (2010). California Management Lost Roots: How Project Management Came to Emphasize Control Over Flexibility and Novelty.

Martinsuo, M., Lehtonen, P. (2009). Project autonomy in complex service development networks, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. 2(2), 261-281

Maylor, H., Vidgen, R., & Carver, S. (2008). Managerial Complexity in Project-Based Operations: A Grounded Model and Its Implications for Practice. Project Management Journal, 39(1_suppl), S15–S26. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20057

Missonier, S., & Loufrani-Fedida, S. (2014). Stakeholder analysis and engagement in projects: From stakeholder relational perspective to stakeholder relational ontology. International Journal of Project Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.02.010

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. In Source: The Academy of Management Review (Vol. 22).

Mok, K. Y., Shen, G. Q., & Yang, J. (2015). Stakeholder management studies in mega construction projects: A review and future directions. International Journal of Project Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.08.007

Olander, S., & Landin, A. (2005). Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the implementation of construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 23(4), 321–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.02.002

Olander, S., & Landin, A. (2008). A comparative study of factors affecting the external stakeholder management process. Construction Management and Economics, 26(6), 553–561.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190701821810