See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259512361

Three domains of project organising

Article in International Journal of Project Management · January 2013

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.10.012

CITATIONS READS

195 5,976

1 author:

Graham Winch
The University of Manchester
144 PUBLICATIONS 4,688 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Infrastructure@Manchester View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Graham Winch on 10 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights
 Author's personal copy

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
International Journal of Project Management 32 (2014) 721 – 731
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Three domains of project organising

Graham M. Winch
Centre for Infrastructure Development, Manchester Business School, United Kingdom
Received 11 July 2013; received in revised form 23 October 2013; accepted 29 October 2013
Available online 8 December 2013

Abstract

It has become axiomatic in research on project organising that projects are temporary organisations. Yet there are a number of challenges to this
axiom: research on matrix organisation, the embeddedness of projects in project ecologies, and projectification all emphasise the relationship of the
project to permanent organisations. Similarly, research on project-based firms and owner organisations which are relatively permanent challenges
this axiom. This paper develops a conceptual framework which defines three domains of project organising: project-based firms; projects and
programmes; and owners and operators as its principal theoretical contribution. This conceptual framework draws our attention to two important
new areas for future research in project organising. The first is at the interfaces between the three domains of project organising: commercial,
resourcing, and governance. The second is on project organising as temporary configurations of permanent organisations in coalitions to deliver
particular outputs.
© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Temporary organisation; Project-based firm; Owners and operators; Project governance; Commercial management

1. Introduction On the basis of these three reviews we develop and present a

conceptual framework for the project organising research field.
It has become axiomatic in the literature on project forms of Conceptual frameworks help to “organize empirical observations
organising that project organising is temporary. The aim of this by using coherent and meaningful frameworks. Such frameworks
paper is to challenge that axiom and to argue that most project allow scholars to make sense of the field and understand its
organising is done by relatively permanent forms of organisation. boundaries, major findings, and challenges” (Shapira, 2011: 1314).
We will further argue that the conflation of project organising They provide the basis for theory development and so the
with temporary organising has limited the development of conceptual framework developed in this paper is its principal
research in the field. We develop our argument through a critical theoretical contribution. The field is here defined as the scope of the
review of the literature, focusing on key contributions which have International Journal of Project Management with an emphasis
developed distinctive positions relevant to our argument rather on organisational aspects rather than tools and techniques. This
than claiming to be comprehensive. First, we will review the conceptual framework also allows us to suggest that some of the
literature on temporary organisation, showing how it has created most interesting research challenges in project organising lie at the
an impressive intellectual momentum. We will then turn to a more interfaces between the three domains of project organising and
recent body of literature which provides an important, but largely reveals the importance of a newly emerging organisational form
unnoticed, theoretical challenge to the literature on temporary that sits at the interface of all three domains—programme partners.
organising—the literature on project-based firms. We next turn to Implications for theory in project organising and suggestions for
an important gap left by these two literatures which has received further research follow.
relatively little attention both empirically and theoretically—the
role in project organising of the owners and operators of the
2. Project organising as temporary organising
outputs created by the project.
The Project Management Institute in the 5th Edition of its
E-mail address: graham.winch@mbs.ac.uk. Project Management Body of Knowledge provides an authoritative
0263-7863/$36.00 © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.10.012
 Author's personal copy

722 G.M. Winch / International Journal of Project Management 32 (2014) 721–731

statement of the temporary organising axiom, defining a project as Despite a significant body of organisation and management
“a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, research on temporary project organisations, it remained rather
service or result”. This statement is supported by the organisational fragmented, and was certainly failing to meet Wilemon and
research literature over the past 50 years. Goodman and Goodman Cicero's (1970, 282) aspirations for a “general theory of project
examined theatrical productions as examples of temporary management”. Lundin and Söderholm (1995) drew generally on
organisations defined as a “set of diversely skilled people this research tradition to develop their “theory of the temporary
working together on a complex task over a limited period of organisation”. They argued for an action-based theory with the
time” (Goodman and Goodman, 1976: 494). In its focus on the project process articulated in terms of basic concepts of task,
execution by individuals of time-limited and complex tasks and the team, time and transition sequencing through four sequencing
associated human resource issues, this pioneering research concepts denoting phases of the project. They thereby combined
influenced a considerable body of later research in the entertain- the concepts of the project as temporary organising and the
ment sector, particularly film. Jones (1996) examined the ways in project life-cycle. Packendorff (1995) picked up this theme,
which careers developed in the context of multiple deployments in arguing that conceiving of the project as a temporary organisation
temporary film organisations, while DeFillippi and Arthur (1998) was the way to move beyond the concept of the project as
show how such temporary organisations raise important chal- a delivery tool which pervades the professionally orientated
lenges to the dominant precepts of organisation theory. research on the topic. In contrast, Turner and Müller (2003)
More recent research has deepened the insights around the argued that defining the project as a temporary organisation is
relationships between tasks, people and their development. Bechky entirely consistent with viewing the project as a delivery tool–or
(2006) developed on the basis of intensive ethnographic work in production function in their terms–and showed its deep roots in
the film industry a more nuanced analysis, showing how particular the mainstream of professionally-orientated project management
deployments and inter-personal relationships were indeed tempo- literature. Bakker (2010) provides a recent review of the literature
rary, but also how such relationships could only be negotiated on on temporary organisational forms, showing how pervasive the
the basis of more long-lasting notions of role in the context of association of project organising and temporary organising has
expectations of future interactions on other projects. Kellogg et al. become.
(2006) turn their attention to the ways in which cross-boundary However, as the association of temporary organising with
coordination is achieved in “heterarchic” organisations such as project organising steadily achieved axiomatic status, there
an internet start-up company, creating a “trading zone” which were a number of other contributions that, in effect, challenged
enables project coordination in fast-paced, temporary and volatile this association. The early work on engineering projects also
conditions. identified the development of “matrix organisation” in which the
A second contribution to the temporary organising axiom has temporary organisation was “superimposed upon the functional
been work on engineering and construction projects. Drawing organization” (Wilemon and Cicero, 1970: 271), and therefore
on research on the Apollo programme, Wilemon and Gemmill much attention was given to the boundary position of the project
(1971) and Wilemon (1973) focused on interpersonal conflict manager between the temporary and permanent organisations
within temporary project organisations. Drawing on interviews (Gaddis, 1959) and the conflict inherent in such a role. The theory
with the NASA project and technical personnel, they argued that of matrix organisation was developed by Galbraith (1970) in his
the temporary nature of project organisations placed particular work on Boeing and became part of the mainstream organisation
demands on the project managers because they had to interface theory on organisational coordination mechanisms (Winch,
with multiple parties to ensure mission success, and that their 1994; Mintzberg, 1979). While matrix organisations were often
ability to subtly deploy power was critical. Bryman et al. (1987) characterised as unstable (e.g. Greiner and Schein, 1981), this is
provided a thorough review of the literature to date and then not the same as characterising them as temporary organisations.
applied the notion of temporary system to a construction project. Within the media sector, research attention was also turning to
They found themes that were already familiar from the literature the relationship between the temporary and the permanent. While
such as the stress and interpersonal conflict inherent in temporary the work on the film industry did note in passing the geographical
organisations and emphasised the importance of the time clustering of film production, Grabher's (2002) work fully
dimension in the management of such organisations. articulated the theoretical implications and again focused on the
Implicit in much of the early literature on engineering and interdependencies between temporary organisations and perma-
construction projects is a notion of a distinctive project life-cycle nent organisations. In a study of the London advertising industry,
as it progresses through time towards its predetermined end, he identified the importance of the “project ecology” of a deep
although it is typically not the focus of the analysis offered. pool of expertise with strong interpersonal connections which
Morris (1994) and Turner (2009) present a variety of different could be mobilised on particular projects for clients. Comple-
life-cycles garnered from different sources, while Wheelwright mentary work on the Munich software cluster (Ibert, 2004)
and Clark (1992) present different types of “funnel” for new showed how the linear notions of time in temporary project
product development projects. In some sectors, such as defence organisations are in tension with the more circular notions of time
acquisition, life-cycle models can attain the status of law. The in permanent firms within the project ecology.
majority of life-cycle models appear to focus on specifying key A third challenge to the dominance of the notion of temporary
decision points, an approach that has now widely disseminated in organisation came from the work on “projectification” as a
the shape of stage-gate project process models (Cooper, 1993). process of change in permanent organisation. For instance, Midler
 Author's personal copy

G.M. Winch / International Journal of Project Management 32 (2014) 721–731 723

(1995) shows how Renault evolved towards a project-based 3. Project owners and operators
organisation for new product development over 30 years towards
a more project-orientated organisation. Similarly, Winch et al. Engwall's (2003) case focal organisation is an energy utility.
(2012) shows how a research laboratory managed its change from Energy utilities earn their keep by generating and distributing
a functionally orientated organisation to a project orientated energy to customers, both commercial and retail. None of this
one. On this evidence, projectification is the process of change requires a project form of organisation. However, when utilities
by the firm towards management by projects (Gareis, 1989, wish to either expand or upgrade their ability to deliver energy to
2010) but it remains management by the firm of its projects customers, they typically engage in significant asset acquisition
rather than the creation of a shoal of temporary project projects—hence the two embedded cases explored by Engwall.
organisations. Energy utilities are therefore the owners and operators of energy
Our review of the literature on projects as temporary networks, and intermittently invest in projects to develop those
organisations has shown that the concept has deep roots in both networks. These projects arise out of the ongoing business
the academic research literature and the evolving professionally- activities of the utility, and such projects are usually (except
orientated literature over the last 50 years which have reinforced so-called “licence to operate” projects) the result of a strategic
each other to the extent that project organising and temporary initiative by the firm. It is important to note that the “core
organising are now seen as synonymous by many. However, we business” (Kay, 1993) of an energy utility is not to build power
have also identified other literature that, while happy to adopt the stations or transmission networks, but to deliver energy to
notion of temporary organising as a positioning for its contribu- customers; thus the assets created by investment projects are the
tion, subtly questions the characterisation of temporary organising infrastructure by which energy is generated and transmitted and
as articulated by Lundin and Söderholm (1995). This is because are only of value to the extent that they support that core business.
the literatures on matrix organisation, project ecologies, and One way of defining the core business of a firm is to use Porter's
projectification all in different ways place the emphasis upon the (1985) “value chain” concept to identify the “primary activities”
interactions between the temporary project organisation and the of the organisation, while the development of infrastructure to
permanent organisations that resource it. This implies doing enable those activities is part of the “support activities”.
more than merely acknowledging the context of the temporary The role of permanent firms as owners and operators of
organisation as Bakker (2010) does. Engwall (2003) argues infrastructure that enable the delivery of goods and services to
that “no project is an island” and that the scope of analysis customers on a continuing basis has important implications for
needs to be extended both temporally and organisationally project organising. In this perspective it is perceived inadequacies
with attention of the interface of the project to its “parent” in the existing business infrastructure that generate investment
organisation. projects such as those discussed by Engwall. These perceived
This paper aims to contribute to the development of a more inadequacies can arise from dilapidation (the hydroelectric
holistic perspective on project organising that builds on the power station case); the opportunity to take advantage of new
contribution of Lundin and Söderholm, while also developing the technologies to improve the integrity of service delivery (the
insights of Engwall (2003) to broader effect. However, before we HVDC case); the need to expand capacity to meet demand
turn to the next step of the argument, it is worthwhile addressing a (e.g. airports); or business opportunities offered by disruptive
definitional problem in the pervasive temporary/permanent technologies (e.g. railways in the early 19th century; mobile
dichotomy. One obvious problem with this distinction is that no phone networks today); and many other dynamics.
organisation is permanent, so projects are temporary in only a Similarly the public sector and its agencies are the owners
relative sense and some “permanent” firms do not survive the and operators–depending on the jurisdiction–of infrastructure
projects on which they are working—the Wembley Stadium to deliver transportation services (e.g. roads); health services
project was particularly notorious in this respect (Winch, 2010). (e.g. hospitals); education services (e.g. schools) and many others.
So, we suggest that the crucial distinction is not that the project Similarly, government is the sole source (in most jurisdictions) of
organisation is temporary, but that it is determinate. That is, from demand for defence materiel. Even if a firm or government
the outset it is known by all participants that it will be terminated at agency does not rely upon physical infrastructure to deliver goods
some pre-agreed point in the future and that point becomes, fairly and services to customers and citizens, information technology
early in the project life-cycle, a deadline agreed by the parties to infrastructure is vital for the effective operation of most
the project. Other types of organisations are, in contrast, organisations (Duncan, 1995). The pervasive reliance of organi-
indeterminate in that while they could disappear at any moment sations on enterprise systems such as SAP is one example of this,
due to force majeur, they operate as going concerns without but bespoke systems can also be important for competitive
anticipation of termination at any particular point in time. This advantage. One example is Apple's iTunes infrastructure which
distinction also helps to clearly distinguish project organisations links together all its innovative consumer products into a systemic
from the more diffuse category of all temporary organisations, whole and meets Barney's (1991) VRIN criteria more clearly than
many of which are not project organisations (Bresnen et al., 1987). any particular Apple product, many of which are presently being
We will therefore use “temporary” and “permanent” as shorthand challenged in the market by companies such as Samsung.
for this distinction as we develop our argument. Following In contrast to the extensive literature on temporary project
Engwall (2003), we will now turn to the “parent” organisations of organising, project organising by permanent owners and operators
projects—owners and operators. of business infrastructure–be it physical or information systems–
 Author's personal copy

724 G.M. Winch / International Journal of Project Management 32 (2014) 721–731

has received little explicit attention. Rather, much of the literature depending on policy in the particular jurisdiction, suppliers are
is generic in the sense that it appears to be applicable in the same almost always in the private sector, although for the exception of
way to both the project organisation and the owner organisation. a government laboratory providing contract research services to a
For instance, across an influential set of reviews of the project number of different government departments see Winch et al.
management field, Söderlund (2004, 2011) does not identify (2012).
any distinction between the temporary project organisation and One body of research on project-based firms has been
the permanent organisation that owns the output being created. concerned with innovation in suppliers of “complex product
This is despite (Söderlund, 2004, 187) posing the question “why systems” such as flight simulators which are commissioned by
do project organizations exist?” From an owner organisation “users” (owners and operators as defined above; airlines in
perspective, the answer to this question would be “to develop this particular case) and supplied by “systems integrators” who
strategically our business infrastructure”. draw on networks of specialised and other suppliers (Miller et
An important exception to this generalisation is a body of al., 1995). Hobday (2000) goes on to argue that project-based
literature drawing on data from project benchmarking studies firms are the most appropriate for the efficient and effective
which emphasise the owner role. Independent Project Analysis supply of complex products and systems such as medical
(IPA) provides project benchmarking services in the engineer- equipment to owners and operators. Further research on this
ing construction sector, working for clients such as interna- theme has identified the project-based firm and its project
tional oil companies on the performance of their projects. This capabilities as central to competitive advantage in high
data set is confidential to those who are members, but a sub-set technology industries (Brady and Davies, 2004; Davies and
underpins the arguments in Merrow (2011) on megaprojects and Brady, 2000; Davies and Hobday, 2005). Similarly, Ethiraj et
the broader data set tells much the same story. This, in essence, is al. (2005) identify the importance of project management
that contractors cannot do owner's work. “The contractor's job is capabilities in the performance of software services firms. This
to deliver a project as specified, on time and on budget. The work is also important for identifying at least two very different
owner's job is to specify the right project” (Merrow, 2011, 126). types of project-based firm—the systems integrator that supplies
These results are supported by an analysis of Construction and integrated asset to the owner/investor, and the specialist
Industry Institute benchmarking data (Hui et al., 2008) which technology supplier which provides subsystems and often trades
reports that construction owners who exhibit high ‘owner in proprietary technology.
dominance’ tend to achieve better performance on their projects, Another body of work focused on project-based firms is on
where the construct is operationalised as the proportion of project “project business” (Artto and Wikström, 2005; Cova et al.,
activities performed by the owner. We now turn, therefore, to the 2002) and different kinds of business models for project-based
suppliers to owners and operators of the resources required for firms (Kujala et al., 2010; Wikström et al., 2010). Although the
projects and programmes. bibliometric study which underlay the initial formulation of the
concept cast its net widely, the case study research through
4. Project suppliers which it is being developed has focused on sectors such as
shipbuilding (Ruuska et al., 2013), metallurgical processing
Owners and operators do not usually undertake the entire equipment (Mutka and Aaltonen, 2013), and automation
projects themselves; they typically hire permanent suppliers equipment (Ahola et al., 2013). The research, therefore, covers
of project-related services which are usually organised as firms in many of the same sectors as the work on complex
project-based firms, which “organize work around relatively product systems (Hobday, 1998) and shares its definition of the
discrete projects that bring particular groups of skilled staff project-based firm as a supplier to owners and operators in
together to work on complex, innovative tasks for a variety of sectors such as shipping and resource extraction. As a result,
clients and purposes (Whitley, 2006: 79). As Whitley makes clear, moves have been made towards a joint perspective (Artto et al.,
such firms as distinct, indeterminate legal entities are distinguished 2011).
from “project-based organisations” defined as “organizational
forms involved in the creation of temporary systems” (Sydow et 4.1. Project organising: a conceptual framework of the field
al., 2004: 1475) which are largely synonymous with the temporary
organisations discussed above. As Merrow (2011) observes, the We have now reviewed three bodies of literature that address
supplier plays a very distinctive role on the project in contrast to important issues in project organising. We have reviewed the
that of the owner. For these firms, projects are their core business extensive research on temporary organising which assumes
(Kay, 1993). While there are many different kinds of project-based either implicitly or explicitly that the project organisation is
firm (Whitley, 2006), and some, such as film production temporary; this assumption has become axiomatic in the project
companies (DeFillippi and Arthur, 1998) or special purpose management discipline for both research and practise. We went
vehicles for private finance projects are determinate in life on to review two other bodies of literature that have pursued
expectancy, many are of considerable age and substance as important lines of enquiry in the field of project organising.
suppliers to owners and operators such as the P-form organisation The first looks at the project-related activities of owners and
(Söderlund and Tell, 2009) specialising in supplying electrical operators of the (typically complex) products delivered by the
generation and distribution assets to energy utilities. Unlike project; the second looks at the project-based firms which
owners, which are located both in the public and private sectors supply the capability to do the project so that it can deliver
 Author's personal copy

G.M. Winch / International Journal of Project Management 32 (2014) 721–731 725

value for the potential owner and operator. Both of these types owner and operator as a purchaser of services for the delivery
of organisations are relatively permanent in the sense as defined of the project, rather than as a strategic actor in its own right,
above. Fig. 1 captures this perspective on the scope of project although see Boyd and Chinyio (2006) for a sustained attempt to
organising. broaden the perspective. While there are both important policy
The conceptual framework shows the three principal concerns regarding the role of clients in relation to the projects
organisational types in the organisational field (DiMaggio, they promote (NAO, 2009) and more recent research around the
1991), of projects—the temporary project or programme; notion of the “intelligent client” (Aritua et al., 2009, 2011) this
the relatively permanent owner and operator; and the relatively work remains focused on the owner and operator as client rather
permanent project-based firm as supplier. We propose these as the than attempting to relate the client role to the broader owner
three domains of project organising. Owners supply the capital strategy. A rather different perspective has emerged from the
resources to the project organisation as investors; project-based interaction between the supply chain management literature and
firms provide the human and material resources to the project the complex product systems literature discussed above with the
organisation. As with many conceptual models, the most focus on procuring “complex performance” (Caldwell and
interesting areas are probably not the main circles identifying the Howard, 2010), yet this work does not address why owners
three domains of project organising, but the interfaces between and operators should wish to switch from procuring assets to
the domains in the Venn-like overlaps. Indeed, these interfaces procuring performance.
supply some of the most interesting and currently challenging Economists have also paid attention to these issues, particu-
areas of research in project organising–governance, commercial larly to the selection of supplier firms. Auction theory has been
and resourcing–so we turn to these seriatim. influential in work on the design of bidding processes (Bajari et
al., 2008; McAfee and McMillan, 1986; McAfee and McMillan,
4.2. Permanent/permanent interface: owners and project-based 1987), as has game theory (Brown et al., 2010). However, this
firms work remains tightly focused on the selection problem and does
not address the wider issues in governance of the owner/supplier
Turning first to the interface between the owner organisation relationship. A broader perspective from economics which has
(firm or public agency) we focus on the broad commercial the potential to locate relationships between suppliers and owners
relationship between the owner and its suppliers on the project as part of the theory of the boundary of the firm is transaction cost
(Lowe, 2013; Turner, 1995). Commercial relationships have economics (e.g. Williamson, 1996). There have been a number of
received relatively little attention in the mainstream project applications of the transaction cost approach to buyer supplier
organising literature despite their empirical prevalence, although relationships in a project context by both economists (e.g. Chang,
in the construction management literature commercial issues are a 2013; Chang and Ive, 2007; Corts and Singh, 2004; Crocker and
pervasive concern (e.g. Winch, 2010; Pryke and Smyth, 2006). Reynolds, 1993; Masten et al., 1991); and organisation theorists
One issue with this literature is that the owner and operator (e.g. Winch, 2010; Stinchcombe and Heimer, 1985). The
becomes a “client”; that is the focus of attention is entirely on the perspective has also been extended to relationships between
firms within the supply chain (González-Dias et al., 2000).
However, this work has yet to be integrated into a more
comprehensive theory of the firm and inter-firm relationships in a
project context which would be required for a full transaction cost
theory of economics and project organising, and there remain
Owners & Operators important questions regarding its value for understanding
• Projects not core business commercial relationships (Sanderson, 2012).
• Projects extend core business A very different commercial perspective focuses on the
• Source of capital
business models used by project-based firms discussed above
• permanent
to investigate the range of different services that suppliers can
Governance Commercial offer to the owner with respect to the projects they promote, in a
• Portfolio • Business models broader perspective of “project marketing” (Cova et al., 2002).
management • Transaction
• Assurance Project/ costs Kujala et al. (2013) identify the range of services offered by
programme suppliers from finance for the project through to through-life
Project-
Projects & partner support for the asset delivered by the project, while Wikström
based firms
Programmes • Systems integrator et al. (2009) show the ways in which supplier firms mature in
• Asset acquisition
Resources • Specialist supplier the development of their service offer to owners. One weakness
• New product • Projects core
development • human of this line of enquiry is that it is rather descriptive, and is not
• material business
• temporary • permanent
presently influenced by the theory of the firm, and the notion
of business model it deploys does not take into account the
financial aspects that are central to strategic management (Kay,
1993). Second is that the reasons why owners and operators are
prepared to extend the range of services they buy remains
Fig. 1. Three domains of project organising. under-researched. An important exception to this generalisation
 Author's personal copy

726 G.M. Winch / International Journal of Project Management 32 (2014) 721–731

is the work on public/private partnerships which has paid has focused on the policy prescriptions which can improve the
significant attention to why public agencies are now buying a quality of investment appraisal (e.g. Flyvbjerg, 2013; Priemus et
broader range of services from their suppliers (e.g. Hodge et al., al., 2008; Williams et al., 2009).
2010). A rapprochement with the theory of the firm (Milgrom The outcome of the capital budgeting process is the
and Roberts, 1992) from economics and both the positioning portfolio of projects selected for investment by the firm.
(Porter, 1985) and resource-based (Barney, 1991) views of From a financial perspective (Markowitz, 1952), the portfolio
the firm from strategic management would greatly enhance the optimises the potential of the firm to maximise the returns
literature on the project-based firm. on its investment capital. This approach has more recently
The commercial management and transaction costs literatures developed into a real options perspective (Smit and Trigeorgis,
tend to approach commercial issues from the perspective of the 2009) in which investment projects can be conceptualised
owner, even if they, implicitly or explicitly, reduce the notion of as options “safeguarding” (Gil, 2007) future investments, and
owner and operator to that of client. The project marketing can be complemented by analytic hierarchy process techniques
literature tends to approach commercial issues from the point (Angelou and Economides, 2008). However, from a resource-
of view of the supplier. However, central to transaction cost based view of the firm (Barney, 1991) these financial approaches
economics (Williamson, 1996) is the nature of the relationships are limited because finance (investment capital) is only one of
between firms—in our case between the owner and operator the resources required for investment projects and, in some ways,
and its suppliers of project services. From this perspective, the it is the most readily available. Penrose (1995) argues that the
commercial management literature needs to pay more attention principal constraint to the growth of the firm is managerial
to the dynamics of the relationships between firms. While the capability; firms typically grow either by exogenous investment
literature on partnering does indeed focus on the nature of in mergers and acquisitions or endogenous investment in new
relationships, it has tended to be normatively driven (Bresnen, products and services and the infrastructure to get them to market.
2007) and would warrant a more critical approach. At the same Thus the ability of the firm to manage its investment projects is a
time, the project marketing literature needs to pay more attention major constraint on the size of its investment portfolio and hence
to the reasons why owners and operators are changing the mix of its ability to grow independently of its ability to access the
services they procure from project-based firms. required capital.
Project portfolio management therefore becomes an impor-
4.3. Permanent/temporary interface: owners and their projects tant element in the strategic management of owner and operators
and programmes (Jonas, 2010; Killen et al., 2012). However, project portfolios
tend to be incomplete (Blichfeldt and Eskerod, 2008) and fall
The relationship between owners and their projects is short of the widely accepted definition of “a group of projects that
usefully summarised as the challenge of governance, or the are carried out under the sponsorship and/or management of a
processes by which owners and operators assure themselves particular organisation” (Archer and Ghasamzadeh, 1999: 208).
that they have selected the most appropriate projects and that This is the challenge of “skunk works” (Stalk and Hout, 1990)
they are progressing as desired. Broadly speaking there are two where projects are promoted by enthusiastic managers outside the
largely separate literatures of relevance here. The first is on mandated resource allocation processes. Kidder's (1982) case
project portfolio management. Owners and operators are the study of the Eagle project provides one (successful) example, but
principal suppliers of financial resources to project organisa- the risk is high that skunk works generate misallocation of
tions. Typically they do this out of operating surpluses or resources to unviable projects.
from loans secured as a floating charge on the business. An There is now a growing empirical literature on the organisa-
important exception to this generalisation is the use of “project tion of project portfolio management (e.g. Petit, 2012; Teller et
finance” (Morrison, 2012) in which the loan is secured on the al., 2012) and in her recent review of this sub-field, Martinsuo
assets being generated by the project. However the finance is (2013) calls for more studies which move the research agenda on
raised by the project promoting owner and operator, the capital from organisation to practice—to what project portfolio man-
budgeting process by which the available capital is allocated to agers actually do. Perhaps the best source we have on practice
viable projects is one of the most important strategic processes remains Bower, and his conclusion (1970, 303) that a project
in any firm (Bower, 1970). There has, however, been relatively proposal “must be regarded as a ‘move’ in a complicated game
little recent work on how owners and operators allocate with economic, organizational and interpersonal implications”
financial resources to projects with the important exception of remains highly relevant for research on project organising. Bad
work on the selection of transportation projects by the public projects within the portfolio remain hard to kill (Royer, 2003) and
sector. Flyvbjerg et al. (2003) developed and analysed a data much more research is required on effective governance.
base of transportation projects which showed their chronic The second is the challenge of project assurance (NAO,
tendency to both overestimate benefits and underestimate costs. 2010). At the core of most project assurance processes is some
This suggests that project promoters were engaging in deception kind of stage-gate process (Cooper, 1993) which addresses the
through “strategic misrepresentation”, or the deliberate distortion “who, when, what” questions (Winch, 2010) of who should make
of the investment appraisal process, or at the very least, suffered decisions on the progress of the project when in the life-cycle on
delusion from a more unconscious “optimism bias” in their the basis of what information. This can be complemented by the
investment appraisals (Flyvbjerg et al., 2009). Subsequent work three “lines of defence” for assurance—effective project controls
 Author's personal copy

G.M. Winch / International Journal of Project Management 32 (2014) 721–731 727

by the client project team; internal assurance functions indepen- function of the external workload, but can also be generated by
dent of the project team; and external audit (Hone et al., 2011). poor management of the available human resource pool by
Williams et al. (2010) provide case studies of assurance on project-based firms (Bayer and Gann, 2006).
government projects, demonstrating the rather mixed implemen- While the resourcing of individual projects by the project-
tation of assurance arrangements, while Young et al. (2012) show based firm remains a challenge which has received relatively
how limited the impact of formal assurance procedures has little research attention, a longer term issue which has received
been on government projects. The link between project portfolio even less attention is “maintaining the resource base” (Winch,
management and assurance lies in the project management 2000). If the project-based firm is the principal source of the
office (PMO) (Aubry et al., 2010; Hobbs et al., 2008) or more human and material resources required by the project, then
specifically, the “project portfolio management office” (Unger et it needs to give attention to the renewal of those resources
al., 2012) in its “controller” function. through training and innovation respectively. The episodic
One problem with formalised procedures such as stage gates nature of project work tempts project-based firms to rely
is that closing the gate on the project can be much the same heavily on a casualised workforce of both technical profes-
as closing the stable door once the horse has bolted; similar sionals and craft workers which offers high flexibility for both
problems apply to essentially lagging indicators such as the employer and worker—this arrangement is at the heart of the
“lines of defence” of formal assurance. A different approach is project ecology (Grabher, 2002). However, such casualisation
to pay attention to early warning signs of difficulties emerging can seriously undermine the development and renewal of skills
on the project, especially “gut feelings” (Williams et al., 2012). (Winch, 1998). While the workers are typically highly skilled
Grenny et al. (2007) have argued that there is a “crisis of when they enter the project ecology, the driven nature of such
silence” on projects as difficult conversations are not had by labour markets (Evans et al., 2004) leaves little time out for the
those responsible for the project. The importance of the owner's renewal of those skills.
project manager regularly walking the project–particularly Similarly, project-based firms face significant difficulties
when it is on site–has also been identified (Hopkins, 2012). in innovation (Acha et al., 2005; Gann and Salter, 2000;
All this effort at oversight of the project requires that the Scarborough et al., 2004)—that is they find it difficult to
owner's project management team is adequately staffed— develop novel solutions to the problems owners and operators
understaffed owner teams are a major source of project failure have in their investment projects whether those are generated
(Merrow, 2011). by new opportunities, desires to reduce budget and schedule, or
regulatory challenges. The episodic nature of projects and the
4.4. Temporary/permanent interface: project-based firms and decentralised nature of project-based firms make traditional
their projects centralised approaches to R&D difficult and worsen the
problems of learning from projects. An important opportunity
Suppliers are procured by owners acting as clients to supply for innovation in project-based firms is “base-moving projects”
human and material resources to the investment projects that they (Brady and Davies, 2004; Davies, 2004) where owners and
promote. Few owners retain the human resources in house for the operators demand new capabilities from their suppliers which
delivery of their projects beyond their own project management can be developed into repeatable solutions for other projects
capabilities, and they typically fail to retain enough of these (Davies and Brady, 2000; Prencipe and Tell, 2001), while
(Merrow, 2011). For the delivery of their projects they rely on the communities of practice play a vital role in sharing learning
resources supplied to them by project-based firms. Engwall and (Lindkvist, 2005).
Jerbrant (2003) noted nearly 10 years ago how little research there From a project organising perspective, the project-based firm
had been on the resource allocation problem, and that observation is the holder of the resources required by the project organisation
remains largely true today even though Turner has moved to to deliver the assets desired by the owner and operator. Although
defining a project as “a temporary organisation to which resources there has been important work in understanding the nature and
are assigned to do work to deliver beneficial change” (2009: 2). evolution of the project-based firm (Davies and Hobday, 2005;
Even project scheduling techniques that explicitly take into Whitley, 2006), further work is required on how it deploys its
account resources such as critical chain (Goldratt, 1997) are of operational capabilities on projects and balances them across
recent development and are still not diffused widely—project projects. This suggests that a rather different concept of project
planners still tend to assume that resources are infinite when portfolio is required from that discussed above for owners and
scheduling projects (Winch, 2010). operators. For the latter the portfolio is essentially financial; for
Human resources lie at the heart of the issues here (Huemann the project-based firm it is essentially operational. Further work is
et al., 2007). Engwall and Jerbrant (2003) show how different also required on the dynamic capabilities of project-based firm in
projects in a supplier of signalling systems compete with each terms of how they seize new opportunities while maintaining the
other for human resources—here the crucial issues are the existing resource base.
interfaces between projects as managers of the project-based firm
juggle their human resources between projects. This can lead to 4.5. Multiple interfaces: the programme/project manager
problems of “project overload” (Zika-Viktorsson et al., 2006) as
human resources are stretched between projects. However, it At the heart of Fig. 1 is the project or programme manager,
should be noted that these overload problems are not always a but rather than being the apotheosis of Gaddis' (1959) “man in
 Author's personal copy

728 G.M. Winch / International Journal of Project Management 32 (2014) 721–731

the middle”, it is rather a shorthand for some relatively complex programme management is arguably now mature; that on the
organising in its own right. Many projects have multiple people project-based firm is maturing although a greater level of
with the role of project manager working on them, and multiple theoretical sophistication would be welcomed, while that on
teams managing the project. For instance, the Tate Modern the owner and operator is relatively immature and does warrant
project had three different people with the title “Project greater attention than it has received to date.
Director” each working for a different permanent organisation One important aspect of the Lundin and Söderholm (1995)
(Winch, 2010). perspective on temporary project organising is the link between
An important issue here which has not received significant the project organisation and the project life-cycle. There has been
research attention is the challenge faced by owners who only little work on the implications for temporary project organising
make intermittent investments which means that they cannot during movement through the life cycle; exceptions include
effectively develop adequate in-house project capabilities as Thamain and Wilemon (1975) on how power dynamics vary
recommended by Merrow (2011). Here the “delivery partner” through the project life-cycle and Morris' discussion (1994)
(London 2012 Olympics) or “programme partner” (London of “matrix swing”. There is even less work on how project
Crossrail) plays a vital role. The London 2012 delivery partner configurations change through the life-cycle. Winch (2010) uses
was a joint venture of three project-based firms which undertook transaction cost analysis to explain theoretically how governance
both programme and project management functions for the arrangements between owners and suppliers shift, but there is
delivery of the Olympic venues (Hone et al., 2011) selected little empirical work on this. Similarly, assurance arrangements
through a “competitive dialogue” procedure (Cornelius et al., will change as the project progresses. For instance owner project
2011) and answerable to the Olympic Delivery Authority, an manager site tours have little relevance early in the project; later
agency of the UK government. The delivery partner then procured in the life cycle they are an important element of assurance,
and managed the suppliers for the different facilities and the particularly in relation to Quality Environment Safety and Health
cross-programme packages. (QUENSH) issues (Winch, 2010; Hopkins, 2012).

5. Project organising as temporary configurations of

permanent organisations 6. Concluding thoughts

Fig. 1 implies a multi-organisational perspective on project The principal contribution of this paper has been to articulate a
organising. Horwitch and Prahalad (1981) identified “multi- conceptual framework (Shapira, 2011) of the project organising
organisation enterprise” as the new strategic frontier, while field around three domains—the temporary project/programme
Cherns and Bryant (1984) defined a project as a “temporary organisation and the two permanent organisations of owner and
multiorganization” and Winch (1989) identified “project coali- operator and project-based firm. We have also suggested that the
tions” of firms on projects. In combination with the analysis contemporary focus on projects as temporary organisations has
above, this suggests that project organising is best seen as a diverted attention from the permanent organisations that provide
configuration of permanent organisations coming together to temporary organisations with financial resources (owners and
form a temporary coalition to deliver a particular outcome. These operators) and supply human and material resources (project-based
organisations bring different kinds of resources to the project— supplier firms). In particular, relatively little attention has been
finance (usually the owner), and various kinds of technical and given research on project organising to the interfaces between the
managerial skills (usually project-based firms). This can be the temporary organisation and the two different types of permanent
basis of a new and challenging research agenda for project organisation that configure any project. We have proposed the
organising (Jones and Lichtenstein, 2008) which acknowledges conceptual framework in Fig. 1 as one way of capturing the full
the temporary nature of project organisations, the permanent range of the research field of project organising and suggested that
nature of the organisations that resource those temporary we need more research at the interfaces between the three domains,
organisations, and their mutual embeddedness in wider socio- particularly those of governance and resourcing.
economic contexts. One way of theorising is indicated by
research on Connecting for Health, one of the world's largest IS
infrastructure projects drawing on neo-institutional theory and the References
concept of the “organisational field” of the programme (Currie,
2012; Currie and Guah, 2007). Acha, V., Gann, D.M., Salter, A.J., 2005. Episodic innovation: R&D strategies
for project-based environments. Ind. Innov. 12, 255–281.
At the project configuration level, one highly appropriate
Ahola, T., Kujala, J., Laaksonen, T., Aaltonen, K., 2013. Constructing the
research methodology is social network analysis (Brass et al., market position of a project-based firm. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31, 355–365.
2004) focusing on either inter-organisational (Pryke, 2004) or Angelou, G.N., Economides, A.A., 2008. A decision analysis framework for
inter-personal (Pauget and Wald, 2013) level relations. At the prioritizing a portfolio of ICT infrastructure projects. IEEE Trans. Eng.
inter-organisational level, we propose a focus on the interfaces Manag. 55, 479–495.
between the three types of organisations: specifically, governance Archer, N.P., Ghasemzadeh, F., 1999. An integrated framework for project
portfolio selection. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 17, 207–216.
for the owner/project interface; commercial for the owner/supplier Aritua, B., Male, S., Bower, D., 2009. Defining the intelligent public sector
interface, and resourcing for the supplier/project interface. At the construction client. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Manag. Procure. Law 162,
organisational level, the research on the temporary project and 75–82.
 Author's personal copy

G.M. Winch / International Journal of Project Management 32 (2014) 721–731 729

Aritua, B., Male, S., Bower, D., Madter, N., 2011. Competencies for the Davies, A., 2004. Moving base into high-value integrated solutions: a value
intelligent public sector construction Client. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Manag. stream approach. Ind. Corp. Chang. 13, 727–756.
Procure. Law 164, 193–201. Davies, A., Brady, T., 2000. Organizational capabilities and learning in
Artto, K., Wikström, K., 2005. What is project business? Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23, complex product systems: towards repeatable solutions. Res. Policy 29,
343–353. 931–953.
Artto, K., Davies, A., Kujala, J., Prencipe, A., 2011. The project business: Davies, A., Hobday, M., 2005. The Business of Projects: Managing Innovation in
analytical framework and research opportunities. In: Morris, P., Pinto, J., Complex Products and Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Söderlund, J. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Project Management. Oxford DeFillippi, R.J., Arthur, M.B., 1998. Paradox in project-based enterprise: the
University Press, Oxford, pp. 133–153. case of film making. Calif. Manag. Rev. 40, 125–139.
Aubry, M., Müller, R., Hobbs, B., Blomquist, T., 2010. Project management DiMaggio, P.J., 1991. Constructing an organizational field as a professional
offices in transition. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28, 766–788. project: U.S. Art Museums 1920–1940. In: Powell, W.J., DiMaggio, P.J.
Bajari, P., McMillan, R., Tadelis, S., 2008. Auctions versus negotiations in (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. University of
procurement: an empirical analysis. J. Law Econ. Org. 25, 372–399. Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 267–292.
Bakker, R.M., 2010. Taking stock of temporary organizational forms: a Duncan, N.B., 1995. Capturing flexibility of information technology infra-
systematic review and research agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 12, 466–486. structure: a study of resource characteristics and their measure. J. Manag.
Barney, J., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Inf. Syst. 12, 37–57.
J. Manag. 17, 99–120. Engwall, M., 2003. No project is an island: linking projects to history and
Bayer, S., Gann, D., 2006. Balancing work: bidding strategies and workload context. Res. Policy 32, 789–808.
dynamics in a project-based professional service organisation. Syst. Dyn. Engwall, M., Jerbrant, A., 2003. The resource allocation syndrome: the prime
Rev. 22, 185–211. challenge of multi-project management? Int. J. Proj. Manag. 21, 403–409.
Bechky, B.A., 2006. Gaffers, gofers and grips: role-based coordination in Ethiraj, S.K., Kale, P., Krishnan, M.S., Singh, J.V., 2005. Where do capabilities
temporary organizations. Organ. Sci. 17, 3–21. come from and how do they matter? a study in the software services
Blichfeldt, B.S., Eskerod, P., 2008. Project portfolio management—there's industry. Strateg. Manag. J. 26, 25–45.
more to it than what management enacts. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26, 357–365. Evans, J.A., Kunda, G., Barley, S.R., 2004. Beach time, bridge time, and billable
Bower, J.L., 1970. Managing the Resource Allocation Process: A Study of hours: the temporal structure of technical contracting. Adm. Sci. Q. 49, 1–38.
Corporate Planning and Investment. Division of Research, Harvard Business Flyvbjerg, B., 2013. Quality control and due diligence in project management:
School, Boston MA. getting decisions right by taking the outside view. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31,
Boyd, D., Chinyio, E., 2006. Understanding the Construction Client. Blackwell, 760–774.
Oxford. Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., Rothengatter, W., 2003. Megaprojects and Risk:
Brady, T., Davies, A., 2004. Building project capabilities: from exploratory to An Anatomy of Ambition. CUP, Cambridge.
exploitative learning. Organ. Stud. 25, 1601–1621. Flyvbjerg, B., Garbuio, M., Lovallo, D., 2009. Delusion and deception in large
Brass, D.J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H.R., Tsai, H., 2004. Taking stock of infrastructure projects: two models for explaining and preventing executive
networks and organizations: a multilevel perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 47, disaster. Calif. Manag. Rev. 51, 170–193.
795–817. Gaddis, P.O., 1959. The project manager. Harv. Bus. Rev. 89–97 (May-June).
Bresnen, M., 2007. Deconstructing partnering in project-based organisation: Galbraith, J.R., 1970. Environmental and technological determinants of organiza-
seven pillars, seven paradoxes and seven deadly sins. Int. J. Proj. Manag. tion design. In: Lorsch, J.W., Lawerence, P.R. (Eds.), Studies in Organization
25, 365–374. Design. Irwin-Dorsey, Homewood IL, pp. 113–139.
Brown, T.L., Potoski, M., van Slyke, D.M., 2010. Contracting for complex Gann, D.M., Salter, A.J., 2000. Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced
products. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 20, 41–58. firms: the construction of complex products and systems. Res. Policy 29,
Bryman, A., Bresnen, M., Beardsworth, A.D., Ford, J., Keil, E.T., 1987. The 955–972.
concept of the temporary system: the case of the construction project. Res. Gareis, R., 1989. Management by projects: the management approach of the
Sociol. Organ. 5, 253–283. future. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 7, 243–249.
Caldwell, N., Howard, M. (Eds.), 2010. Procuring Complex Performance: Gareis, R., 2010. Changes of organizations by projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28,
Studies of Innovation in Product-Service Management. Routledge, London. 314–327.
Chang, C.-Y., 2013. Understanding the hold-up problem in the management of Gil, N., 2007. On the value of project safeguards: embedding real options in
megaprojects: the case of the Channel Tunnel rail link project. Int. J. Proj. complex products and systems. Res. Policy 36, 980–999.
Manag. 31, 628–637. Goldratt, E.M., 1997. Critical Chain. The North River Press, Great Barrington.
Chang, C.-Y., Ive, G., 2007. The hold-up problem in the management of González-Dias, M., Arruñada, B., Fernández, A., 2000. Causes of subcontracting:
construction projects: a case study of the Channel Tunnel. Int. J. Proj. evidence from panel data on construction firms. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 42,
Manag. 25, 394–404. 167–187.
Cherns, A.B., Bryant, D.T., 1984. Studying the client's role in construction Goodman, R.A., Goodman, L.P., 1976. Some management issues in temporary
management. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2, 177–184. systems: a study of professional development and manpower—the theater
Cooper, R.G., 1993. Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from case. Adm. Sci. Q. 21, 494–501.
Idea to Launch, 2nd ed. Perseus Books (Reading MA). Grabher, G., 2002. The project ecology of advertising: tasks, talents and teams.
Cornelius, M., Fernau, J., Dickinson, P., Stuart, M., 2011. Delivering London Reg. Stud. 36, 245–262.
2012: procurement. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Civ. Eng. 164, 34–39. Greiner, L.E., Schein, V.E., 1981. The paradox of managing a project-
Corts, K.S., Singh, J., 2004. The effect of repeated interaction on contract orientated matrix: establishing coherence within chaos. Sloan Manage. Rev.
choice: evidence from offshore drilling. J. Econ. Org. 20, 230–260. 17–22 (Winter).
Cova, B., Ghauri, P., Salle, R., 2002. Project Marketing: Beyond Competitive Grenny, J., Maxfield, D., Shimberg, A., 2007. How project leaders can
Bidding. Wiley, Chichester. overcome the crisis of silence. Sloan Manage. Rev. 48, 46–52.
Crocker, K.J., Reyonds, K.J., 1993. The Efficiency of incomplete contracts: an Hobbs, B., Aubry, M., Thuillier, D., 2008. The project management office as an
empirical analysis of air force engine procurement. RAND J. Econ. 24, organisational innovation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26, 547–555.
126–146. Hobday, M., 1998. Product complexity. Innov. Ind. Org. Res. Policy 26,
Currie, W.L., 2012. Institutional isomorphism and change: the national 689–710.
programme for IT—10 years on. J. Inf. Technol. 27, 236–248. Hobday, M., 2000. The project-based organisation: an ideal form for managing
Currie, W.L., Guah, M.W., 2007. Conflicting institutional logics: a national complex products and systems. Res. Policy 29, 871–893.
programme for IT in the organisational field of healthcare. J. Inf. Technol. Hodge, G.A., Greve, C., Boardman, A.E. (Eds.), 2010. International Handbook
22, 235–247. on Public–Private Partnerships. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
 Author's personal copy

730 G.M. Winch / International Journal of Project Management 32 (2014) 721–731

Hone, D., Higgins, D., Galloway, I., Kintrea, K., 2011. Delivering London 2012: Mutka, S., Aaltonen, P., 2013. The impact of a delivery project's business
organisation and programme. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Civ. Eng. 164, 5–12. model in a project-based firm. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31, 166–176.
Hopkins, A., 2012. Disastrous Decisions: The Human and Organisational NAO, 2009. Commercial Skills for Complex Government Projects. National
Causes of the Gulf of Mexico Blowout. CCH Press, Sidney. Audit Office, London.
Horwitch, M., Prahalad, C.K., 1981. Managing multi-organization enterprises: NAO, 2010. Assurance for High Risk Projects. National Audit Office, London.
the emerging strategic frontier. Sloan Manage. Rev. 22, 3–16. Packendorff, J., 1995. Inquiring into the temporary organization: new directions
Huemann, M., Keegan, A.E., Turner, R.J., 2007. Human resource management for project management research. Scand. J. Manag. 11, 319–333.
in the project-orientated company: a review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 25, Pauget, B., Wald, A., 2013. Relational competence in temporary organizations:
315–323. the case of a French hospital construction project network. Int. J. Proj.
Hui, P.P., Davis-Blake, A., Broschak, J.P., 2008. Managing interdependence: Manag. 31, 200–211.
the effects of outsourcing structure on the performance of complex projects. Penrose, E.T., 1995. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, 3rd ed. Oxford
Decis. Sci. 39, 5–31. University Press, Oxford.
Ibert, O., 2004. Projects and firms as discordant complements: organisational Petit, Y., 2012. Project portfolios in dynamic environments: organizing for
learning in the munich software industry. Res. Policy 33, 1529–1546. uncertainty. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30, 539–553.
Jonas, D., 2010. Empowering project portfolio managers: how management Porter, M., 1985. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior
involvement impacts project portfolio management performance. Int. Performance. Free Press, New York NY.
J. Proj. Manag. 28, 818–831. Prencipe, A., Tell, F., 2001. Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes of
Jones, C., 1996. Careers in project networks: the case of the film industry. In: knowledge codification in project-based firms. Res. Policy 30, 1373–1394.
Arthur, M.B., Rousseau, D. (Eds.), The Boundaryless Career: A New Priemus, H., Flyvbjerg, B., van Wee, B. (Eds.), 2008. Decision-Making on
Employment Principle for a New Organizational Era. Oxford University Mega-projects: Cost-benefit Analysis, Planning and Innovation. Edward
Press, New York NY, pp. 58–75. Elgar, Cheltenham.
Jones, C., Lichtenstein, B.B., 2008. Temporary inter-organizational projects: Pryke, S.D., 2004. Analysing construction project coalitions: exploring the
how temporal and social embeddedness enhance coordination and manage application of social network analysis. Constr. Manag. Econ. 22, 787–797.
uncertainty. In: Cropper, S., Ebers, M., Huxham, C., Smith Ring, P. (Eds.), Pryke, S.D., Smyth, H. (Eds.), 2006. The Management of Complex Projects: A
The Oxford Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations. Oxford University Relationship Approach. Blackwell, Oxford.
Press, Oxford, pp. 231–255. Royer, I., 2003. Why bad projects are so hard to kill. Harv. Bus. Rev. 48–56
Kay, J., 1993. Foundations of Corporate Success. Oxford University Press, (February).
Oxford. Ruuska, I., Ahola, T., Martinsuo, M., Westerholm, T., 2013. Supplier
Kellogg, K.C., Orlikowski, W.J., Yates, J., 2006. Life in the trading zone: capabilities in large shipbuilding projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31, 542–553.
structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organiza- Sanderson, J., 2012. Risk, uncertainty and governance in megaprojects: a
tions. Organ. Sci. 17, 22–44. critical discussion of alternative explanations. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30,
Kidder, T., 1982. The Soul of a New Machine. Penguin, Harmondsworth. 432–443.
Killen, C.P., Jugdev, K., Drouin, N., Petit, Y., 2012. Advancing project Scarborough, H., Swan, J., Laurent, S., Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Newell, S.,
portfolio management research: applying strategic management theories. 2004. Project-based learning and the role of learning boundaries. Organ.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30, 525–538. Stud. 25, 1579–1600.
Kujala, S., Artto, K., Aaltonen, P., Turkulainen, V., 2010. Business models in Shapira, Z., 2011. “I've got a theory paper—do You?”: conceptual, empirical,
project-based firms—towards a typology of solution-specific business and theoretical contributions to knowledge in the organization sciences.
models. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28, 96–106. Organ. Sci. 22, 1312–1321.
Kujala, J., Ahola, T., Huikiri, S., 2013. Use of services to support the business Smit, H.T.J., Trigeorgis, L., 2009. Valuing infrastructure investment: an option
of a project-based firm. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31, 177–189. games approach. Calif. Manag. Rev. 51, 79–90.
Lindkvist, L., 2005. Knowledge communities and knowledge collectivities: a Söderlund, J., 2004. Building theories of project management: past research,
typology of knowledge work in groups. J. Manag. Stud. 42, 1189–1210. questions for the future. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 22, 183–191.
Lowe, D., 2013. Commercial Management: Theory and Practice. Wiley- Söderlund, J., 2011. Pluralism in project management: navigating the crossroads
Blackwell, Oxford. of specialization and fragmentation. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 13, 153–176.
Lundin, R.A., Söderholm, A., 1995. A theory of the temporary organization. Söderlund, J., Tell, F., 2009. The P-form organization and the dynamics of
Scand. J. Manag. 11, 437–455. project competence: project epochs in Asea/ABB, 1950–2000. Int. J. Proj.
Markowitz, H., 1952. Portfolio selection. J. Financ. 7, 77–91. Manag. 27, 101–112.
Martinsuo, M., 2013. Project portfolio management in practice and in context. Stalk, G., Hout, T.M., 1990. Competing Against Time: How Time-based
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31, 794–803. Competition is Reshaping Global Markets. Free Press, New York.
Masten, S.E., Meehan, J.W., Snyder, E.A., 1991. The costs of organization. Stinchcombe, A.L., Heimer, C.A., 1985. Organization Theory and Project
J. Law Econ. Org. 7, 1–25. Management. Norwegian University Press, Oslo.
McAfee, P., McMillan, J., 1986. Bidding for contracts: a principal-agent Sydow, J., Lindvkist, L., DeFillippi, R., 2004. Project-based organizations,
analysis. RAND J. Econ. 17, 326–338. embeddedness and repositories of knowledge: editorial. Organ. Stud. 25,
McAfee, P., McMillan, J., 1987. Auctions and bidding. J. Econ. Lit. 25, 1475–1489.
699–738. Teller, J., Unger, B.N., Kock, A., Gemünden, H.G., 2012. Formalization of
Merrow, E., 2011. Industrial Megaprojects: Concepts, Strategies, and Practices project portfolio management: the moderating role of project portfolio
for Success. Wiley, Hoboken NJ. complexity. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30, 596–607.
Midler, C., 1995. “Projectification” of the firm: the Renault case. Scand. Thamain, H.J., Wilemon, D.L., 1975. Conflict management in project life
J. Manag. 11, 363–375. cycles. Sloan Manage. Rev. 16, 31–50.
Milgrom, P., Roberts, J., 1992. Economics, Institutions and Management. Turner, J.R. (Ed.), 1995. The Commercial Project Manager. McGraw-Hill,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River NJ. London.
Miller, R., Hobday, M., Leroux-Demers, T., Olleros, X., 1995. Innovation in Turner, J.R., 2009. The Handbook of Project-Based Management, 3rd ed.
complex systems industries: the case of flight simulation. Ind. Corp. Chang. McGraw-Hill, New York.
4, 363–400. Turner, J.R., Müller, R., 2003. On the nature of the project as a temporary
Mintzberg, H., 1979. The Structuring of organizations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood organization. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 21, 1–8.
Cliffs NJ. Unger, B.N., Gemünden, H.G., Aubry, M., 2012. The three roles of a project
Morris, P.W.G., 1994. The Management of Projects. Thomas Telford, London. portfolio management office: their impact on portfolio management
Morrison, R. (Ed.), 2012. The Principles of Project Finance. Farnham, Gower. execution and success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30, 608–620.
 Author's personal copy

G.M. Winch / International Journal of Project Management 32 (2014) 721–731 731

Wheelwright, S.C., Clark, K.B., 1992. Revolutionizing Product Development: Williamson, O.E., 1996. The Mechanisms of Governance. Oxford University
Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency, and Quality. Free Press, New York. Press, New York.
Whitley, R., 2006. Project-based firms: new organizational form or variations Winch, G.M., 1989. The Construction Firm and the Construction Project: A
on a theme? Ind. Corp. Chang. 15, 77–99. Transaction Cost Approach Construction Management and Economics 7, 4,
Wikström, K., Hellström, M., Artto, K., Kujala, J., Kujala, S., 2009. Services in 331–345.
project-based firms—four types of business logic. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 113–122. Winch, G.M., 1994. Managing Production; Engineering Change and Stability
Wikström, K., Artto, K.A., Kujala, J., Söderlund, J., 2010. Business models in Oxford. Oxford University Press.
project business international. J. Proj. Manag. 28, 832–841. Winch, G.M., 1998. The Growth of Self-Employment in British Construction
Wilemon, D.L., 1973. Managing conflict in temporary management systems. Construction Management and Economics 16 5, 531–542.
J. Manag. Stud. 10, 282–296. Winch, G.M., 2000. The Management Of Projects As A Generic Business
Wilemon, D.L., Cicero, J.P., 1970. The project manager: anomalies and Process. In: Lundin, R.A., Hartman, F. (Eds.), Projects as Business
ambiguities. Acad. Manag. J. 13, 269–282. Constituents and Guiding Motives Dordrecht. Kluwer, pp. 117–130.
Wilemon, D.L., Gemmill, G.R., 1971. Interpersonal power in temporary Winch, G.M., 2010. Managing Construction Projects: An Information Processing
management systems. J. Manag. Stud. 8, 315–328. Approach, (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.
Williams, T.M., Samset, K., Sunnevåg, K.J. (Eds.), 2009. Making Essential Winch, G.M., Meunier, M.-C., Head, J., Russ, K., 2012. Projects as the Content
Choice with Scant Information: Front-end Decision Making in Major and Process of Change: The Case of the Health and Safety Laboratory.
Projects. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. International Journal of Project Management 30, 141–152.
Williams, T.M., Klakegg, O.J., Magnussen, O.M., Glasspool, H., 2010. An Young, R., Young, M., Jordan, E., O'Connor, P., 2012. Is strategy being
investigation of governance frameworks for public projects in Norway and implemented through projects? contrary evidence from a leader in new
the UK. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28, 40–50. public management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30, 887–900.
Williams, T.M., Klakegg, O.J., Walker, D.H.T., Andersen, B., Magnussen, Zika-Viktorsson, A., Sundstrom, P., Engwall, M., 2006. Project overload: an
O.M., 2012. Identifying and acting on early warning signs in complex exploratory study of work and management in multi-project settings. Int.
projects. Proj. Manag. J. 43, 37–53. J. Proj. Manag. 24, 385–394.

View publication stats