Editorial

Citation

Walker, D.H.T. (2015), "Editorial", International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 8 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-07-2015-0061

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Volume 8, Issue 4.

About this issue

This issue contains special issue (SI) papers from around the globe providing results of research into “Organizing Cultural Projects” with Nils Wåhlin and Tomas Blomquist, as guest editors from the Umeå School of Business and Economics, Umeå University. Culture is an important part of the society and economy. People tend to evaluate progress through the delivery and survival of cultural artefacts whether that is in tangible terms, such as the erection of a grand edifice or artistic installation, or through memory of spectacular events. In this way project management has much to offer society. We do not believe that there has previously been a SI on cultural projects in any of the PM journals and so this makes an important new contribution. Nils Wåhlin and Tomas Blomquist provide a guest editorial to introduce papers from the SI content and also provide some insights into the context of the SI.

Of the remaining six papers of the 12 papers comprising this issue, four are regular papers and two are Thesis Research Notes (TRNs). This issue is completed by the inclusion of one book review.

The guest editorial follows this editorial and both guest editors explain the context of the SI. Their guest editorial provides a summary and explanation of the six papers that comprises that section of the issue.

Paper seven is the first of two regular papers and comes to us from Ireland. Written by Terence Ahern, P.J. Byrne and Brian Leavy the paper is entitled “Developing complex project capability through dynamic organizational learning”. This paper explores the paradox of practices associated with preplanning projects. They argue that research on projects and project management has a long history while interest in the concept of project capability development is relatively recent. Their discussion is focused on their observation that complex projects cannot be fully specified and planned in advance whereas traditional projects may be very complicated but yet are capable of being fully specified. Their paper identifies in complex project capability developed through dynamic organisational learning based on continuous non-linear learning through complex problem solving. They base their findings of analysis of 51 semi-structured interviews conducted between 2008 and 2011 from two public sector organisations each employing between 5,000 and 10,000 staff. Their informants comprised people at the external level, board level, organisation level, project supervision level and project works staff level. Using the three interrelated dimensions of project type, knowledge creation method and organisational learning approach, the paper reinterprets Karl Popper's linear problem solving model for learning in traditional projects by introducing the concept of knowledge entropy (disorder) for learning in non-linear complex projects. The latter follows a path from “order to disorder to order” rather than from “order to order” under traditional assumptions. The concept of knowledge entropy (disorder) extends the learning boundaries of traditional projects, where little learning is anticipated, by including complex projects with knowledge uncertainty requiring continuous learning.

The eighth paper is a regular paper from Australia. Authored by Stephen McGrath it is entitled “Redefining governance: from confusion to certainty and clarity”. This paper is quite long but makes an important conceptual contribution to the debate about what project governance is and the way that the term is understood. He has gone to great lengths to explore various perspectives of governance and what implications may flow from the way that projects may be managed given the legitimacy of understood and received perspectives of governance. He adopts an objectivist epistemology using a positivist theoretical perspective in adopting the approach of Popper while acknowledging other views on the difficulties of definition. The paper is as much about the approaches that may be used to define a term as an exploration of the term governance itself. In this way this paper may be of use to us when grappling with how to describe and define other PM terms that appear to have multiple meanings and ways to be understood. Its findings can be seen as twofold. First he demonstrates an approach to review the literature to make sense of a particular term. In doing so he drew from the field of linguistics, developing a number of “hygiene” rules set within the context of a systems approach to the group of terms before applying a process of logical reduction to the individual terms. This method was then applied to a group of key governance terms with the objective of developing a mutually consistent set of definitions. Second he argues that implications of this work for governance theory provides a rationalised definition of governance and its associated terms can facilitate a move towards a common understanding of the boundaries and limitations of governance. The definition progresses from complexity to simplicity, from an imprecise concept to an understandable practice, from a very important sounding idea (that he claims has been hijacked by various interests to gain advantage and influence) to a lean social tool which can be put to use for the benefit of organisations, whether they be public, charitable or private in nature. It is an ambitious paper that many readers will no doubt find challenging but it sparks a much needed debate about how we use and understand terms and how some terms can become fads and perhaps end up misguiding us. This journal welcomes triggering debate while not taking any sides one way or the other on this paper.

The ninth paper is in many ways in line with the SI theme as well as having relevance to paper eight in terms of how people perceive meaning from words and other communication forms. The paper “Communication, dialogue and project management” by Paul Ziek and Dwight Anderson from the USA takes a communications perspective on PM and projects which fits in very well with the papers about cultural projects and the issues involved in developing and managing cultural projects. The critical perspective on their paper stems from project communication as being overwhelmingly being traditionally viewed as the proper and timely delivery of pertinent project information. They argue that viewing communication in this way misses the constitutive nature of communication. Their thesis is that communication is more than message exchange but a way that project managers generate the grounds for a project. The report on a study that explores how the communicative practices of project managers creates a stakeholder dialogue that ultimately impacts the content, direction and outcome of a project. The research was based on analysis and sensemaking from 11 semi-structured interviews performed with project managers from the Project Management Office of a large international bank to gain understanding of each project manager's personal definition of communication, what they found difficult about communication, what they felt defined effective communication and how they used communication during interactions with project stakeholders. This makes a contribution to both communications and stakeholder engagement theory by enabling us to better understand the impact of the interviewed project managers' lived reality of their communication exchanges with their important project stakeholders and how this dialogue contributes to the scope and trajectory of a project. They did not look just to understand the micro level exchanges between project managers and stakeholders but how those exchanges enabled a sustained dialogue that shapes the scope and trajectory of a project.

The tenth paper, a research note, also relates to communication and perceptions of relevance. Stephen Fox's paper from Finland is entitled “Relevance: a framework to address preconceptions that limit perceptions of what is relevant” is based on his argument that there has not been a formal framework developed for addressing erroneous perceptions of relevance. His research note makes a useful contribution by introducing a framework for identifying and counteracting erroneous perceptions of relevance. His research note results from a critical review of the literature related to communication and from that he identified contributory factors to erroneous perceptions of relevance that include cultural cognition, path dependencies, lock-ins, fads and hype. He also found that mediating factors include priming and questioning, counterfactual reasoning and optimal stopping. He introduces a classification of erroneous perceptions of relevance with Type III (inept positive) errors; Type II (false negative) errors; and Type I (false positive) errors. The originality of his research note is that it provides a framework that can be applied to increase objectivity in perceptions of relevance and its value is that it introduces a framework for identifying and counteracting erroneous perceptions of relevance before the application of methods such as cost-benefit analysis. The paper provides a useful vehicle for us to reflect upon how communication tools and techniques can be used to undermine project assessment to result in optimism bias and/or groupthink and it provides some ideas with how to deal with those potential problems that plagues many projects.

The next two papers present TRNs. The first of these is from New Zealand. The paper “Development of an assessment tool for team integration in alliance projects” by Che Khairil Izam Che Ibrahim, Seosamh B. Costello and Suzanne Wilkinson. An Alliance Team Integration Performance Index (ATIPI) assessment tool for measuring team integration performance in alliance projects was developed through the doctoral thesis. This paper provides a summary of the thesis findings, shares the candidate's doctoral journey and discusses both the thesis “with publication” format and the doctoral programme at the University of Auckland. Readers who are contemplating undertaking a PhD by publication rather than undertaking a research project with a monograph as its deliverable may find this TRN of particular interest. PhD by publication is quite common in northern Europe but rare in many other parts of the world. They discuss findings from an in-depth study of project alliances in New Zealand that provided a significant contribution with a Team Integration Performance Index (ATIPI) assessment tool for measuring team integration performance in alliance projects. Results from the thesis indicate that the ATIPI is characterised by three elements: first, the most significant key indicators (KIs), signifying their dominant influence; second, the suitable quantitative measures (QMs) for each of the KIs, to promote objective assessment over time; and third, the performance level boundaries for each KI, to reduce the subjectivity of assessment and promote consistency. The assessment tool was found to be both practical and applicable based on a validation interview and subsequent testing with alliance experts on real-life alliance infrastructure projects. Dr Ibrahim undertook the PhD while seconded from the Universiti Teknologi MARA in Malaysia and in the TRN he also explains his doctoral journey from the perspective of not having used English as his mother tongue and this would be the case for many PhD candidates in English-speaking countries and so this perspective provides useful and interesting insights. Dr Ibrahim's thesis can be downloaded from: https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/22812

The second TRN comes to us from Russia and Australia. Gulnara Sharaborova is from Moscow and her co-authors, who were her PhD supervisors, Guinevere Gilbert and Derek Walker are from RMIT University Melbourne Australia. Their paper is entitled “Journey towards best practices in acting on early warning signs in complex projects within a Russian context” and the thesis can be downloaded from http://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/view/rmit:161157. We tend to see few PhDs and PM papers set in a Russian context and so this TRN provides a rare contribution to our knowledge of how PM operates inside Russia. Dr Sharaborova has unique insights of PM in Russia stretching from the Soviet era to modern day Russia and this massive economic and business practice transformation is discussed and explained in the thesis itself. The TRN has its focus on a discussion of the thesis process and provides an overview of its methodology and main findings. A competency model and framework is presented for Russian project managers to be able to cope with early warning signals that, if left unintended, may result in significant downstream problems. The empirical part of the thesis was done in three stages (interview, case studies and focus group). In total, 19 experienced expert Russian project managers took part in the research study and provided in-depth insight into the research problem. Five case studies were narrated by the participants of this research and provided a broad picture of the context. The case studies illustrated practices, which mature project managers applied in the uncertain and complex situations within the Russian context. The focus group provided feedback and validation of the research findings. Readers may learn much that plugs a gap in knowledge about the local specifics of the reality of Russian project management practice. The findings also advance PM theory and practice by making tacit things in dealing with the EWSs explicit; by offering best practices applied in a simple, practical and useful way. The TRN also discusses challenges faced and overcome for a full-time employed project manager remotely studying for a PhD in another country with vastly different culture and language traditions.

The final contribution in this last issue for 2015 is a book review. Derek Walker provides a review of the book “Exercising agency decision making and project initiation” by Mark Mullaly and published by, Gower Publishing. This book provides cutting edge insights into project governance and the rationale of decision makers.

Derek Walker