Advertisement

Operational Research

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 249–260 | Cite as

Project management: Epistemological issues and standardization of knowledge

  • K. P. Anagnostopoulos
Article

Abstract

A part from some sporadic attempts, an investigation of the theoretical foundations of Project Management (PM) has not been yet conducted. Such an investigation is of great importance both at academic level, as a basis of research and education, and for the standardization of knowledge. This paper claims that the innate difficulties in forming a theoretical base of PM are due on the one hand to the fact that PM inherits all the intrinsic weaknesses of management sciences and on the other hand to the lack of a coherent design theory. However, dealing with PM as an organizational phenomenon, in particular as “a temporary organization”, is a realistic perspective for exploring the new practices which emerged recently in business. Moreover, this study argues that, first, a sound foundation of PM, although welcomed, is not necessary for PM to become a profession; and, second, it is worthwhile for an efficient standardization to determine a stable core of knowledge.

Keywords

project management organizational theory design standardization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anagnostopoulos, K.P. (2002), “Conventions and rational coordination”. Social Science Tribune 32, 35–55 (in greek).Google Scholar
  2. Artto, K. A. (2001). “Editorial: Management of projects as portfolios?”. Project Management vol. 7(1), 4–5.Google Scholar
  3. Baccarini, D. (1996). “The concept of project complexity-A review”. International Journal of Project Management vol. 14(4), 201–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanchot, F. (1999). “La connaissance objective de Karl Popper: Principales thèses et apports pour les recherches en gestion”. Finance Contrôle Stratégie vol. 2(3), 25–62.Google Scholar
  5. Bredillet, C. (2002). “Killing the false gods of Project Management”. www.pmforum.org (27.12.2002).Google Scholar
  6. Bredillet, C. (2003). “Genesis and role of standards: Theoretical foundations and socio-economical model for the construction and use of standards”. International Journal of Project Management (in press).Google Scholar
  7. Cabanis, J. (1999). “Standards: The rallying cry of a growing profession”. PM Network, May.Google Scholar
  8. Demeulemeester, E. L. and Herroelen, W.S. (2002). “Project scheduling: A research handbook”. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Engwall, M. (2003). “No Project is an island: Linking projects to history and context”. Research Policy vol. 32(5), 789–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fleming, Q. W. and Koppelman, J. M. (2000). “Earned value Project Management”, 2nd Edition. The Project Management Institute, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  11. Gaddis, P. O. (1959). “The project manager”. Harvard Business Review May–June, 89–97.Google Scholar
  12. Ghosal, S. and Moran, P. (1996). “Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory”. Academy of Management Review 21, 13–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goffin, K. (1998). “Operations management teaching on European MBA programmes”. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 18(5), 424–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hobday, M. (2000). “The Project-based organisation: An ideal form for managing complex products and systems?”. Research Policy, vol. 29, 871–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jugdev, K., Thomas, J. and Delisle, C. L. (2001). “Rethinking Project Management: Old truths and new insights”. Project Management vol. 7(1), 37–43.Google Scholar
  16. Kerzner, H. (1995). “Project Management: A systems approach to planning scheduling and controlling”, 5th Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Kolisch, R. and Padman, R. (1997). “An integrated survey of project scheduling”. Working Paper. Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Kiel, Germany.Google Scholar
  18. Kroes, P. (2002). “Design methodology and the nature of technical artifacts.” Design Studies 23, 287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuhn, T.S. (1970). “The structure of scientific revolutions”, 2nd Edition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  20. Lakatos, I. (1970). “Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs”, in “Criticism and the growth of knowledge”, Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, R. (eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 91–196.Google Scholar
  21. Lundin, R. A. and Söderholm, A. (1995). “A theory of temporary organization”. Scandinavian Journal of Management vol. 11(4), 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Morris, P.W.G. (2000). “Researching the unanswered questions of Project Management”. PMI Research Conference, Paris.Google Scholar
  23. Morris, P.W.G. (2001). “Updating the Project Management bodies of knowledge”. Project Management Journal vol. 32(3), 21–30.Google Scholar
  24. Packendorff, J. (1995). “Inquiring into the temporary organization: New directions for Project Management research”. Scandinavian Journal of Management vol. 11(4), 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pfeffer, J. (1993). “Barriers to the advance of organizational science paradigm”. The Academy of Management Review vol. 18(4), 599–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pinto, J. K. and Slevin, D. P. (1988). “Project success: Definitions and measurement techniques”. Project Management Journal vol. 19(1), 67–72.Google Scholar
  27. Pinto, J. K. and Prescott, J. E. (1990). “Planning and tactical factors in the project implementation process”. Journal of Management Studies vol. 27(3), 305–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. PMI Standards Committee (2000). A guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, PMBOK® Guide, 2000 Edition. Project Management Institute, Inc. Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  29. Popper, K. (1972). “Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach”. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Runeson, G. (1997). “The role of theory in construction management research: Comment”. Construction Management Economics 15, 299–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Seymour, D., Crook, D. and Rooke, J. (1997). “The role of theory in construction management: A call for debate”. Construction Management and Economics 15, 117–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shenhar, A. and Dvir, D. (1996). “Toward a typological theory of Project Management”. Research Policy vol. 25, 607–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shenhar, A. J. and Wideman, R. M. (1996). “Improving PM: Linking success criteria to project type”. Paper presented to the Southern Alberta Chapter, Project Management Institute, Symposium “Creating Canadian Advantage through Project Management”.Google Scholar
  34. Shtub, A., Bard, J. F. and Globerson, S. (1994). “Project Management: Engineering, Technology and Implementation”. Prentice Hall Inc., International Editions, London.Google Scholar
  35. Simon, H. A. (1991). “Organizations and markets”. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5, 25–44.Google Scholar
  36. Simon, H.A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial, 3rd Edition. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  37. Söderlund, J. (2002a). “Conceptualizing Project Management: From optimistic optimization to critical questioning”. Paper for the EURAM Conference, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  38. Söderlund, J. (2002b). “On the development of Project Management research: Schools of thought and critique”. Project Management vol. 8(1), 20–31.Google Scholar
  39. Turner, J. R. (1999). The handbook of project-based management, 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill, London.Google Scholar
  40. Turner, J. R and Keegan, A. (2001). “Mechanisms of governance in the project-based organization: Roles of the broker and steward”. European Management Journal vol. 19(3), 254–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Turner, J. R and Müller, R. (2003). “On the nature of the project as a temporary organization”. International Journal of Project Management vol. 21(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Turner, J. R. (1999). “Editorial: Project Management: A profession based on knowledge or faith?”. International Journal of Project Management 17(6), 329–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Langenhove, L. (2000). “Rethinking the social sciences? A point of view”. Foundations of Science 5, 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Williamson, O. (1985). “The economic institutions of capitalism”. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  45. Williamson, O. (1996). “The mechanisms of governance”. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  46. Winch, G. (1998). “The construction firm and the construction project: A transaction cost approach”. Paper presented at the ARCOM Research Methodology Conference, UMIST.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Hellenic Operational Research Society 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Production and Management EngineeringDemocritus University of ThraceGreece

Personalised recommendations