Part I - Guiding Principles
What Is Project Behavior and Why It Matters
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 November 2025
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Cambridge Handbook of Project Behavior , pp. 25 - 96Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
References
Adelman, J. (2014). Worldly philosopher: The odyssey of Albert O. Hirschman. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Alacevich, M. (2020). Albert O. Hirschman: An intellectual biography. Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anheier, H. K. (2017). Infrastructure and the principle of the Hiding Hand (pp. 1–20). In Wegrich, K., Kostka, G., and Hammerschmid, G. (eds.). The governance of infrastructure. Oxford University Scholarship Online.Google Scholar
Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 496–515.10.2307/258555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerenbold, R. (2023). Reducing risks in megaprojects: The potential of reference class forecasting. Project Leadership and Society, 100103.10.1016/j.plas.2023.100103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-David, J., and Sullivan, T. A. (1975). Sociology of science. Annual Review of Sociology, 1, 203–222.10.1146/annurev.so.01.080175.001223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum, A.F. (1970). Theorizing (pp. 301–319). In Douglas, J. D. (ed.). Everyday life: Reconstruction of social knowledge. Routledge.Google Scholar
Bromiley, P., and Rau, D. (2022). Some problems in using prospect theory to explain strategic management issues. Academy of Management Perspectives, 36(1), 125–141.10.5465/amp.2018.0072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buehler, R., Griffin, D., and Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the “planning fallacy”: Why people underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 366.10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, P. (2024). Revisiting project delivery performance: Evidence from Swedish transport infrastructure. Project Management Journal, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/87569728241257391.Google Scholar
Chen, Y., Ahiaga-Dagbui, D. D., Thaheem, M. J., and Shrestha, A. (2023). Toward a deeper understanding of optimism bias and transport project cost overrun. Project Management Journal, 54(5), 561–578.10.1177/87569728231180268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornelissen, J., Höllerer, M. A., and Seidl, D. (2021). What theory is and can be: Forms of theorizing in organizational scholarship. Organization Theory, 2(3), https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/26317877211020328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Wit, A. (1988). Measurement of project success. International Journal of Project Management, 6(3), 164–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, J. D. (1970). Preface (pp. vii–xii). In Douglas, J. D. (ed.). Everyday life: Reconstruction of social knowledge. Routledge.Google Scholar
Epton, S. R. (1972). The underestimation of project duration: An explanation in terms of a time‐horizon. R&D Management, 2(3), 141–142.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). From Nobel Prize to project management: Getting risks right. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 5–15.10.1177/875697280603700302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2014). What you should know about megaprojects and why: An overview. Project Management Journal, 45(2), 6–19.10.1002/pmj.21409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2016). The fallacy of beneficial ignorance: A test of Hirschman’s Hiding Hand. World Development, 84, 176–189.10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.03.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2017). The Oxford handbook of megaproject management. Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198732242.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2021). Top ten behavioral biases in project management: An overview. Project Management Journal, 52(6), 531–546.10.1177/87569728211049046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B., and Gardner, D. (2023). How big things get done: The surprising factors that determine the fate of every project, from home renovations to space exploration and everything in between. Signal.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B., Garbiou, M., and Lovallo, D. (2009). Delusion and deception in large infrastructure projects: Two models for explaining and preventing executive disaster. California Management Review, 51(2), pp. 170–193.10.2307/41166485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M. K. S., and Buhl, S. L. (2002). Underestimating costs in public works projects: Error or lie. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(3), pp.279–295.10.1080/01944360208976273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B., Ansar, A., Budzier, A., Buhl, S., Cantarelli, C., Garbuio, M., Lavallo, D., Lunn, D., Molin, E., Ronnest, A., Stewart, A., and van Wee, B. (2018). Five things you should know about cost overruns. Transportation Research A: Policy and Practice, 118, 174–190.Google Scholar
Fox, J. (2014). Instinct can beat analytical thinking. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2014/06/ instinct-can-beat-analytical-thinking. Accessed on: April 17, 2024.Google Scholar
Gil, N., and Fu, Y. (2022). Megaproject performance, value creation and value distribution: An organizational governance perspective. Academy of Management Discoveries, 8(2), 224–251.10.5465/amd.2020.0029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1346–1352.10.5465/amj.2007.28166119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). The search for paradigms as a hindrance to understanding. World Politics, 22(3), 329–343.10.2307/2009600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ika, L. A. (2018). Beneficial or detrimental ignorance: The straw man Fallacy of Flyvbjerg’s test of Hirschman’s Hiding Hand. World Development, 103, 369–382.10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.10.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ika, L. A., and Feeny, S. (2022). Optimism bias and World Bank project performance. The Journal of Development Studies, 58(12), 2604–2623.10.1080/00220388.2022.2102901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ika, L. A., Love, P. E. D., and Pinto, J. K. (2022). Moving beyond the Planning Fallacy: The emergence of a new principle of project behavior. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69(6), 3310–3325.10.1109/TEM.2020.3040526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ika, L. A., and Pinto, J. K. (2022). The “re-meaning” of project success: Updating and recalibrating for a modern project management. International Journal of Project Management, 40(7), 835–848.10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.08.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ika, L. A., Pinto, J. K., Love, P. E., and Pache, G. (2023). Bias versus error: Why projects fall short. Journal of Business Strategy, 44(2), 67–75.10.1108/JBS-11-2021-0190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ika, L. A., and Saint-Macary, J. (2023). Managing fuzzy projects in 3D: A proven, multi-faceted blueprint for overseeing complex projects. McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
Ika, L. A., and Söderlund, J. (2016). Rethinking revisited: Insights from an early rethinker. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 9(4), 931–954.10.1108/IJMPB-05-2016-0041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, L. R., and Euske, K. J. (1991). Strategic misrepresentation in budgeting. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1(4), 437–460.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1977). Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA047747.pdf.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.10.2307/1914185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1982). Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures (pp. 414–421). In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A. (eds.). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511809477.031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keynes, J. M. (1953). The general theory of employment, interest and money. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Kreiner, K. (2020). Conflicting notions of a project: The battle between Albert O. Hirschman and Bent Flyvbjerg. Project Management Journal, 51(1), 400–410.10.1177/8756972820930535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovallo, D., Cristofaro, M., and Flyvbjerg, B. (2023). Governing large projects: A three-stage process to get it right. Academy of Management Perspectives, 37(2), 138–156.10.5465/amp.2021.0129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovallo, D., and Kahneman, D. (2003). Delusions of success: How optimism undermines executives’ decisions. Harvard Business Review, July, pp. 56–63.Google Scholar
Love, P. E. D., and Ahiaga-Dagbui, D. D. (2018). De-bunking “fake news” in a post-truth era: The plausible untruths of cost underestimation in transport infrastructure projects. Transportation Research A: Policy and Practice, 113, 357–368.Google Scholar
Love, P. E. D., Ika, L. A., and Ahiaga-Dagbui, D. (2019a). On de-bunking “fake news” in a post-truth area: Why does the Planning Fallacy explanation for cost overruns fall short? Transportation Research A: Policy and Practice, 126, 397–408.Google Scholar
Love, P. E. D., Sing, M. C. P., Ika, L. A., and Newton, S. (2019b). The cost performance of transportation projects: The fallacy of the Planning Fallacy account. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 122(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
Love, P. E. D., Pinto, J. K., and Ika, L. A. (2022a). Hundreds of years of pain, with minimal gain: Capital project cost overruns, the past, present, and optimistic future. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 50(4), 56–70.10.1109/EMR.2022.3219362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, P. E. D., Ika, L. A., and Sing, M. C. (2022b). Does the planning fallacy prevail in social infrastructure projects? Empirical evidence and competing explanations. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69(6), 2588–2602.10.1109/TEM.2019.2944161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, P. E. D., Ika, L. A., and Pinto, J. K. (2024). Homo heuristicus: From risk management to managing uncertainty in large-scale infrastructure projects. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71(1), 1940–1949.10.1109/TEM.2022.3170474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, K. M., Graham, I. D., and Grimshaw, J. (2004). Toward a theoretic basis for quality improvement interventions (pp. 27–37). In Shojania, K. G., McDonald, K. M., Wachter, K. R., and Owens, D. (eds.). Closing the quality gap: A critical analysis of quality improvement strategies. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. p. 27–37.Google Scholar
Malisoff, W. M. (1934). Editorial: What is philosophy of science? Philosophy of Science, 1, 3–4
Google Scholar
Meredith, J. (2022). Holey moley, the poppycock syndrome, and academic drift. International Journal of Project Management, 40(1), 15–18.10.1016/j.ijproman.2021.08.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merewitz, L. (1973). Cost overruns in public works (pp. 277–295). In Niskanen, W., Hansen, A., Havermann, R., Turvey, R., and Zeckhauser, R. (eds.). Benefit cost and policy analysis. Aldine.Google Scholar
Merrow, E. W., Chapel, S. W., and Worthing, C. (1979). A review of cost estimation in new technologies: Implications for energy process plants. A report prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, RAND Corp., R-2481- DOE, p. 132. Available: www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/6002293.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Morris, P. W., and Hough, G. H. (1987). The anatomy of major projects: A study of the reality of project management. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Olasehinde-Williams, G., and Jenkins, G. P. (2023). A test of Hirschman’s hiding hand principle in World bank-financed hydropower projects. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 14, 1–20.10.1017/bca.2023.18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, J. E. (2021). Curbing cost overruns in infrastructure investment. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 21(2), 120–136.10.18757/ejtir.2021.21.2.5504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedhazur, E. J., and Schmelkin, L. P. (2013). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Psychology Press.10.4324/9780203726389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinto, J. (2023). Is this how big things get done? International Journal of Project Management, 41(1), 102484.10.1016/j.ijproman.2023.102484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2016). Recommendations for creating better concept definitions in the organizational, behavioral, and social sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 19, 159–203.10.1177/1094428115624965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seibert, S. E., Kacmar, K. M., Kraimer, M. L., Downes, P. E., and Noble, D. (2017). The role of research strategies and professional networks in management scholars’ productivity. Journal of Management, 43(4), 1103–1130.10.1177/0149206314546196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, G. B. (1903). Man and superman: A comedy and a philosophy. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shenkar, O., and Ellis, S. (2022). The rise and fall of structural contingency theory: A theory’s “autopsy.” Journal of Management Studies, 59(3), 782–818.10.1111/joms.12772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2015). Albert Hirschman’s hiding hand: Foreword. In Hirschman, A. O. (ed.). Development projects observed. Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Svejvig, P. (2021). A meta-theoretical framework for theory building in project management. International Journal of Project Management, 39(8), 849–872.10.1016/j.ijproman.2021.09.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swedberg, R. (2016). Before theory comes theorizing or how to make social science more interesting. British Journal of Sociology, 67(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Themsen, T. N. (2019). The processes of public megaproject cost estimation: The inaccuracy of reference class forecasting. Financial Accountability & Management, 35(4), 337–352.10.1111/faam.12210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wachs, M. (1989). When planners lie with numbers. Journal of the American Planning Association, 55(4), 476–479.Google Scholar
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495.10.2307/258554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Bank. (1992). Effective implementation: Key to development impact (Report No. 11536). World Bank.Google Scholar
References
Adelman, J. (2013). Worldly philosopher: The odyssey of Albert O. Hirschman. Princeton University Press.10.2307/j.ctt24hprxCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alacevich, M. (2014). Visualising uncertaities, or how Albert Hirschman and the World Bank disagreed on project appraisal and what this says about the end of “High Development Theory.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 36, 137–168.10.1017/S1053837214000194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arthur, W. B. (1994). Inductive reasoning and bounded rationality (the El Farol problem). American Economic Review 84, 406–411.Google Scholar
Bukoye, O. T., et al. (2022). Using nudges to realize project performance management International Journal of Project Management 40(8), 886–905.10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.10.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, A., and Brady, T. (2016). Explicating the dynamics of project capabilities. International Journal of Project Management 34(2), 314–327.10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.04.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engwall, M. (2003). No project is an island: Linking projects to history and context. Research Policy 32(5), 789–808.10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00088-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2016). The fallacy of beneficial ignorance: A test of Hirschman’s Hiding Hand. World Development 84, 176–189.10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.03.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B., and Gardner, D. (2023). How big things get done: The surprising factors behind every successful project, from home renovations to space exploration. Macmillan.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B., and Sunstein, C. R. (2016). The principle of the Malevolent Hiding Hand; or the Planning Fallacy writ large. Social Research 83(4): 979–1004.10.1353/sor.2016.0063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hidalgo, C. A., et al. (2007). The product space conditions the development of nations.” Science. www.sciencemag.org.10.1126/science.1144581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschman, A. O. (1967a). The principle of the Hiding Hand. The Public Interest (Winter), 10–23.Google Scholar
Ika, L. A. (2018). Beneficial or detrimental ignorance: The straw man fallacy or Flyvbjerg’s test of Hirschman’s Hiding Hand. World Development 103, 369–382.10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.10.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ika, L. A., and Söderlund, J. (2016). Rethinking revisited: Insights from an early rethinker. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 9, 931–954.10.1108/IJMPB-05-2016-0041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keynes, J. M. (1936). The general theory of employment, interest and money. Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kreiner, K. (2020). Conflicting notions of a project: The battle between Albert O. Hirschman and Bent Flyvbjerg. Project Management Journal 51(4), 400–410.10.1177/8756972820930535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepenies, P. H. (2018). Statistical tests as a hindrance to understanding: What the controversy around the “Hiding Hand” conceals about research in the social sciences and conceals about project management. World Development 103, 360–365.10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.10.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through.” Public Administration Review 19(2), 79–88.10.2307/973677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, P. E. D., Ika, L. A., and Sing, M. C. (2022). Does the Planning Fallacy prevail in social infrastructure projects? Empirical evidence and competing explanations.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 69(6), 2588–2602.10.1109/TEM.2019.2944161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olasehinde-Williams, G., and Jenkins, G. P. (2023). A test of Hirschman’s Hiding Hand principle in World Bank–financed hydropower projects. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis 14(2), 298–317.10.1017/bca.2023.18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patanakul, P., and Shenhar, A. J. (2012). What project strategy really is: The fundamental building block in strategic project management. Project Management Journal 43(1), 4–20.10.1002/pmj.20282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Picciotto, R. (2020). Towards a “new project management” movement? An international development perspective. International Journal of Project Management 38(8), 474–485.10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.08.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in time. Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400841080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinto, J. K. (2023). Is this how big things get done? International Journal of Project Management 41, 1–7.10.1016/j.ijproman.2023.102484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rittel, H. W. J., and Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4(2): 155–169.10.1007/BF01405730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Room, G. (1986). Cross-national innovation in social policy. Macmillan.10.1007/978-1-349-18076-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Room, G. (2011). Complexity, institutions and public policy: Agile decision-making in a turbulent world. Edward Elgar.10.4337/9780857932648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Room, G. (2016a). Nudge or nuzzle? Improving decisions about active citizenship. Policy Studies 37(2), 113–128.10.1080/01442872.2015.1115829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Room, G. (2016b). Agile actors on complex terrains: Transformative realism and public policy. Routledge.10.4324/9781315660769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Room, G. (2018). The Hiding Hand: A rejoinder to Flyvbjerg on Hirschman.” World Development 103, 366–368.10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.10.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Room, G. (2022). Strategic policymaking within complex timescapes. Complexity, Governance and Networks 7(1), 15–28.10.20377/cgn-107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teece, D. J. (2009). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H., and Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness, rev. ed. Penguin.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1948a). Politics as a vocation (pp. 77–128). In Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. W. (eds.). Max Weber: Essays in sociology. Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1948b). Science as a vocation (pp. 129–156). In Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. W. (eds.). Max Weber: Essays in sociology. Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
References
Ackoff, R. L. (1967). Management misinformation systems. Management Science, 14(4), 147–156.10.1287/mnsc.14.4.B147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adelman, J. (2013). Worldly philosopher: The essential Hirschman. Economics Books.10.2307/j.ctt24hprxCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aga, D. A., Noorderhaven, N., and Vallejo, B. (2016). Transformational leadership and project success: The mediating role of team-building. International Journal of Project Management, 34(5), 806–818.10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.02.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alacevich, M. (2014). Visualizing uncertainties, or how Albert Hirschman and the world bank disagreed on project appraisal and what this says about the end of “high development theory.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 36(2), 137–168.10.1017/S1053837214000194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anheier, H. K. (2016). Of hiding hands and other ways of coping with uncertainty: A commentary. Social Research, 83(4), 1005–1010.10.1353/sor.2016.0064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aubry, M., and Lièvre, P. (2010). Ambidexterity as a competence of project leaders: A case study from two polar expeditions. Project Management Journal, 41(3), 32–44.10.1002/pmj.20183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, R. M., DeFillippi, R. J., Schwab, A., and Sydow, J. (2016). Organization Studies, 37(12), 1703–1719.10.1177/0170840616655982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blight, J. G., and Lang, J. M. (2005). The fog of war: Lessons from the life of Robert S. McNamara. Rowman & Littlefield.10.5771/9780742580220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolden, R., Petrov, G., and Gosling, J. (2009). Distributed leadership in higher education: Rhetoric and reality. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(2), 257–277.10.1177/1741143208100301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, T., and Davies, A. (2010). Learning to deliver a mega-project: The case of Heathrow Terminal 5 (pp. 190–212). In Caldwell, N. and Howard, M. (eds.). Procuring Complex Performance. Routledge.Google Scholar
Brady, T., and Davies, A. (2014). Managing structural and dynamic complexity: A tale of two projects. Project Management Journal, 45(4), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, T., Davies, A., Nightingale, P., Söderland, J., and Geraldi, J. (2012). Dealing with uncertainty in complex projects: Revisiting Klein and Meckling. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(4), 718–736.10.1108/17538371211269022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, D., and Boddy, D. (1992). The expertise of the change agent: Public performance and backstage activity. Prentice Hall International.Google Scholar
Burchell, S., Clubb, C., Hopwood, A., Hughes, J., and Nahapiet, J. (1980). The roles of accounting in organizations and society. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 5(1), 5–27.10.1016/0361-3682(80)90017-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bygballe, L. E., and Swärd, A. (2019). Collaborative project delivery models and the role of routines in institutionalizing partnering. Project Management Journal, 50(2), 161–176.10.1177/8756972818820213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicmil, S., and Braddon, D. (2012). Fading glory? Decision-making around the project – how and why “glory” projects fail (pp. 221–255). In Williams, T. M. and Samset, K. (eds.). Project Governance. Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137274618_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicmil, S., Williams, T., Thomas, J., and Hodgson, D. (2006). Rethinking project management: Researching the actuality of projects. International Journal of Project Management, 24(8), 675–686.10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.08.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clegg, S. R., Skyttermoen, T., and Vaagassar, A. L. (2021). Project management: A value creation approach. Sage.Google Scholar
Cleland, D. I. (1995). Leadership and the project-management body of knowledge. International Journal of Project Management, 13(2), 83–88.10.1016/0263-7863(94)00018-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyert, R. M., and March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Damayanti, R., Hartono, B., and Wijaya, A. (2021). Complexity, leadership, and mega project performance: A configuration analysis. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 14(3), 570–603.10.3926/jiem.3476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, A., (2017). Projects: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.10.1093/actrade/9780198727668.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, A., Gann, D., and Douglas, T. (2009). Innovation in megaprojects: Systems integration at London Heathrow Terminal 5. California Management Review, 51(2), 101–125.10.2307/41166482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, A., and Brady, T. (2016a). Explicating the dynamics of project capabilities. International Journal of Project Management, 34(2), 314–327.10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.04.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, A., Dodgson, M., and Gann, D. (2016b). Dynamic capabilities for a complex project: The case of London Heathrow Terminal 5. Project Management Journal, Special Issue: Innovation and Project Management: Bridging Contemporary Trends in Theory and Practice, 34, 314–327.Google Scholar
Davies, A., Dodgson, M., Gann., D., and MacAulay, S. (2017). Five rules for managing large, complex projects. MIT Sloan Management Review, 59(1), 73–78.Google Scholar
Davies, A., Dodgson, M., and Gann., D. (2017). Innovation and flexibility in megaprojects: A new delivery model (pp. 313–339). In Flyvbjerg, B. (ed.). The Oxford handbook of megaproject Management. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, A., MacAulay, S., and Brady, T. (2019). Delivery model innovation: Insights from infrastructure projects. Special Issue: Innovation in infrastructure delivery models, Project Management Journal, 50(2), 1–9.10.1177/8756972819831145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, D. R., Hoojberg, R., and Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6(5), 524–540.10.1287/orsc.6.5.524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, D. (2017). Taking advantage of emergence for complex innovation eco-systems. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 3(3), 14.10.1186/s40852-017-0067-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drouin, N., Sankaran, S., van Marrewijk, A., and Müller, R. (2021). Megaproject leaders: Reflections on personal life stories. Edward Elgar.10.4337/9781789902976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmondson, A. (2012). Teaming: How organizations learn, innovate, and compete in the knowledge economy. Wiley.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M., and Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1105::AID-SMJ133>3.0.CO;2-E3.0.CO;2-E>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M., and Sull, D. N. (2001). Strategy as simple rules. Harvard Business Review January, 107–116.Google Scholar
Engwall, M. (2012). PERT, Polaris, and the realities of project execution. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(4), 595–616.10.1108/17538371211268898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, K., Wikström, K., Hellström, M., and Levitt, R. E. (2019). Projects in the business ecosystem: The case of short sea shipping and logistics. Project Management Journal, 50(2), 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grint, K. (2005). Problems, problems, problems: The social construction of “leadership.” Human Relations, 58(11), 1467–1494.10.1177/0018726705061314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grint, K. (2010). Wicked problems and clumsy solutions: The role of leadership (pp. 169–186). In Brookes, S. and Grint, K. (eds.). The new public leadership challenge. Palgrave MacMillan.10.1057/9780230277953_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grint, K. (2020). Leadership, management and command in the time of the Coronavirus. Leadership, 16(3), 314–319.10.1177/1742715020922445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, D. M., and Scott, W. R. (2019). Early stages in the institutionalization of integrated project delivery. Project Management Journal, 50(2), 128–143.10.1177/8756972818819915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havermans, L. A., Den Hartog, D. N., Keegan, A., and Uhl‐Bien, M. (2015). Exploring the role of leadership in enabling contextual ambidexterity.
Human Resource Management, 54(S1), 179–200.10.1002/hrm.21764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschman, A. O. (1967). Development projects observed. Reissued in 1995. The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Hodgson, D., and Cicmil, S. (2007). The politics of standards in modern management: Making “the project” a reality. Journal of Management Studies, 44(3), 431–450.10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00680.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ika, L. A. (2018). Beneficial or detrimental ignorance: The straw man fallacy of Flyvbjerg’s test of Hirschman’s hiding hand. World Development, 103, 369–382.10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.10.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ika, L. A., Love, P. E., and Pinto, J. K. (2022). Moving beyond the planning fallacy: The emergence of a new principle of project behavior. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69(6), 3310–3325.10.1109/TEM.2020.3040526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ika, L. A., and Söderlund, J. (2016). Rethinking revisited: Insights from an early rethinker. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 9(4), 931–954.10.1108/IJMPB-05-2016-0041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. A., Kast, F. E., and Rosenzweig, J. E. (1964). Systems theory and management. Management Science, 10(2), 367–384.10.1287/mnsc.10.2.367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klonek, F. E., Volery, T., and Parker, S. K. (2021). Managing the paradox: Individual ambidexterity, paradoxical leadership and multitasking in entrepreneurs across firm lifecycle stages. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 39(1), 40–63.10.1177/0266242620943371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, E., and Cuganesan, S. (2020). Enabling organisational ambidexterity: Valuation practices and the senior-leadership team. Human Relations, 73(2), 190–214.10.1177/0018726718823247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreiner, K. (2020). Conflicting notions of a project: The battle between Albert O. Hirschman and Bent Flyvbjerg. Project Management Journal, 51(4), 400–410.10.1177/8756972820930535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, E. T., Tworoger, L., Ruppel, C. P., and Yurova, Y. (2021). TMT leadership ambidexterity: Balancing exploration and exploitation behaviors for innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 25(3), 703–719.10.1108/EJIM-07-2020-0275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenfle, S., and Loch, C. (2010). Lost roots: How project management came to emphasize control over flexibility and novelty. Californian Management Review, 53(1), 32–55.10.1525/cmr.2010.53.1.32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenfle, S., and Loch, C. (2017). Has megaproject management lost its way? Lessons from history (pp. 21–38). In Flyvbjerg, B. (ed.). Oxford handbook of megaproject management. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levitt, R. E., and Scott, R. S. (2017). Institutional challenges and solutions for global megaprojects (pp. 96–117). In Flyvbjerg, B. (ed.). Oxford handbook of megaproject management. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Loch, C., De Meyer, A., and Pich, M. (2006). Managing the unknown: A new approach to managing high uncertainty and risk in projects. Wiley.10.1002/9780470172377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundy, V., and Morin, P. P. (2013). Project leadership influences resistance to change: The case of the Canadian public service. Project Management Journal, 44(4), 45–64.10.1002/pmj.21355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maqbool, R., Sudong, Y., Manzoor, N., and Rashid, Y. (2017). The impact of emotional intelligence, project managers’ competencies, and transformational leadership on project success: An empirical perspective. Project Management Journal, 48(3), 58–75.10.1177/875697281704800304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marion, R., and Uhl-bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 389–418.10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00092-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, R. (2012). Project governance (pp. 297–320). In Morris, P., Pinto, J., and Söderlund, J. (eds.). The Oxford handbook of project management. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Müller, R., Zhu, F., Sun, X., Wang, L., and Yu, M. (2018a). The identification of temporary horizontal leaders in projects: The case of China. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 95–107.10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, R., Sankaran, S., Drouin, N., Vaagaasar, A.-L., Bekker, M. C., and Jain, K. (2018b). A theory framework for balancing vertical and horizontal leadership in projects. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 83–94.10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.07.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nightingale, P., and Brady, T. (2012). Projects, paradigms and predictability (pp. 83–112). In Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., Frederiksen, L., and Täube, F. (eds.). Project-based organizing and strategic management – advances in strategic management. Emerald Group.Google Scholar
Peck, M. J., and Scherer, F. M. (1962). The weapons acquisition process: An economic analysis. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1, 51–52.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 570–581.10.2307/2392363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Picciotto, R. (2015), Hirschman’s ideas as evaluation tools. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 11(24), 1–11.10.56645/jmde.v11i24.416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, M. (2020) Risk culture and information culture: Why an “appetite for knowledge’ matter (pp. 42–72). In Tuveson, M., Ralph, D., Alexander, K. (eds.). Beyond bad apples: Risk culture in business. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316996959.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramasesh, R. V., and Browning, T. (2014). A conceptual framework for tackling knowable unknown unknowns in project management. Journal of Operations Management, 32, 190–204.10.1016/j.jom.2014.03.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosing, K., Frese, M., and Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956–974.10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapolsky, H. M. (1972). The Polaris system development: Bureaucratic and programmatic success in government. Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674432703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, W. R., and Meyer, J. W. (1994). Institutional environments and organizations: Structural complexity and individualism. Sage.Google Scholar
Scott-Young, C. M., Georgy, M., and Grisinger, A. (2019) Shared leadership in project teams: An integrative multi-level conceptual model and research agenda. International Journal of Project Management, 37(4), 565–581.10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.02.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shenhar, A. J., and Dvir, D. (2007). Reinventing project management: The diamond approach to successful growth and innovation. Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar
Singer, H. W. (1969), Albert O. Hirschman: Development projects observed. Institute of Development Studies Bulletin, 1(3), 22–25.10.1111/j.1759-5436.1969.mp1003006.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. The Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592–1623.Google Scholar
Solheim-Kile, E., Lædre, O., and Lohne, J. (2019). Public-Private Partnerships: Agency Costs in the Privatization of Social Infrastructure Financing. Project Management Journal, 50(2), 144–160.10.1177/8756972818824908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stinchcombe, A. L., and Heimer, C. A. (1985
). Organization theory and project management: Administering uncertainty in Norwegian offshore oil. Norwegian University Press.Google Scholar
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tourish, D. (2020). Introduction to the special issue: Why the coronavirus crisis is also a crisis of leadership. Leadership, 16(3), 261–272.10.1177/1742715020929242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tourish, D., and Vatcha, N. (2005). Charismatic leadership and corporate cultism at Enron: The elimination of dissent, the promotion of conformity and organisational collapse. Leadership, 1(4), 455–480.10.1177/1742715005057671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhl-bien, M., and Arena, M. (2017). Complexity leadership: Enabling people and organizations for adaptability. Organizational Dynamics, 46(1), 9–20.10.1016/j.orgdyn.2016.12.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vine, R. (2018). The intelligent client: Learning to govern through numbers at Heathrow Airport. Thesis, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
Vine, R. (2020). Riskwork in the construction of Heathrow Terminal 2. SPRU Working Paper Series 2020-20, 1–38.10.2139/ssrn.3755049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, S. P. (2016). Revisiting the roles of accounting in society. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 49, 41–50.10.1016/j.aos.2015.11.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wan, J., Le, Y., Wang, G., Xia, N., and Liu, X. (2020). Carrot or stick? The impact of paternalistic leadership on the behavioral integration of top management teams in megaprojects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 13(5), 937–960.10.1108/IJMPB-12-2019-0302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
Whyte, J. (2019). How digital information transforms project delivery models. Project Management Journal, 50(2), 177–194.10.1177/8756972818823304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whyte, J., Naderpajouh, N., Clegg, S., Matous, P., Pollack, J., and Crawford, L. (2022). Project leadership: A research agenda for a changing world. Project Leadership and Society, 3.Google Scholar
Zerjav, V., Edkins, A., and Davies, A. (2018). Project capabilities for operational outcomes in inter-organisational settings: The case of London Heathrow Terminal 2. International Journal of Project Management, 36(3), 444–459.10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.01.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Alimadadi, S., Davies, A., and Tell, F. (2022). A palace fit for the future: Desirability in temporal work. Strategic Organization, 20(1), 20–50.10.1177/14761270211012021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alioua, H., and Simon, F. (2017). Managing time pacing in organizations transitioning to a project-based mode-3 cases studies of two multinational companies. International Journal of Project Management, 35(8), 1427–1443.10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.08.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ancona, D., and Chong, C.-L. (1996). Entrainment: Pace, cycle, and rhythm in organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 251–284.Google Scholar
Augustine, G. L., Soderstrom, S., Milner, D., and Weber, K. (2019). Constructing a distant future: Imaginaries in geoengineering. Academy of Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, R. M. (2010). Taking stock of temporary organizational forms: A systematic review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4), 466–486.10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00281.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, R. M. (2016). Stepping in and stepping out: Strategic alliance partner reconfiguration and the unplanned termination of complex projects. Strategic Management Journal, 37(9), 1919–1941.10.1002/smj.2429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, R. M., Boroş, S., Kenis, P., and Oerlemans, L. A. (2013). It’s only temporary: Time frame and the dynamics of creative project teams. British Journal of Management, 24(3), 383–397.10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00810.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, R. M., DeFillippi, R., Schwab, A., and Sydow, J. (2016). Temporary organizing: Promises, processes, problems. Organization Studies, 37(12), 1703–1719.10.1177/0170840616655982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bansal, P., Reinecke, J., Suddaby, R., and Langley, A. (2022). Temporal work: The strategic organization of time. Strategic Organization, 20(1), 6–19.10.1177/14761270221081332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechky, B. A. (2003). Object lessons: Workplace artifacts as representations of occupational jurisdiction. American Journal of Sociology, 109(3), 720–752.10.1086/379527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechky, B. A. (2006). Gaffers, gofers, and grips: Role-based coordination in temporary organizations. Organization Science, 17(1), 3–21.10.1287/orsc.1050.0149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckert, J. (2016). Imagined futures. Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674545878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berends, H., van Burg, E., and Garud, R. (2021). Pivoting or persevering with venture ideas: Recalibrating temporal commitments. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(4), 106126.10.1016/j.jbusvent.2021.106126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blagoev, B., and Schreyogg, G. (2019). Why do extreme work hours persist? Temporal uncoupling as a new way of seeing. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6), 1818–1847.10.5465/amj.2017.1481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brookes, N., Sage, D., Dainty, A., Locatelli, G., and Whyte, J. (2017). An island of constancy in a sea of change: Rethinking project temporalities with long-term megaprojects. International Journal of Project Management, 35(7), 1213–1224.10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunet, M., Fachin, F., and Langley, A. (2021). Studying projects processually. International Journal of Project Management, 39(8), 834–848.10.1016/j.ijproman.2021.10.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucher, S., and Langley, A. (2016). The interplay of reflective and experimental spaces in interrupting and reorienting routine dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 594–613.10.1287/orsc.2015.1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, C. M., and Morley, M. J. (2016). On temporary organizations: A review, synthesis and research agenda. Human Relations, 69(6), 1235–1258.10.1177/0018726715610809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, T. K. (2006). Strategic alliance temporalities and partner opportunism. British Journal of Management, 17, 1–21.10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00482.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, A., and Mackenzie, I. (2014). Project complexity and systems integration: Constructing the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics Games. International Journal of Project Management, 32(5), 773–790.10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.10.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delisle, J. (2019). Uncovering temporal underpinnings of project management standards. International Journal of Project Management, 37(8), 968–978.10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.09.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deuten, J. J., and Rip, A. (2000). Narrative infrastructure in product creation processes. Organization, 7(1), 69–93.10.1177/135050840071005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dille, T., Hernes, T., and Vaagaasar, A. L. (2022). Stuck in temporal translation? Challenges of discrepant temporal structures in interorganizational project collaboration. Organization Studies. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/01708406221137841.Google Scholar
Dille, T., Söderlund, J., and Clegg, S. (2018). Temporal conditioning and the dynamics of inter-institutional projects. International Journal of Project Management, 36(5), 673–686.10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.03.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engwall, M., and Westling, G. (2004). Peripety in an R&D drama: Capturing a turnaround in project dynamics. Organization Studies, 25(9), 1557–1578.10.1177/0170840604048000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falkenberg, J., Stensaker, I. G., Meyer, C. B., and Haueng, A. C. (2005). When change becomes excessive research in organizational change and development. Emerald Group.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B., Budzier, A., and Lunn, D. (2021). Regression to the tail: Why the Olympics blow up. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 53(2), 233–260.10.1177/0308518X20958724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garud, R., Gehman, J., Kumaraswamy, A., and Tuertscher, P. (2016). From the process of innovation to innovation as process (pp. 451–466). In Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H. (eds.). The SAGE handbook of process organization studies. Sage.10.4135/9781473957954.n28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geiger, D., Danner-Schröder, A., and Kremser, W. (2021). Getting ahead of time – performing temporal boundaries to coordinate routines under temporal uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(1), 220–264.10.1177/0001839220941010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gemino, A., Reich, B. H., and Serrador, P. M. (2021). Agile, traditional, and hybrid approaches to project success: Is hybrid a poor second choice? Project Management Journal, 52(2), 161–175.10.1177/8756972820973082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geraldi, J., Stjerne, I., and Oehmen, J. (2020). Acting in time: Temporal work enacting tensions at the interface between temporary and permanent organisations (pp. 81–103). In Braun, T. and Lampel, J. (eds.). Tensions and paradoxes in temporary organizing (Research in the xociology of organizations, vol. 67). Emerald.10.1108/S0733-558X20200000067010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gersick, C. J. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9–41.10.2307/256496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gersick, C. J. (1989). Marking Time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 274–309.10.2307/256363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabher, G., and Thiel, J. (2014). Coping with a self-induced shock: The heterarchic organization of the London Olympic Games 2012. Social Sciences, 3(3), 527–548.10.3390/socsci3030527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustavsson, T. K., and Hallin, A. (2015). Goal seeking and goal oriented projects – trajectories of the temporary organisation. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 8(2), 368–378.10.1108/IJMPB-03-2014-0027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassard, J. (1991). Aspects of time in organization. Human Relations, 44(2), 105–125.10.1177/001872679104400201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilbolling, S., Deken, F., Berends, H., and Tuertscher, P. (2022). Process-based temporal coordination in multiparty collaboration for societal challenges. Strategic Organization, 20(1), 135–163.10.1177/1476127021992705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huemann, M., Keegan, A., and Turner, J. R. (2007). Human resource management in the project-oriented company: A review. International Journal of Project Management, 25(3), 315–323.10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.10.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huemann, M., and Silvius, G. (2017). Projects to create the future: Managing projects meets sustainable development. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 1066–1070.10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.04.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ika, L. A., Love, P. E., and Pinto, J. K. (2022). Moving beyond the planning fallacy: The emergence of a new principle of project behavior. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69(6), 3310–3325.10.1109/TEM.2020.3040526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ika, L. A., and Munro, L. T. (2022). Tackling grand challenges with projects: Five insights and a research agenda for project management theory and practice. International Journal of Project Management, 40(6), 601–607.10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.05.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalff, Y. (2022). Managing projects as a mode of temporal ordering. Performative organising of time and temporality in projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 15(1), 82–101.10.1108/IJMPB-05-2021-0132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanitz, R., Huy, Q. N., Backmann, J., and Hoegl, M. (2022). No change is an island: How interferences between change initiatives evoke inconsistencies that undermine implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 65(2), 683–710.10.5465/amj.2019.0413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, S., and Orlikowski, W. (2013). Temporal work in strategy making. Organization Science, 24(4), 965–995.10.1287/orsc.1120.0792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kremser, W., and Blagoev, B. (2021). The dynamics of prioritizing: How actors temporally pattern complex role-routine ecologies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(2), 339–379.10.1177/0001839220948483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunisch, S., Bartunek, J. M., Mueller, J., and Huy, Q. N. (2017). Time in strategic change research. Academy of Management Annals, 11(2), 1005–1064.10.5465/annals.2015.0133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehtinen, J., Locatelli, G., Sainati, T., Artto, K., and Evans, B. (2022). The grand challenge: Effective anti-corruption measures in projects. International Journal of Project Management, 40(4), 347–361.10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.04.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lifshitz-Assaf, H., Lebovitz, S., and Zalmanson, L. (2021). Minimal and adaptive coordination: How hackathons’ projects accelerate innovation without killing it. Academy of Management Journal, 64(3), 684–715.10.5465/amj.2017.0712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ligthart, R., Oerlemans, L., and Noorderhaven, N. (2016). In the shadows of time: A case study of flexibility behaviors in an interorganizational project. Organization Studies, 37(12), 1721–1743.10.1177/0170840616655487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindkvist, L., Soderlund, J., and Tell, F. (1998). Managing product development projects: On the significance of fountains and deadlines. Organization Studies, 19(6), 931–951.10.1177/017084069801900602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locatelli, G., Mariani, G., Sainati, T., and Greco, M. (2017). Corruption in public projects and megaprojects: There is an elephant in the room! International Journal of Project Management, 35(3), 252–268.10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.09.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundin, R., and Söderholm, A. (1995). A theory of the temporary organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 437–455.10.1016/0956-5221(95)00036-UCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGivern, G., Dopson, S., Ferlie, E., Fischer, M., Fitzgerald, L., Ledger, J., and Bennett, C. (2018). The silent politics of temporal work: A case study of a management consultancy project to redesign public health care. Organization Studies, 39(8), 1007–1030.10.1177/0170840617708004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., and Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups (pp. 166–195). In Kramer, R. M. and Tyler, T. R. (eds.). Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and research. Sage.10.4135/9781452243610.n9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, M. (2015). The mega-event syndrome: Why so much goes wrong in mega-event planning and what to do about it. Journal of the American Planning Association, 81(1), 6–17.10.1080/01944363.2015.1038292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nachbagauer, A. (2022). Synchronous and diachronic timing: Insights into managing projects from disaster management and fast-response organizations. Project Management Journal, 53(2), 146–160.10.1177/87569728221079414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okhuysen, G. A., and Waller, M. J. (2002). Focusing on midpoint transitions: An analysis of boundary conditions. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1056–1065.10.2307/3069330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J., and Yates, J. (2002). It’s about time: Temporal structuring in organizations. Organization Science, 13(6), 684–700.10.1287/orsc.13.6.684.501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitsis, T. S., Clegg, S. R., Marosszeky, M., and Rura-Polley, T. (2003). Constructing the Olympic dream: A future perfect strategy of project management. Organization Science, 14(5), 574–590.10.1287/orsc.14.5.574.16762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poppo, L., Zhou, K. Z., and Ryu, S. (2008). Alternative origins to interorganizational trust: An interdependence perspective on the shadow of the past and the shadow of the future. Organization Science, 19(1), 39–55.10.1287/orsc.1070.0281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Project Management Institute. (2017). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). 6th ed. Project Management Institute.Google Scholar
Ross, J., and Staw, B. M. (1986). Expo 86: An escalation prototype. Administrative Science Quarterly, 274–297.10.2307/2392791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royer, I. (2003). Why bad projects are so hard to kill. Harvard Business Review, 81(2), 48–56, 123.Google ScholarPubMed
Sergeeva, N., and Winch, G. M. (2021). Project narratives that potentially perform and change the future. Project Management Journal, 52(3), 264–277.10.1177/8756972821995340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipp, A. J., and Jansen, K. J. (2021). The “other” time: A review of the subjective experience of time in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 15(1), 299–334.10.5465/annals.2018.0142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. K., and Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of management Review, 36(2), 381–403.Google Scholar
Söderlund, J. (2010). Knowledge entrainment and project management: The case of large-scale transformation projects. International Journal of Project Management, 28(2), 130–141.10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.11.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Söderlund, J. (2013). Pluralistic and processual understandings of projects and project organizing: Towards theories of project temporality (pp. 117–135). In Drouin, N., Müller, R., and Shankar, S. (eds.). Novel approaches to organizational project management research: Translational and transformational. Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
Söderlund, J., and Pemsel, S. (2022). Changing times for digitalization: The multiple roles of temporal shifts in enabling organizational change. Human Relations, 75(5), 871–902.10.1177/0018726721991623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stjerne, I. S., Söderlund, J., and Minbaeva, D. (2019). Crossing times: Temporal boundary-spanning practices in interorganizational projects. International Journal of Project Management, 37(2), 347–365.10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.09.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stjerne, I. S., and Svejenova, S. (2016). Connecting temporary and permanent organizing: Tensions and boundary work in a series of film projects. Organization Studies, 37(12), 1771–1792.10.1177/0170840616655492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swärd, A. (2016). Trust, reciprocity, and actions: The development of trust in temporary inter-organizational relations. Organization Studies, 37(12), 1841–1860.10.1177/0170840616655488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavory, I., and Elisasoph, N. (2013). Coordinating futures: Towards a theory of anticipation. Americal Journal of Sociology, 118(4), 908–942.10.1086/668646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trope, K., and Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403–421.10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.403CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tryggestad, K., Justesen, L., and Mouritsen, J. (2013). Project temporalities: How frogs can become stakeholders. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 6(1), 69–87.10.1108/17538371311291035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaagaasar, A. L., Hernes, T., and Dille, T. (2020). The challenges of implementing temporal shifts in temporary organizations: Implications of a situated temporal view. Project Management Journal, 51(4), 420–428.10.1177/8756972820931276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waller, M. J., Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E., and Giambatista, R. C. (2002). Watching the clock: Group pacing behavior under dynamic deadlines. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1046–1055.10.2307/3069329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whyte, J., and Nussbaum, T. (2020). Transition and temporalities: Spanning temporal boundaries as projects end and operations begin. Project Management Journal, 51(5), 505–521.10.1177/8756972820919002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yakura, E. (2002). Charting time: Timelines as temporal boundary objects Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 956–970.10.2307/3069324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Aapaoja, A., and Haapasalo, H. (2014). A framework for stakeholder identification and classification in construction projects. Open Journal of Business and Management, 2(1), 43–55.10.4236/ojbm.2014.21007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackermann, F., and Alexander, J. (2016). Researching complex projects: Using causal mapping to take a systems perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 34, 891–901.10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.04.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackermann, F., and Eden, C. (2011). Strategic management of stakeholders: Theory and practice. Long Range Planning, 44(3), 179–196.10.1016/j.lrp.2010.08.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J., Havela, L., and Savage, G. (2015). Stakeholder dynamics during the project front-end: The case of nuclear waste repository projects. Project Management Journal, 46, 15–41.10.1002/pmj.21549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amadi, C., Carrillo, P., and Tuulie, M. (2018). Stakeholder management in PPP projects: External stakeholders’ perspective. Built Environment and Project Asset Management 8(4), 403–414.10.1108/BEPAM-02-2018-0048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
APM (2019). APM body of knowledge, 7th ed., Murray-Webster, R. and Dalcher, D. (eds.). Association of Project Management.Google Scholar
Baxter, L. (2004). A tale of two voices: Relational dialectics theory. Journal of Family Communication, 4
(
3–4), 181–192.10.1207/s15327698jfc0403&4_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourne, L., and Walker, D. H. T. (2006). Visualizing stakeholder influence – two Australian examples. Project Management Journal, 37(1), 5–21.10.1177/875697280603700102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracken, L. J., Bulkeley, H. A., and Whitman, G. (2015). Transdisciplinary research: Understanding the stakeholder perspective. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(7), 1291–1308.10.1080/09640568.2014.921596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, T., and Maylor, H. (2010). The improvement paradox in project contexts: A clue to the way forward? International Journal of Project Management, 28(8), 787–795.10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.08.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryson, J. M., Ackermann, F., and Eden, C. (2016). Discovering collaborative advantage: The contributions of goal categories and visual strategy mapping. Public Administration Review, 76(6), 912–925.10.1111/puar.12608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryson, J. M., Barberg, B., Crosby, B. C., and Patton, M. Q. (2021). Leading social transformations: Creating public value and advancing the common good. Journal of Change Management, 21(2), 180–202.10.1080/14697017.2021.1917492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cha, J., and Maytorena, E. (2019). Prioritising project management competences across the software project lifecycle. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 12(4), 961–978.10.1108/IJMPB-11-2017-0145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chinyio, E., and Olomolaiye, P. (2010). Introducing stakeholder management (pp. 1–12). In Chinyio, E. and Olomolaiye, P. (eds.). Construction stakeholder management. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chow, V., and Leiringer, R. (2020). The practice of public engagement on projects: From managing external stakeholders to facilitating active contributors. Project Management Journal, 51(1) 24–37.10.1177/8756972819878346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, D., and Walker, D. H. T. (2003). Vision as a critical success factor to project outcomes. 17th World Congress on Project Management, Moscow, Russia, June 3–6.Google Scholar
Cleland, D. I. (1986). Project stakeholder management. Project Management Journal, 17(4), 36–44.Google Scholar
Dalcher, D. (2020). In whose interest? Repositioning the stakeholder paradox, advances in project management series, PM World Journal, 9(9), 1–9.Google Scholar
De Gooyert, V., Rouwette, E., Van Kranenburg, H., and Freeman, E. (2017). Reviewing the role of stakeholders in operational research: A stakeholder theory perspective. European Journal of Operational Research, 262(2), 402–410.10.1016/j.ejor.2017.03.079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, T., and Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.10.2307/258887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eden, C. (1990). The unfolding nature of group decision support: Two dimensions of skill (pp. 48–52). In Eden, C. and Radford, J. (eds.). Tackling strategic problems: The role of group decision support. Sage.Google Scholar
Eden, C., and Ackermann, F. (2021). Modelling stakeholder dynamics for supporting group decision and negotiation: Theory to practice. Group Decision and Negotiation, 30(5), 1001–1025.10.1007/s10726-021-09745-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edkins, A. J., Kurul, E., Maytorena-Sanchez, E., and Rintala, K. (2007). The application of cognitive mapping methodologies in project management research. International Journal of Project Management, 25(8), 762–772.10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.04.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskerod, P., and Huemann, M. (2013). Sustainable development and project stakeholder management: What standards say. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 6(1), 36–50.10.1108/17538371311291017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskerod, P., and Vaagaasar, A. L. (2014). Stakeholder management strategies and practices during a project course, Project Management Journal, 45(5), 71–85.10.1002/pmj.21447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskerod, P., Huemann, M., and Ringhofer, C. (2015a). Stakeholder inclusiveness: Enriching project management with general stakeholder theory. Project Management Journal, 46(6), 42–53.10.1002/pmj.21546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskerod, P., Huemann, M., and Savage, G. (2015b). Project stakeholder management – past and present. Project Management Journal, 46(6), 6–14.10.1002/pmj.21555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R., and Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in, 1st ed. Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., and Wicks, A. C. (2007). Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E., Parmar, B. L., and Martin, K. (2020). The power of and: Responsible business without trade-offs. Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Gaim, M., Clegg, S., and Cunha, M. P. (2022). In praise of paradox persistence: Evidence from the Sydney Opera House project. Project Management Journal, 53(4), 397–415.10.1177/87569728221094834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 53–73.10.2307/3857592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodpaster, K. E., Maines, T. D., and Rovang, M. D. (2002). Stakeholder thinking: Beyond paradox to practicality. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 7, 93–111.10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2002.au.00009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gramberger, M., Zellmer, K., Kok, K., and Metzger, M. J. (2015). Stakeholder integrated research (STIR): A new approach tested in climate change adaptation research. Climatic Change, 128(3), 201–214.10.1007/s10584-014-1225-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, S. D., and Sergeeva, N. (2019). Value creation in projects: Towards a narrative perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 37(5), 636–651.10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.12.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 315–327.10.1007/s10551-007-9509-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hautz, J., Seidl, D., and Whittington, R. (2017). Open strategy: Dimensions, dilemmas, dynamics. Long Range Planning, 50(3) 298–309.10.1016/j.lrp.2016.12.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P, Bednarek, R, Chalkias, K, et al. (2019). Exploring inter-organizational paradoxes: Methodological lessons from a study of a grand challenge. Strategic Organization, 17(1), 120–132.10.1177/1476127018805345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jepsen, A. L., and Eskerod, P. (2009). Stakeholder analysis in projects: Challenges in using current guidelines in the real world. International Journal of Project Management, 27(4), 335–343.10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.04.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., and Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152–1189.10.1177/0149206308324322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehtinen, J., and Aaltonen, K. (2020). Organizing external stakeholder engagement in inter-organizational projects: Opening the black box. International Journal of Project Management, 38, 85–98.10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.12.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehtinen, J., Aaltonen, K., and Rajala, R. (2019). Stakeholder management in complex product systems: Practices and rationales for engagement and disengagement. Industrial marketing management, 79, 58–70.10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.08.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, C., and Mohamed, M. Z. (1999). Criteria of project success: An exploratory re-examination. International Journal of Project Management, 17(4), 243–248.10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00040-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littau, P., Jujagiri, J., and Adlbrecht, G. (2010). 25 years of stakeholder theory in project management literature (1984–2009). Project Management Journal, 41(4), 17–29.10.1002/pmj.20195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luedicke, M. K., Husemann, K. C., Furnari, S., and Ladstaetter, F. (2017). Radically open strategizing: How the premium cola collective takes open strategy to the extreme. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 371–384.10.1016/j.lrp.2016.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupton, D. (1993). Risk as moral danger: The social and political functions of risk discourse in public health. International Journal of Health Services, 23(3), 425–435.10.2190/16AY-E2GC-DFLD-51X2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luscher, L. S., and Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240.10.5465/amj.2008.31767217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, D. Z., and Szulanski, G. (2017). Opening up: How centralization affects participation and inclusion in strategy making. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 385–396.10.1016/j.lrp.2016.08.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., and Niemiec, R. M. (2017). Using public crowds for open strategy formulation: Mitigating the risks of knowledge gaps. Long Range Planning 50(3), 397–410.10.1016/j.lrp.2016.06.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maytorena, E., Winch, G. M., Freeman, J., and Kiely, T. (2007). The influence of experience and information search styles on project risk identification performance. IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management, 54(2), 315–326.Google Scholar
Mendelow, A. (1981). Environmental scanning: The impact of stakeholder concept. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Information Systems, December.Google Scholar
Meynhardt, T., Chandler, J. D., and Strathoff, P. (2016). Systemic principles of value cocreation: Synergetics of value and service ecosystems. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2981–2989.10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., and Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.10.2307/259247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moffat, K., Lacey, J., Zhang, A., and Leipold, S. (2016). The social licence to operate: A critical review. Forestry. An International Journal of Forest Research, 89(5), 477–488.10.1093/forestry/cpv044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, B. (2011). Interview with Bob Morris. Bobmorris.biz. https://Bobmorris.Biz/Warren-g-Bennis-an-Interview-by-Bob-Morris.Google Scholar
Newton, A., and Elliott, M. (2016). A typology of stakeholders and guidelines for engagement in transdisciplinary, participatory processes. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3, 230.10.3389/fmars.2016.00230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olander, S., and Lander, A. (2005). Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the implementation of construction projects, International Journal of Project Management, 23, 321–328.10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.02.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasquier, U., Few, R., Goulden, M. C., Hooton, S., He, Y., and Hiscock, K. M. (2020). “We can’t do it on our own!” – integrating stakeholder and scientific knowledge of future flood risk to inform climate change adaptation planning in a coastal region. Environmental Science & Policy, 103, 50–57.10.1016/j.envsci.2019.10.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez, L., Hunt, V., Samandari, H., Nuttall, R., and Biniek, K. (2022). Does ESG really matter – and why? McKinsey Quarterly, August, 1–9.Google Scholar
Puranam, P. (2017). When will we stop studying innovations in organizing, and start creating them? Innovation, 19, 5–10.10.1080/14479338.2016.1272420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raisch, S, Hargrave, T. J., and van de Ven, A. H. (2018). The learning spiral: A process perspective on paradox. Journal of Management Studies, 55(8), 1507–1526.10.1111/joms.12397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., and Pidgeon, N. (2005). Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: Reflections on an evaluation of the UK GM Nation? Public debate about transgenic crops. Public Understanding of Science, 14(4), 331–352.10.1177/0963662505056611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22, 887–910.10.2307/259248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., et al. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1): 5–64.10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silvius, A. J. G., and Schipper, R. P. J. (2014). Sustainability in project management: A literature review and impact analysis. Social Business, 4(1), 63–96.10.1362/204440814X13948909253866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1977). The New science of management decision, 3rd rev. ed.; 1st ed. (1960). Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Smith, J., and Love, P. E. D. (2004). Stakeholder management during project inception: Strategic needs analysis. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 10(1), 22–33.10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0431(2004)10:1(22)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. K., and Lewis, M. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.Google Scholar
Sutterfield, J. S., Friday-Stroud, S. S., and Shivers-Blackwell, S. L. (2006). A case study of project and stakeholder management failures: Lessons learned. Project Management Journal, 37(5) 26–35.10.1177/875697280603700504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tung, A. (2020). Design and analysis of stakeholder-oriented critical paths for offshore decommissioning projects in the United Kingdom and Australian landscape using mixed-methods. Offshore Technology Conference, May.10.4043/30539-MSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.10.1126/science.185.4157.1124CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Leeuwen, J., Raakjaer, J., van Hoof, L., van Tatenhove, J., Long, R., and Ounanian, K. (2014). Implementing the marine strategy framework directive: A policy perspective on regulatory, institutional and stakeholder impediments to effective implementation. Marine Policy, 50, 325–330.10.1016/j.marpol.2014.03.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wensing, E. (2021). The destruction of Juukan Gorge: Lessons for planners and local governments. Australian Planner, 56(4): 241–248.10.1080/07293682.2020.1866045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winch, G. M. (2004). Managing project stakeholders (pp. 321–339). In Morris, P. W. G. and Pinto, J. K. (eds.). The Wiley guide to managing projects. Wiley.10.1002/9780470172391.ch14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winch, G. M. (2017). Megaproject stakeholder management (pp. 339–361). In Flyvbjerg, B. ed. The Oxford handbook of megaproject management. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The PDF of this book
conforms to version 2.0 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic
(A)
level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.