Research on projects is not only an immature field of research, but it is also insubstantial when it comes to understanding what occurs in projects. This article contributes to making project management research matter to the academic as well as to the practitioner by developing a project‐as‐practice approach, in alignment with the ongoing debate in social science research. The article outlines a framework and argues that there are two major challenges to the researcher and also suggests how these challenges can be met. Underlying notions of the practice approach are outlined to ensure a development of the project‐as‐practice approach that makes project management research matter!

Digital transformation is one of the key challenges facing contemporary businesses. The need to leverage digital technology to develop and implement new business models forces firms to reevaluate existing capabilities, structures, and culture in order to identify what technologies are relevant and how they will be enacted in organizational processes and business offerings. More often than not, these profound changes require firms to revisit old truths as they develop strategies that thread the needle between beneficial innovation and harmful disruption. This article uses the Internet of Things (IoT) as a backdrop to demonstrate the concerns associated with transformative technologies and offers five recommendations as to how firms can develop the strategies needed for digital transformation and become digitally conscious: (1) Start small and build on firsthand benefits; (2) team up and create competitive advantage from brand recognition; (3) engage in standardization efforts; (4) take responsibility for data ownership and ethics; and (5) own the change and ensure organization-wide commitment. As such, this article shows that digital transformation should be a top management priority and a defining trait of corporate business strategy, and that by becoming digitally conscious, firms may get a head start on their transformation journey.

IThis article investigates the nature and relationship of project portfolio control techniques and portfolio management performance, and how this relationship is moderated by situational idiosyncrasies of internal and external dynamics, industries, governance types, and geographic location. A worldwide questionnaire with 242 responses was used, of which 136 high-performing responses were filtered out for quantitative analysis of best practices. Three portfolio control factors were identified: portfolio selection, portfolio reporting, and decisionmaking style. Two measures for portfolio management performance were identified: achievement of desired portfolio results and achievement of project and program purpose. The results indicate that different portfolio control mechanisms are associated with different performance measures. A contingency model was developed, including moderating effects by contextual variables.

No abstract

Practices for program and portfolio management, together with the associated roles and responsibilities of middle managers, were investigated. The results of the multi-method study show that high-performing organizations apply dedicated portfolio management processes and tools, plus use the associated roles of middle managers, to address the requirements stemming from the complexity of the organization's environment and the types of projects executed. This is not the case in low-performing organizations. The study takes a transaction costs economics perspective and develops a contingency model for program/portfolio management roles of middle managers. Managerial and theoretical implications are also discussed. This paper summarizes the highlights of research findings that can be found in the full report published by the Project Management Institute (PMI) (Blomquist & Müller, 2006).