Does Our Literature Support Sectors Newer to Project Management? The Search for Quality Publications Relevant to Nontraditional Industries

Abstract

IDespite the broadening use of systematic approaches to project management, the majority of related literature is focused on a handful of industries-construction, engineering, government, information technology, and utilitiesthat have, until recently, been the traditional areas for project management. Currently, the nontraditional project management areas include banking, pharmaceuticals, consulting, advertising, legal, health care, safety, and nontraditional manufacturing and industrial sectors (Kerzner, 2001). In recognition of growth, scholars and practitioners have begun to include viewpoints generalized across the field as well as perspectives from specific industries. We report on the findings from a systematic review of project management literature.

Shared Human Capital in Project Management: A Systematic Review of the Literature

“…In recent studies, there have been literature reviews on project management and culture (Henrie & Sousa‐Poza, 2005), the research methods used in studying projects (Smyth & Morris, 2007), the changes in how projects are studied (Leybourne, 2007), and project research in nontraditional industries (Carden & Egan, 2008). However, as far as we know, a systematic overview of peer‐reviewed literature on the human capital in project management has never been done.…”

The Difficult but Necessary Task of Developing a Specific Project Team Research Agenda

“…It is estimated that 51 million people worldwide are involved in the management of projects (Project Management Institute, ), mainly in the construction, IT, and engineering areas (Betts & Lansley, ). Project management is expanding in non‐traditional fields (Carden & Egan, ), and the projectification of organizations’ activities is increasing (Beringer, Jonas, & Gemünden, ). In parallel, “Interest and research on the effectiveness of teams skyrocketed in the last few decades” (Bell & Marentette, , p. 275), and research on teams has risen to one of the top five topics across important journals in project management and OB/IO (Bakker, ; Cascio & Aguinis, ).…”

“…In a book we recently co‐edited titled The Psychology and Management of Project Teams (i.e., Chiocchio, Kelloway, & Hobbs, forthcoming), we endeavored to have scholars from the fields of organizational behavior and industrial and organizational psychology (OB/IO) bring to the surface the truly hard science of humans working together on projects. Overall, the book aims at providing “definitional clarity and breath of research” as called for by team scholars (Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas, & Cohen, , p. 59), and the “Establishment and execution of specific research agendas for non‐traditional industries focusing on key issues unique to project management in respective contexts,” as called for by Carden and Egan (). Our aim here is not to summarize our book, although strong with the thought‐provoking contributions of its chapter authors.…”

Evaluation Methods for Hospital Projects

“…Although these complex demands often result in critical consequences to millions of Americans, healthcare managers are frequently challenged to address these demands due to their lack of knowledge of management best practices. Fundamental management scholarship in healthcare is often lacking for healthcare managers to call on (Knight 2005;Austin, Homberg, and Shmerling 2000;Carden and Egan 2008). Hospital organizations are qualitatively different from other business organizations for many reasons.…”