Project-as-Practice: In Search of Project Management Research that Matters

Abstract

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!

Knowledge formation and learning in the management of projects: A problem solving perspective

“…On the other hand, while practiceoriented approaches to project research accept the idea of learning over the project cycle that involves experiential 'knowing' knowledge (know-how, etc. ), this approach does not seem to achieve a reconciliation with the strengths of traditional explicit project knowledge (Blomquist et al, 2010;Hällgren and Wilson, 2008;Lalonde et al, 2010Lalonde et al, , 2012Sanderson, 2012). Moreover, the issue of continuous knowledge formation as a response to knowledge uncertainty in complex projects is not adequately addressed in the literature, in terms of the implications for how projects are conceptualised and how knowledge can be obtained about them (Thomas, 2000;Winter et al, 2006).…”

“…In recent project research, this unresolved knowledge dichotomy is acknowledged by Blomquist et al (2010), who highlight the advantages of a practice-oriented approach by observing that "a dynamic setting for action is created on the local arena where knowledge and action come together in practice" (p. 13, italics added). If experiential 'knowing' knowledge is required for action (Cook and Brown, 1999;Schön, 1983), this suggests a convergence in PM practice settings between explicit 'known' knowledge and experiential 'knowing' knowledge.…”

Embracing emergence: problem solving on complex projects

“…However, proponents of project actuality reject the view of projects as pro-forma (Blomquist et al 2010;Cicmil et al 2006), instead believing them to be constituted by "the actions of interdependent actors through the process of power and conversational relating" and through engaging in sense-making processes (Cicmil et al 2006, p. 677).…”

“…There has been criticism of mainstream research into projects and project management in the past for its heavy reliance on the functionalist view of projects and organizations (Blomquist et al 2010;Cicmil et al 2006;de Bakker, Boonstra & Wortmann 2010). This control theory approach views project management as "the accomplishment of some finite piece of work in a specified period of time, within a certain budget, and to agreed specification (which is, in turn, a conventional definition of a project)" (Cicmil et al 2006, p. 677).…”

A Heideggerian paradigm for project management: Breaking free of the disciplinary matrix and its Cartesian ontology

“…We would suggest that Dreyfus' criticism of artificial intelligence aligns with the existing criticism of the project management community's attempts to codify its practice in the bodies of knowledge and various methodologies . That is, management of projects cannot be reduced to a standard set of rules or procedures to be followed because a large portion of the interactions by project participants and stakeholders (with their Dasein mode of being) are tacit, contextual and transparent (Blomquist et al 2010;Cicmil et al 2006;Koskinen, Pihlanto & Vanharanta 2003). The rules emerge dynamically out of the totality of the changing situation.…”