Introduction
In a rapidly changing world, the portion of the project activity in organizations is constantly growing. Projects are used today, not just for new product development or construction, but also for numerous other reasons such as, product improvement, system deployment, process building, process reengineering, new service initiation, and many others. Even stable industries such as banking, retail, or insurance, find out they need new initiatives, and that those can only be achieved through projects.
With time, tools, techniques, and methods became standard across industries, and businesses and organizations began witnessing the benefits of organizing work around projects. Yet, in a paradoxical way, project failures, delays, and disappointments are still much too common to be ignored. With most projects failing to meet time and budget goals, and many projects not fulfilling their business objectives, there seems to be an alarming gap between the needs of the discipline and what we know in order to fix them.
In this paper we offer our perspective about the gap that exists between the concepts dominating the formal discipline of project management and the way things are encountered in real life. We discuss possible ways on how to bridge those gaps and propose a few research directions that may evolve as central in the next few years. These research directions require the cooperation of scholars from diverse disciplines in interdisciplinary studies. As an example of one of these proposed research directions, we present the results of an interdisciplinary study which combines psychological personality theories with a project classification approach to assess the impact of the fit between the project manager personality and the project type on project performance. Our goal is to stimulate the discussion about the future of project management research and about the role that this research could play in advancing the project management profession.
what is missing?
In spite of a half century of building the discipline, project performance is alarmingly low. Study after study has shown that most projects are not completed on time, are over budget, and even when completed, many do not meet management or customer expectations. For example, according to the Standish Group report, only 28% of projects are successful, 23% are failures, and 49% are provide only partial answers, with an average fulfillment of 67% of the features defined at project initiation (Standish Group, 1994; 2001, 2004). Almost all other studies have confirmed the same or even worse results.
The current project management body of knowledge is rich and helpful. It forms the foundation for basic training and learning project management and clearly, anyone who wants to acquire the know-how in this profession must learn the basics. Thus, many of the traditional project management techniques became standard and were transformed into tools and applications, with increased detail and sophistication. But as project results demonstrate, all of this may not be enough.
Clearly, some project failures may stem from managerial neglect or lack of planning. But as the evidence suggests, sometimes even well-managed projects fail to meet their objectives, and sometimes, even poor planning may not necessarily lead to a project's failure. Consider the following cases:
1. European Space Agency's Ariane 5
It took the European Space Agency 10 years and 7 billion US dollars to produce Ariane 5, a giant rocket capable of hurling a pair of 3-ton satellites into orbit with each launch and intended to give Europe an overwhelming supremacy in the commercial space business.
As the rocket reached an altitude of two and a half miles, approximately 39 seconds after the first launch, a self-destruct mechanism finished off Ariane 5, along with its payload of four expensive and uninsured scientific satellites. This disintegration had begun an instant before, when the spacecraft swerved off course under the pressure of the three powerful nozzles of its boosters and main engine. The rocket was making an abrupt course correction that was not needed, compensating for a wrong turn that had not taken place.
Steering was controlled by the on-board computer, which mistakenly thought the rocket needed a course change because of numbers coming from the inertial guidance system. Ordinarily, though, when a program converts data from one form to another, the conversions are protected by extra lines of code that watch for errors and recover gracefully. But in this case, the programmers had decided that this particular velocity figure would never be large enough to cause trouble.
It is tempting to simply dismiss this as a software bug that would have been eliminated by better software engineering. It is obvious that the programmer should have checked to ensure that the measurement was small enough that the conversion could take place, and if it could not, have the control system take some appropriate action rather than simply shut down.
But in this case it was not a software issue, but a design flaw at a much deeper level.1
-2. Segway Story
Formerly known as “Ginger,” Segway was developed by entrepreneur Dean Kamen, whose company, DEKA, also invented the first portable insulin pump and the iBOT, a wheelchair capable of climbing and descending stairs. One day a DEKA employee surfed past Kamen on an iBOT proof-of-concept prototype consisting of a platform balanced on a single axle. In a flash of inspiration, Kamen envisioned a new product that could change the way people get around.
Kamen hired some of the brightest and most innovative engineers. They designed and perfected each element of Segway; they even paid attention to minor details such as the audible tones the vehicle would generate, making them as pleasant as possible. When the product was ready, the marketing, too, was unusual, resulting in unprecedented awareness with virtually no advertising budget.
However, from the beginning, the Segway team was not allowed to obtain feedback from real customers. Kamen's fear that others would steal his ideas prevented the team from testing early prototypes with customers. When a semi-market test was finally conducted, it revealed for the first time an unexpected issue: “Some riders had said that their commutes to work were too long for Ginger, or that they preferred to walk for short errands.” Rather than take this finding as a warning signal and investigate it further, the company continued to move the Segway project forward as planned.
Although a manufacturing plant was built to produce forty thousand units per year, DEKA sold only six thousand Segways in the first eighteen months after launch. Undoubtedly, the product has not revolutionized the world, as Kamen suggested, nor has it met his business expectations.2
These projects are not unique. Similar examples may be found in almost every organization (Shenhar and Dvir, 2007). Perhaps there is more to project success than following a specified set of rules. Perhaps it is not the tools or applications, nor the lack of process. Project management today has plenty of those, and while important, they may be not enough. Our conclusion is that the problem is much deeper. It is still at the conceptual level, rather than in process or practice. We believe that there is a gap between the way we see project management (project myths) and the way projects are actually run. These myths are so deeply engrained in the practice of project management, preventing us from seeing the real picture and searching for the true reasons for failures. Understanding the problem and directing research efforts to the areas with the largest gaps will most likely have an impact on the practice and education, and eventually influence the development of tools and processes.
The Myths and Realities
Perhaps, the most fundamental myth of project management is that Projects are successful if they meet their time, budget, and performance goals. The Sydney Opera House construction project is an excellent counter example. A total failure efficiency wise (1500% over budget and 250% time overrun), the Sydney Opera House turned out to be an amazing success.
Meeting time and budget goals is only a small part of the picture. Having achieved such goals suggests that the project was managed carefully and efficiently and that the project team did a good job of planning, monitoring, and executing the plan. But adhering to a project plan tells us nothing about achieving the long-term business goals (or as in the case of the opera house, public goals), for which the project was initiated in the first place. In reality, project success is a multidimensional, strategic concept. Success measures must reflect the strategic intent of the company and its business objectives. It also should reflect the interests of various stakeholders who will be affected by the project and its outcomes.
The second myth is related to the way many projects are still conducted even after the introduction of new development methods such as spiral development in IT projects or the agile approach.
Projects are mainly seen as linear predictable and certain processes that require a fixed, rigid style of project management. In reality however, projects are nonlinear, unpredictable, and uncertain processes.
In an ideal world, you would expect to resolve the “what” uncertainty first—namely, by first determining what the product and market are all about—and then resolve the “how” uncertainty, namely, how to build the product. In reality, however, no project can completely freeze the final requirements and then start working on product design. Several iterations may be needed until final requirements can be frozen.
Similarly, the initial technological uncertainty can be reduced by conducting several design, build, and test cycles (design cycles). Then update the specifications and modify the design after each cycle until the final design is frozen.
Finally, after each requirements formulation and design cycle, plans are revised to reflect the changes in requirement and design. This triple iterative process, which is illustrated in Figure 1, continues for both uncertainties until the final decisions about the product and its design are made. Only after design freeze, can project management continue using the traditional, linear project management approach.
Figure 1. Iterative process of planning and requirements and design formulation
The third myth is related to the planning process. The classic approach is based on the belief that projects should prepare detailed plans at project initiation and then stick to the plans as much as possible.
But real projects cannot always follow that belief. In the real world, a project is seldom executed according to its initial plan. Even in the most stable environments, such as construction or oil, projects undergo changes and the end result is never exactly as envisioned. Needless to say, in more dynamic environments, such as high technology or biotechnology, projects and their products are substantially different from what organizations envision up front.
Thus, a project plan is not a fixed document that is prepared once for the entire project. Rather, project plans are dynamic, living entities that evolve as the project progresses and change when new information is revealed. Multiple project plans are needed with various degree of detail and plans need to be rewritten as the project progresses as shown in Figure 2.
The plan shown at the top is the master plan that spans the entire project life cycle and contains very little detail. It outlines only the major milestones, such as completion of major phases or important delivery dates. This plan allows top management to see the big picture. The second plan is the middle-level plan. Its time horizon is usually four to six months. It includes events that happen between major milestones, such as testing prototypes, issuing major purchase orders, and so on. This plan is directed to middle-level managers who oversee the project's effort together with other projects in the same department or business. The third plan is the detailed work plan. Its time horizon is only a few weeks, it is used by the project team and individual members and it is prepared each month for the next short-term period (Laufer, 1997).
Figure 2. The “rolling wave” planning concept
Unlike operations, which are repetitive, each project by definition is unique. Every project represents a new experience, addressing a new problem with a new constellation of management challenges, and the management process is never a matter of repeating known steps and procedures. Nevertheless, most project management text books and guides still take the position that one size fits all projects; that is the fourth myth in our list, a myth that prevents for many years adopting a more flexible approach, addressing the differences among projects (Shenhar, 2001).
Intuitively, the one-size-fits-all approach is understandable; each project is unique, but not in every respect. The variability itself follows certain patterns, and this means that we can develop general methods for handling various types of projects. This characteristic variability has not been captured so far in the current project management literature and is not part of the common body of knowledge.
Innovation, the commercialization process of a new product or service, is typically carried out as a project. In conformance with the traditional way of conducting projects, most innovations are managed using the same managerial approach. But, innovation means a new initiative and as such, any innovation is unique; there are many kinds of innovations and each needs a different approach.
Clayton Christensen has showed that good companies may still fail when faced with the innovator's dilemma (1997). According to this theory, sustaining technologies (which can be incremental or radical) improve product performance along the dimensions that customers have learned to expect and demand. Disruptive technologies, in contrast, may initially offer lower performance than existing sustaining technologies, but their performance improves at a higher rate than customers expect.
The relevant feature that explains the innovators dilemma is the newness of the product (developed by the project) to its intended market. Projects utilizing sustaining technologies are typically platform projects (creating a new generation of known products). Projects utilizing disruptive technologies are in the most part breakthrough projects that create new markets and provide solutions to problems the customers did not envision before.
Table 1 summarizes the five myths discussed above. These five myths represent some of the major obstacles that practitioners are facing everyday in managing projects. However, these myths also create an opportunity to the project management research community. In the following sections we present some research implications associated these myths. Creating a grounded theory will provide a conceptual basis for understanding these phenomena, and will enable the development of project management tools for better management of projects.
Table 1. The myth and reality
| Myth | Reality |
| Projects are successful if they meet their time, budget, and performance goals. | Projects are successful if they meet multiple success criteria, including achieving business results, customer satisfaction and creating future opportunities. |
| Projects are linear predictable and certain processes. You need a fixed, rigid style to manage them. | Projects are non-linear, unpredictable, and uncertain processes. You need a flexible style. |
| You need one good plan that stays for the entire project. | You need multiple plans with various degrees of detail and you need to rewrite plans as you go along. |
| One size fits all projects. | Projects differ and you must adapt the project management style to the environment, product, and task. |
| Innovation means any new initiative and all innovations are the same. | There are many kinds of innovations and each needs a different approach. |
The Research Challenge
Kloppenborg and Opfer (2002) provided a detailed review of project management research, covering over 40 years of publications. Yet, despite so many years of research, there are still many unresolved issues in project management. Perhaps an answer could be found in other closely related fields that have evolved at the same time as project management, and where theories and research can provide concepts to deal with those open issues. Some of these disciplines are listed below.
Technology and Innovation Management Research – Technology and innovation research covers a wide range of literature. It started with the early studies of Burns and Stalker (1961) that introduced a classical distinction between incremental and radical innovation. And it continues today with varying points of view and lessons that were applied to real organizations. Typical studies discussed the process of innovation, structural, architectural and system innovation, innovative cultures, and the theory of disruptive technologies (Anderson and Tushman, 1990; Eisenhardt and Tabrizi, 1995; Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997; Christensen, 1997; Gatignon, et al., 2002; Christensen and Raynor, 2003).
New Product Development Research – A second rich direction is the new product development. Here researchers explored among other things, the critical success factors, the development stage process, and the influence of the environment on these processes (Cooper, 1994; Brown and Eisenhardt, 1995; MacCormack, et al., 2001).
Leadership Research – An extremely relevant research area is the leadership research, especially, team building. Projects are a deliberate effort to create change, and there is no change without competent leaders. Leading change requires diversified personal abilities such as developing a vision and strategy, communicating the change vision, and empowering others to act (Kotter, 1996).
The Entrepreneurship Literature – Yet another relevant direction is the study of entrepreneurship. Here studies have focused on the process of idea generation, crafting new businesses, and translating ideas into practice in organizations (e.g., Shane and Ulrich, 2004).
Organizational Effectiveness – Hamel and Prahalad (1994) in their book “Competing for the Future” suggested new ways to look at the modern organization that is facing continuous change. They claim that for survival in the long term, firms must create the future as seen by potential needs of their customers and have the foresight to create and dominate emerging opportunities. But, perhaps the most important work in recent years about organizational effectiveness is the Balanced Scorecard, which was developed by Kaplan and Norton (1992; 2000). Kaplan and Norton's assertion is that traditional financial accounting measures (e.g., ROI, EPS) can give misleading signals for continuous improvement and innovation, and are out of step with the skills and competencies needed by today's organizations. The Balanced Scorecard is a multi-dimensional framework that translates a company's strategy into specific measurable objectives.
Operations Management – Finally there is the well-established field of operations management. Here the studies looked at projects as processes and tried to apply optimization techniques to improve project performance. The critical chain is probably the most well known approach that was adopted to project management (Goldratt, 1997).
Possible Research Directions
Ironically, however, while close in nature and often addressing similar problems, very few of the other fields of research have had a significant impact on the discipline and practice of project management. We thus suggest some directions for future research based on the gaps in project management and the body of knowledge accumulated in other fields.
- There are no central theories underlying the discipline that promote the perception of projects as the most important tool for achieving business (or public) goals. Furthermore, there are no commonly accepted methods and frameworks for assessing project success from the points of view of the main stakeholders in the organization.
- Although project management is considered as an interdisciplinary field, only few studies have attempted to present an interdisciplinary approach and its application to project management. Positioning project management as a strategic asset of the organization requires cooperation of scholars from diverse fields to address all issues associated with aligning projects with the organization strategy and identify the critical factors affecting the management of projects.
- The dynamic nature of the project execution process was not systematically studied by project management researchers. Methods used by operations management scholars may be useful in identifying the optimal point for requirements and technical specifications freeze, yielding better understanding of the planning process and as a result, devising better ways to conduct product design and testing.
- Project classification is only in its first steps towards becoming a widespread and acceptable concept among project researchers and practitioners. Classification methods may serve as a tool for focusing attention to the needs of specific projects and identifying the factors affecting project success. An example of a research using the NTCP framework (Shenhar and Dvir, 2007) to determine the personal characteristics of project managers that may increase projects' success is presented later in the paper. Similar studies may be conducted for different types of innovations and the projects created to produce new products and bring them to the marketplace.
The Challenge of Integrative Research
While each direction is a world of its own, the real challenge is to combine them all into a unified view. Success in project management can only be achieved by an integrated holistic view on the entire landscape of the project. From a research perspective, this means multidisciplinary research. It represents a unique challenge mostly to more experienced researchers, who established their name in a single discipline, but are now ready to exploit an integrated point of view.
Similarly, given the high potential and impact of projects, we believe other researchers may be ready to contribute to the discipline of project management. There are plenty of fields that can provide experience, methods, and new views to project management. To mention a few: marketing, operations, MIS, economy, psychology, human resources, leadership, quality, and systems engineering, etc.
The Implications of P-O Fit Theory to Project Management — An Example3
To illustrate a possible avenue for an interdisciplinary research in project management we present a study investigating the fit between project mangers' (PMs) personality and the types of projects (P) they manage, and its impact on project success. The study combines two disciplines: project management and personality psychology and is based on three bodies of research: Project classification, Project managers' personality and Project success assessment.
Project Classification
The Diamond Approach for classifying projects including four dimensions, Novelty, Technology, Complexity and Pace (NTCP) was used in this study (Shenhar and Dvir, 2007).
Projects and Project Managers' Personalities
According to person-organization fit (P-O fit) theory (Caplan 1987; Kristof, 1996), P-O fit occurs when an organization satisfies individuals' needs, desires, or preferences. Individuals tend to make job choice decisions based on P-O fit. They prefer organizations that have the same personality as the one they have (Chatman, 1989; Judge & Bretz, 1992; Cable & Judge, 1994). Based on P-O fit theory it can be expected that project managers will be attracted to projects that fit their personality and that the P-O fit will manifest itself in the success of the projects they manage.
The current study attempted to explore the idea of personality characteristics that fit the project type portrayed by the first three dimensions of the NCTP framework: novelty, complexity, and technological uncertainty. Since no single personality construct and no single instrument apply to all three of these project dimensions, an attempt was made to combine a number of personality dimensions and their measures that seemed relevant conceptually.
“Openness to Experiences” (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and Risk taking tendency (Wallach, et al., 1964) were hypothesized to help coping with high levels of Novelty.
The “extroversion” component in Jung's (1990) typology was hypothesized to help coping with high levels of Complexity.
The ability to cope with technological uncertainty was assessed using two measures: The “inventor” personality type in Jung's typology which includes intuition (being interested in possibilities rather than actualities) and perceiving (being flexible rather than planned) and the “investigative” personality type according to Holland's (1997) classification of vocational personalities.
Additional measures addressed managerial traits and general social competence. Managerial traits included two measures: Traits that were found in previous research to characterize successful managers (i.e., love of management) and high-technology entrepreneurs (i.e., love of challenge), (Pines, et al., 2002) and the “enterprising” personality type according to Holland's (1997) classification of vocational personalities. “Secure attachment” is a personality dimension that is associated with effective coping in situations that involve social interactions (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980).
Assessing Project Success
The multidimensional framework to assess project success used in this study was Shenhar, et al. (2001) framework, comprised of four dimensions. The first dimension, project efficiency, refers to the contract that was signed with the customer for meeting budget and schedule goals. The second dimension, impact on the customer, refers to the benefit to the customers from the project end products. The third dimension, business success, refers to the benefit gained by the developing organization as a result of executing the project. The last dimension, preparing for the future, measures the benefit from creating technological infrastructure and new market opportunities.
The Study
Based on P-O theory, it was hypothesized that projects managed by a manager with a personality that better fits the specific nature of the project will be more successful. Two hundred eighty nine Israeli project managers and projects participated in the study. Due to the small variability in the Pace dimension, only the first three dimensions of the model (NTC) were used.
The projects were classified into five groups based on their level of novelty, complexity, and technology. Each dimension was divided into two levels: high and low. Out of the eight possible combinations, only five groups were selected due to the small number of projects in the other three groups. The five groups of projects were defined as follows:
111 - Derivative, low-tech, assembly projects (producing new products or services that present only modest improvements relative to older products with respect to the market and the level of technology used);
112 - Derivative, low-tech, system projects (producing complex products or services that present only modest improvements relative to older products with respect to the market and the level of technology used);
211 - Platform, low-tech, assembly projects (projects that produce a new generation of simple products, with low technological uncertainty);
212 - Platform, low-tech, system projects (projects that produce a new generation of complex products, but with low technological uncertainty); and
222 - Platform, high-tech, system projects (projects that produce a new generation of more complex high technology products).
Main results
Table 2 provides the actual eight personality traits that were found to contribute most to the success of each of the five project types. The distance between the actual project managers' personalities from the ideal type was calculated by counting the number of traits the project manager possessed out of the eight traits presented in Table 2.
The number of matches between the characteristics possessed by the project manager and the desired traits for each project type were calculated. The results show that for all project types the median project manager possesses less than half of the desired traits. Therefore, a project manager having more than three of the desired traits was considered close to the ideal project manager whereas having less than three traits was considered as being far from the ideal project manager.
Table 2. Project manager traits found in the five project types
| Trait | 111 | 112 | 211 | 212 | 222 | |
| Intuitive | + | |||||
| Perceiving | + | - | ||||
| Extrovert | - | |||||
| Investigative | - | + | + | |||
| Enterprising | + | - | + | + | - | |
| Secure | + | + | - | + | ||
| Avoidant | - | - | - | - | ||
| Anxious-ambivalent | - | - | - | - | ||
| Open to experiences | + | |||||
| Entrepreneurial risk | - | + | ||||
| Investment risk | - | + | - | |||
| Organizational risk | + | - | - | |||
| Entrepreneur capabilities | + | + | + | + | ||
| Manager capabilities | - | + | + |
Table 3 presents the mean levels of the impact on the customers by project type, for the high and low sub-samples. The performance level of projects managed by project managers closer to the ideal project manager type was found to be higher than the level of projects managed by project managers farther from the ideal type. All differences, except for the 111 type, are significant at the 5% level.
Table 3. Means and f-tests of impact on the customers for low and high groups
| Project group | low | high | all | t | p |
| 111 | 5.75 | 5.83 | 5.78 | 0.386 | 0.351 |
| 112 | 4.91 | 5.97 | 5.33 | 3.073 | 0.002 |
| 211 | 5.08 | 5.85 | 5.40 | 2.284 | 0.013 |
| 212 | 5.10 | 5.76 | 5.39 | 2.396 | 0.009 |
| 222 | 5.47 | 5.95 | 5.71 | 1.792 | 0.040 |
| All | 5.28 | 5.87 | 5.52 |
Average scores of the project efficiency and over-all success level were calculated in a similar way. The results for Overall success are presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Means and f-tests of overall success for low and high groups
| Project group | low | high | all | t | p |
| 111 | 4.39 | 4.45 | 4.41 | 0.317 | 0.376 |
| 112 | 4.31 | 4.76 | 4.49 | 2.336 | 0.012 |
| 211 | 4.68 | 5.20 | 4.90 | 2.547 | 0.007 |
| 212 | 4.64 | 5.11 | 4.85 | 2.690 | 0.004 |
| 222 | 4.84 | 5.34 | 5.09 | 2.104 | 0.020 |
| All | 4.56 | 5.00 | 4.74 |
In contrast to the results for the impact on the customer and overall success measures, the differences for projects Types 111, 112, 212 and 222 with regard to efficiency are not significant (Table 5). Furthermore, except for the first group (111), projects managed by project managers farther from the ideal type achieved (on average) better results (efficiency wise) than project managers who are more similar to the ideal type.
Table 5. Means and f-tests of Efficiency Measure for low and high groups
| Project group | Low | High | All | t | p |
| 111 | 4.54 | 4.86 | 4.65 | 0.646 | 0.260 |
| 112 | 4.47 | 3.78 | 4.19 | 1.274 | 0.104 |
| 211 | 4.70 | 3.70 | 4.28 | 2.041 | 0.023 |
| 212 | 4.57 | 4.13 | 4.38 | 1.020 | 0.155 |
| 222 | 4.36 | 3.90 | 4.13 | 0.910 | 0.184 |
| All | 4.53 | 4.09 | 4.35 |
Observations
In all cases, project managers whose personal profiles were close to the ideal profile were more successful (both in terms of customer satisfaction and in terms of overall success) than project managers with personal profiles far from the ideal.
The personality traits chosen to characterize the ideal project managers were aimed at high levels of novelty, uncertainty, and complexity, and consequently they focused on such traits as openness to experiences, risk-taking tendencies, and being inventor, investigative, and enterprising. Not surprisingly, significant differences were found in the high-tech projects that are also characterized by high novelty and uncertainty.
Projects managed by project managers farther from the ideal type achieved better results in terms of efficiency than project managers who were more similar to the ideal type. This can be also explained by the ideal project manager type that emphasizes the personal characteristics relevant to more innovative projects where responsiveness to customers is of the utmost importance. This type of manager is likely to take more risks, make more changes in project plans and project goals, and try new ideas during the project course, and probably hurt project efficiency.
From the perspective of project managers rather than the perspective of the projects, it seems that project managers tend to prefer to manage projects that fit their personality. An alternative explanation is that top management assigns them to projects they think will suit them best.
As we have mentioned previously, this example is based on three bodies of research: project classification, project manager personality and project success assessment. It uses theoretical constructs and findings from three established research streams. The novelty dimension of the NTCP framework is based on the work of Burns and Stalker (1961) and Henderson and Clark (1990). Project success assessment incorporates earlier work of Pinto and Slevin (1988) and others, as well as more recent work by Shenhar, et al. (2001). The study of personal characteristics of project managers is related to the leadership research stream as well as the personality psychology field.
Final remarks
Project management research is still evolving. It has not yet established its role among the more traditional academic disciplines of management such as, marketing, finance, and operations. Perhaps, as claimed, the reason is the lack of a strong theoretical basis and an apparent gap between the guiding set of concepts and reality. We hope that the ideas presented here will prompt additional theoretical development and further discussion. Clearly, project management is far too complex to be explained by one unified theory. Yet, additional theories and concepts will attract more scholars and encourage more research, both of which will help establish the discipline within academia.