Old theories, new contexts: extending operations management theories to projects

Project managers' reactions to project disruption: sponsor actions versus environmental uncertainty

Purpose

Managing projects is an important part of operations management, but many projects fail. This study focuses on attribution processes of such disruption from the underrepresented perspective of the project manager. The authors consider two types of causes: the more frequently researched environmental uncertainty (i.e. uncontrollable events) and the scarcely researched uncertainty imposed by non-collaborative project sponsors (i.e. other-controllable events).

Design/methodology/approach

The authors test conceptual arguments grounded in attribution theory and the notion of psychological contracts in a scenario-based experiment among 325 practicing project managers.

Findings

The findings indicate that non-collaborative project sponsors negatively affect project managers' motivation, whereas uncontrollable disruptions leave hope to achieve positive future outcomes. This latter effect is further strengthened when project managers have an internal attribution style. They tend to blame the disruption on themselves and generally feel in control of achieving success even if they are not.

Originality/value

These socio-psychological insights nuance the economic idea that uncertainty reduces motivation per se in the context of project disruption appraisal. The authors contribute to the behavioral project management literature and general attribution theory and help guide the allocation of resources during the recovery of failed projects.

Co-Designing Sustainable Coordination to Support Inter-Organizational Decision Making

Processes in inter-organizational projects tend to be complex to coordinate. Within these projects, stakeholders have to make decisions together, despite a limited awareness of the other parties’ interests and views. Frequently, coordination in inter-organizational projects is ineffective and inadequately addressed, despite the investment of considerable effort, which often results in delays and/or unwanted project outcomes. The purpose of this study is to investigate how a shared problem understanding for inter-organizational decision making can be achieved by means of sustainable coordination. In this study, CIMO logic was used to explore the context of the organizational change, followed by the application of design science research in order to develop an intervision process. The findings of this study are twofold. To manage the complex problem context, additional efforts were needed in order to create awareness of the team’s coordination activities. The application of the concept of co-designing resulted in a higher degree of sustainable relational coordination. The resulting intervision process aided the team in gaining a shared problem understanding of the decision making process in the inter-organizational project. The use of the co-designed intervision process can potentially be employed for other complex systematic problems, such as those occurring in the construction industry.

Facilitating Contextual Ambidexterity in a Global Operations Expansion Program

One of the focal challenges in managing global operations is how to utilize existing knowledge to avoid reinventing the wheel, yet to critically assess current knowledge and develop new knowledge when adapting to local conditions. Research indicates that successful organizations manage these tensions by developing ambidexterity. We elaborate on contextual ambidexterity—one specific form of ambidexterity—in the global operations expansion program at Neste. We conclude with illustrations of tools used to facilitate alignment and adaptability over time. Interestingly, different tools are used in different phases of the program. Moreover, the emphasis cycles between alignment and adaptability.

What Are the Causes and Cures of Poor Megaproject Performance? A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda

This systematic literature review explores the megaproject management literature and contributes by improving our understanding of the causes and cures of poor megaproject performance. The review analyzes 6,007 titles and abstracts and 86 full papers, identifying a total of 18 causes and 54 cures to address poor megaproject performance. We suggest five avenues for future research that should consider examining megaprojects as large-scale, inter-organizational production systems: (1) designing the system architecture; (2) bridging the gap with manufacturing; (3) building and leading collaborations; (4) engaging institutions and communities; and (5) decomposing and integrating the supply chain.