پیشرفت های اخیر در سازمانهای مبتنی بر پروژه

Project-based organisations (PBO) refer to a variety of organisational forms that involve the creation of temporary systems for the performance of project tasks. Recently, project-based organisations have received increasing attention in recent years as an emerging organisational form. Recent studies have demonstrated that mature project-based organisations need to adopt integrative approaches that will enable consistent structures, delivery of strategy and uniformisation of knowledge. However, it is generally recognized that project-based organisations are struggling to integrate knowledge and structures and that projects are often viewed as “singular ventures”. It is the purpose of this paper to further investigate and understand how the widespread adoption of a project management approach within organisations has come to gradually influence their strategy and governance approaches. This paper concludes that an important aspect of PBOs is yet unexplored and lies in the development of a collaborative relationship between the fields of project and general management and the importance of developing a common language that fosters dialogue. It also emphasises a two way relationship which recognises that project management practice can and will influence organisational practices as well as the obvious reverse.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate and understand the double loop effect of strategy, governance and structure on project management and vice versa. To do so, the paper provides an overview of the different terms and definitions pertaining to “project-based organisations” (PBOs) highlighting how they aim, but not always succeed, to adopt consistent structures to facilitate delivery of strategy [30], [7] and [46]. It is many authors’ claim that the positivist paradigm’s legacy has continued to rationalise strategies even if this has led to mitigated success and that, still today, strategy implementation does not go much beyond planning [36], [15] and [52]. Recently models such as the balanced scorecard [38] or the business excellence model [19], which were developed to assist the implementation of strategies have in fact intensified the problem by further increasing controls rather than facilitate implementation. It is also well documented that the actual strategy process, in contrast to project processes, is often not planned, linear and rational, but rather ongoing, emergent and enacted [15], [52] and [6]. If anything, PBOs should stimulate the potential for projects to shape or reshape strategies (see Fig. 3). However, it is generally recognized that PBOs are struggling to integrate knowledge and structures when projects are viewed as “singular ventures” [22] and that, taken individually, these typically do not reflect the organisation’s strategic intent. Recent management literature puts forward new perspectives of corporate governance that promote a shift from strictly shareholder to stakeholder and value creation approaches, hence, indirectly supporting the movement of organisations towards a more project-based approach. Theoretical frameworks consistently point to the importance of a paradigm shift for projects to become vectors of an organisation’s strategy [23]. Consequently, it is surprising that a consistent review of the general management literature demonstrates that project, project management (PM) and project-based organisation (PBO) do not appear as keywords or in the titles of the management consulting or strategic management literature. Project management papers are often confined to either the project management journal (PMJ) or the international project management journal (IJPM); these are seldom read by the larger management community. Similarly, when questioned, few project managers seem to see themselves as “Managers” as demonstrated with the abundance of presentations at both the project management institute (PMI) and international project management association (IPMA) conferences and the publications in the PMJ and IJPM. When these issues arise, they focus mainly on the difficulties and the importance, for project managers, to communicate with upper management levels. These considerations have led the authors to question the concept of professional identity and the subsequent elaboration of vocabulary as at least partly responsible for the CXO/PM dichotomy as outlined by such dialectic approaches as Foucault [24]. In this sense, an ‘identity’ is communicated to others in our interactions with them. But this is not a fixed thing within a person, it is a shifting, temporary construction. The identity issue would support findings from Keegan and Turner [39] that language itself appears to be a strong barrier to acceptance of more intuitive and emergent forms of managing in general and even more so for project managers. The authors conclude that an important aspect of PBOs is yet unexplored and lies in the development of a collaborative relationship between the fields of project and general management and emphasises the importance of developing an overlapping zone of common identity and language between Project Managers and Managers ‘at large’ that fosters dialogue. It also underlines the importance of establishing this two way relationship which recognises that project management practice can and will influence organisational practices as well as the obvious reverse.

This paper concludes that an important aspect of PBOs is yet unexplored and lies in the development of a collaborative relationship between the fields of project and general management and the importance of developing a common language that fosters dialogue. It also emphasises a two way relationship which recognises that project management practice can and will influence organisational practices as well as the obvious reverse. • Although PBO originally stemmed from the desire to manage projects effectively without disrupting the traditional organisational model, the force fitting of a project environment into existing mechanistic models has created negative effects that have minimized the positive effects of a project model. • This has emphasised the dichotomy between organisational management and project management as well as between the language and identity of managers at organisational and project levels. • This dichotomy is reflected both from a theoretical and practical perspective through the publications and presentations of both groups. It translates through difficulties experienced in developing an organisational structure that reflects the dynamism of a project approach on strategy formation. • Little or no research has been conducted in the areas of the influence of project approach on organisational structures and strategies, or either on project managers’ identity issues. Additionally, very few PM papers are exported to the general management audience.