Recent developments in project-based organisations

Michel Thiry
*
, Manon Deguire
1
Valense Ltd., London, UK
Received 27 January 2007; accepted 6 February 2007
Abstract
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 con-
sistent structures, delivery of strategy and uniformisation of knowledge. However, it is generally recognized that project-based organi-
sations 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 inuence 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 elds 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 inuence organisational practices as
well as the obvious reverse.
2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd and IPMA.
Keywords: Project-based organisations; Governance; Strategy formation; Organizational structures; Program management; Portfolio management; PMO
1. Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to investigate and under-
stand the double loop eect of strategy, governance and
structure on project management and vice versa. To do
so, the paper provides an overview of the dierent terms
and denitions pertaining to project-based organisations
(PBOs) highlighting how they aim, but not always succeed,
to adopt consistent structures to facilitate delivery of strat-
egy [30,7,46]. It is many authors claim that the positivist
paradigms 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 plan-
ning [36,15,52]. 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 intensied the problem by further increasing
controls rather than facilitate implementation.
It is also well documented that the actual strategy pro-
cess, in contrast to project processes, is often not planned,
linear and rational, but rather ongoing, emergent and
enacted [15,52,6]. 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 pro-
jects are viewed as singular ventures [22] and that, taken
individually, these typically do not reect the organisa-
tions strategic intent.
Recent management literature puts forward new per-
spectives of corporate governance that promote a shift
from strictly shareholder to stakeholder and value
0263-7863/$30.00 2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd and IPMA.
doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.02.001
*
Corresponding author. Address: 116, Frameld Road, London W7
1NJ, UK (after June 30th). Tel.: +44 20 8123 1382, +44 7930 210 201
(mobile).
E-mail addresses: michel.thiry@valense.com (M. Thiry), manon.
deguire@valense.com (M. Deguire).
1
Tel.: +44 20 8133 8989, +32497 16 35 52 (mobile).
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman
International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 649658
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
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 organisations strategy [23]. Consequently, it
is surprising that a consistent review of the general man-
agement 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 litera-
ture. Project management papers are often conned to
either the project management journal (PMJ) or the inter-
national project management journal (IJPM); these are
seldom read by the larger management community. Simi-
larly, when questioned, few project managers seem to see
themselves as Managers as demonstrated with the
abundance of presentations at both the project manage-
ment institute (PMI) and international project manage-
ment association (IPMA) conferences and the
publications in the PMJ and IJPM. When these issues
arise, they focus mainly on the diculties and the impor-
tance, 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 out-
lined by such dialectic approaches as Foucault [24]. In this
sense, an identity is communicated to others in our inter-
actions with them. But this is not a xed thing within a
person, it is a shifting, temporary construction. The iden-
tity issue would support ndings from Keegan and Turner
[39] that language itself appears to be a strong barrier to
acceptance of more intuitive and emergent forms of man-
aging 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 collab-
orative relationship between the elds of project and gen-
eral 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 impor-
tance of establishing this two way relationship which rec-
ognises that project management practice can and will
inuence organisational practices as well as the obvious
reverse.
2. Context: project-based organisations (PBO)
PBOs have received increasing attention in recent years
as an emerging organisational form to integrate diverse and
specialized intellectual resources and expertise [14,30,20,
40,46]: in [69, p. 1475].
We rst provide an overview of the dierent terms and
denitions pertaining to project-based organisations
since the concept rst started becoming more popular in
the late 1990s. Firms in all types of industries are under-
taking projects as a growing part of their operations Hob-
day [30] refers to these as project-led organisations and
distinguishes them from project-based organisations. DeFil-
lippi and Arthur [14] refer to similar yet dierent project-
based enterprises and more recent denitions such as those
provided by Lindkvist [46] are discussed.
DeFillippi and Arthur [14] have identied project-based
enterprises as organisations that manage production func-
tions within a temporary project organisation setting, e.g.
cultural industries (lm production and theatre) and pro-
fessional services (public relations and events manage-
ment). For rms that conduct the majority of their
activities in project mode and/or privilege the project
dimensions over functional dimensions in their structure
and processes, Lindkvist [46] talks about project-based
rms. Expanding on Clark and Wheelwrights [9] four
organisational structures for new product development
organisations, Hobday [30] distinguishes six types of
organisational forms from functional to project-based.
He identies two types of project organisations: project-
led organisations, in which the needs of projects outweigh
the functional inuence on decision-making and represen-
tation to senior management, but some coordination
across project lines occurs (p. 878) and project-based
organisations, where the project is the primary business
mechanism for coordinating and integrating all the main
business functions of the rm (with) no formal functional
coordination across project lines (p. 874).
In this paper, we will use the term project-based organ-
isations (PBO), which seems to be the most accepted, and
concentrate on this type of organisation. Hobday [30]
describes PBOs as pure projectized organisations with no
functional links. For the purpose of this paper, project-
led organisations will be considered as included in the
PBO concept since the pure PBO is a relatively specialised
type of organisation. Additionally, PBOs can refer to either
entire rms (as in construction, consultancy and profes-
sional services) or multi-rm consortia or networks [29];
it is also possible that some large project-based organisa-
tions have functional support areas or that the PBO is
nested within subsidiaries or divisions of larger corpora-
tions [69].
Many PBOs, as they move from single to multiple pro-
ject management, have adopted enterprise level IT systems
that aim to manage the data produced at project level and
collate it at management level. Many have developed pro-
gramme or project management oces (PMOs) which can
have many functions, but are mostly used to generate data
and develop standardised project management practices
[2,28]. Others still, have implemented portfolio manage-
ment practices, which have been described as the coordi-
nated management of a collection of projects that may be
related or independent of each other [48] or the process
of analysing and allocating organisational resources to pro-
grammes and projects across the organisation on an ongo-
ing basis to achieve corporate objectives and maximise
value for the stakeholders [72]. In all these examples,
the focus is on the management of single projects, with
650 M. Thiry, M. Deguire / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 649658
enterprise level control focusing on traditional project level
measures (scope, quality, time and cost) and resource
allocation.
In the last few years, a number of project-based organ-
isations have shifted from a contained project manage-
ment model to a more strategic perspective. This shift has
generated a greater interest in stakeholder management
and the relatively new discipline of programme manage-
ment (PgM) has stemmed from the need to manage benets
from multiple interrelated projects [52,71]. This has created
new challenges for PBOs.
In the last few years, many PBOs have matured and pro-
ject managers are more and more often sought to exercise
organisational management roles. For example, a recent
issue of the PMNetwork [63] contains a whole 32-page sec-
tion on new career challenges and career development for
project managers and especially focuses on moving up.
Concurrently, individual project managers and organisa-
tions have progressively explored new knowledge and prac-
tices such as strategic management, value management,
portfolio management, value chain management and oth-
ers, to evolve beyond the traditional scope of project man-
agement as dened, for example, by the PMBOK Guide

[62] and other systematic approaches.

It is now well established that the growing popularity
of programme/portfolio management and the emergence
of PMOs as an organisational form have prompted an
accelerated movement towards project-based organisa-
tional structures [31,33,5]. Most organisations have imple-
mented PMOs and portfolio management structures that
have evolved from the traditional pyramidal organisa-
tional structure (see Fig. 1). In this model, PMOs are
playing a similar role to the quality department by mon-
itoring and controlling project performance and develop-
ing project management (PM) competencies and
methodologies [2,28,62]; portfolio and some PMOs are
playing the role of nance by allocating resources across
the organisation [62]. In this perspective, project-based
structures simply mimic traditional organisational struc-
tures, replacing management rhetoric with project rhetoric
and may therefore be losing some of the dynamism and
exibility attributes that characterise project and pro-
gramme management.
Recently, a number of project-based organisations have
shifted from a contained project management model to a
more strategic perspective. This shift has generated a
greater interest in stakeholder management
2
and the rela-
tively new discipline of programme(me) management
(PgM) has stemmed from the need to manage benets from
multiple interrelated projects [52,71].
Probably because the management of single projects is
well documented and its practice well understood in princi-
ple (though actual results still often disappoint), most cur-
rent research on organisational project management still
concentrates on singular aspects of the project approach.
The dichotomy between managing single versus multiple
projects has only just started producing empirical evidence
or theoretical debates, like the need to link strategy to pro-
jects and vice versa [52]; or the focus on social sciences the-
ories as opposed to engineering or systems analysis
[81,11,32]; or still, the management of human resource in
traditional and project-oriented organisations [27]; and
nally, the dichotomy between the project approachs
potential exibility and the desire of rms managers to
exercise control [7,46,17]. Additionally, projects, as well
as complex projects and programmes, which are generally
of a more strategic nature, are social constructs on which
there is currently substantial disagreement about how to
translate the individual project knowledge to multiple pro-
ject management and then to the management of strategic
organisational goals.
These disagreements, as well as the general inaccessibil-
ity of research to practitioners, seem to entrench practitio-
ners and practice writers in simple, easy to understand
mechanistic models of which the project management insti-
tutes a guide to the project management body of knowl-
edge [62] is a good example. For example recent project
management literature promotes the use of PBO models
based on the extension of project management tools and
grounded in linear relationships [12,18,41,45,50,67,75].
These views are exemplied in Fig. 1, which shows that
these models are very hierarchical in nature and foster
compartmentalisation and vertical control.
In recent years, a number of management authors have
claimed that these linear models are not adequate to man-
age the complex situations that are the essence of modern
organisations [44,68,79]. Reality is also quite dierent from
these simple models; based on their survey of 255 PMOs
Brian Hobbs and Monique Aubry from UQAM [28]
recently reported that the organisational reality surround-
ing PMOs is complex and varied. Organisations establish a
great variety of dierent PMOs to deal with their reality
(p. 7).
Hobday [30] has identied this situation in very clear
terms: The PBO is an intrinsically innovative form as it
creates and recreates new organisational structures around
the demands of each [. . .] project and each major cus-
tomer (p. 871). Other authors [6,7,46,74] have also
reported that the widespread practice of project and pro-
gramme management in organisations generate both emer-
gent strategies and behaviours and enacted business and
corporate strategies. On the other hand, if standard gover-
nance models are used, the main strength of project-based
organisations, which lies in coping with emerging situations
and responding quickly to changing client needs, can also
work against the wider interests of corporate strategy and
business coordination [7,30,27,46,74].
All this points to the fact that there is a need to widen
the perspective of PBOs and adopt more appropriate
organisational models for PBOs [17,83].
2
144 instances of the word stakeholder can be found in the PMBOK
Guide

3rd ed. [62] versus 108 in the PMBOK Guide

2000 [60].
M. Thiry, M. Deguire / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 649658 651
3. Evolving structures
In the organisational literature one of the current key
debates centres around two main perspectives of organisa-
tional purpose: some authors argue that it is the business of
business to make money and therefore to pursue share-
holders interests; others believe that companies exist to
serve the interests of multiple stakeholders [56,35,10,3].
Stakeholders interests and value creation are two major
issues that aect the make-up of organisations and, by con-
sequence, PBOs. The need for more integrated PBOs could
be provided by a coherent project governance approach. A
particular problem, which is poorly understood, is how to
create real added value for the organisation through the
interaction of the project portfolio, programmes and the
PMO, as well as the double loop eect of strategy on pro-
jects and programmes and their ongoing consequences on
strategy. This iterative to and from process between imple-
mented strategy through projects and the irreversibility of
the eect of completed projects on the organisation is yet
to be fully appreciated, researched and understood.
As shown in Fig. 2, a well integrated PBO would be
expected to display strong interrelationships between its
projects and both its business and corporate strategies; in
such an organisation project managers would be expected
to be appointed in senior management roles, or senior
managers would be expected to view project management
as an integrative process. A less integrated PBO should
reveal a focus on single project and multi-project manage-
ment would focus on resource allocation and data gather-
ing; project managers would be expected to play a purely
product delivery roles.
Fig. 1. Typical mechanistic PBO model as described in recent PM literature.
Fig. 2. Vertical and horizontal integration in PBOs.
652 M. Thiry, M. Deguire / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 649658
Based on the literature review, research and experience,
the authors have identied three major issues to improve
PBO implementation and the perception of project man-
agement at organisational level:
1. A horizontal integration process of projects across the
product life-cycle, from formulation of the business
strategy to delivery of business benets.
2. A vertical integration approach of projects across the
project portfolio, to link it to the corporate strategy.
3. Integrative project governance structures that close the
gap between corporate goals and product delivery.
Fig. 2 graphically displays these relationships.
3.1. Horizontal integration through programme management
(PgM)
Recent literature shows that PgM seems to have
emerged as a distinct discipline from PM as practitioners
and managers have started applying PM to the more stra-
tegic level or on the management of multiple interrelated
projects to produce strategic benets [74]. This contradicts
mainstream traditional project management literature that
still holds the view that programme management is just an
extension of project management where the same princi-
ples apply at every level of the hierarchy [80, p.52]. The
OPM3 makes an attempt at distinguishing projects and
programmes but states that the process groups are the
same in projects and programmes and weakly adds that
the challenge, however, is more complex [61, p.25].
One of the key issues with current programme management
mainstream literature is that it maintains a clear boundary
between the project and the business domains which can be
illustrated with the following armation:
Responsibility for the actual realisation of benets will
fall to the business managers in the relevant areas [. . .].
The achievement of benets should be assessed indepen-
dently from the process of delivery (that is the pro-
gramme) [8, Sec. 5.9].
Because of their long-term characteristic, programmes
will be subjected to contextual change and therefore must
include not only deliberate strategies (typically projects)
but also elements of emergent strategies. In emergent strat-
egies the focus must be on expected benets and the process
must display consistent patterns of actions over time
[49]. This requires a learning approach where results are
regularly appraised against benets during implementation
and changes are managed against these stated benets.
Recent research has shown that there is a need for a
decision management process in which anticipated results
are directly linked to the justication for the decision
(expected benets) and the means to support their delivery
(resources) [70,25]. It has also been observed that there is a
lack of communication between the strategic and tactical
levels of management [26,54,59,76]. This points to the need
for a strategic decision management process, to link stra-
tegic analysis and choice with strategy implementation.
Some authors have suggested programme management
could rise to this challenge [53,57,82].
In summary, taking into account most current deni-
tions, programme management could be labelled as:
The governance and harmonized management of a
number of projects and other actions to achieve stated
business benets and create value for the stakeholders.
[72,73]
3.2. Vertical integration through portfolio management
(PoM)
Organisations that adopt projects as a means to achieve
change and deliver results often nd it dicult to prioritise
projects and to make best use of their resources. Portfolio
management is a management approach that aims to align
project eorts with the corporate strategy and optimise the
ecient use of resources throughout the organisation.
Many strategic management writers have also identi-
ed the lack of interrelationships as a key problem in
portfolio decision-making as little attention is given to
business unit interdependencies [4,65]. Unfortunately,
the same can be said of project portfolio management,
which often relies on computer tools that collect and col-
late nancial and quantitative performance data from
individual projects without taking into account organisa-
tional interdependencies. It is well documented that deci-
sion-making at portfolio level is still resting on rst
degree variable results developed through the risk man-
agement toolbox, when upper level strategic decisions
have traditionally relied on a non-linear and very dierent
toolbox [34].
Portfolio management is a management approach for
project-based organisations; its objective is to guarantee
ecient use of resources in support of the corporate strat-
egy. As such, its role is to prioritize resources across poten-
tial and existing programmes and projects in a consistent
and stable way. A consistent prioritization model based
on the satisfaction of corporate needs and the wise use of
resources must be developed for each organisation. It
should take into account more than nancial feasibility
and consider a systems perspective of organisational eec-
tiveness and competitive advantage, as well as programme
and project achievability. Additionally the process has to
be implemented in a way that enables ongoing assessment
and realignment of resources and project; a exible,
dynamic decision model.
Recently, organisational management authors have
argued that organisations focus too much on facilitating
the optimal utilization of existing productive resources
and sharing of residual wealth, but do not take into
account processes by which resources are increased or
transformed [56,13,42,43]. Value creation is an essential
M. Thiry, M. Deguire / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 649658 653
element of good project portfolio management, privileging
not only programmes and projects that limit risks, but also
those that maximise opportunities. Except in stable mar-
kets or industries, good portfolio management, because it
is meant to deal with fairly stable environments, can only
be eective if combined with programme management
which is meant to deal with more turbulent environments
and emergent strategies.
In summary, taking into account most current deni-
tions, project portfolio management could be dened as:
The process of analysing and allocating organisational
resources to programmes and projects across the organi-
sation on an ongoing basis to achieve corporate objec-
tives and maximise value for the stakeholders. [72,73]
3.3. Governance through the programme management oce
(PMO)
Many organisations are using the PMO to manage mul-
tiple projects at organisational level. A recent study of over
750 PMOs by BIA [2] has indicated that the primary busi-
ness case for implementing a PMO is to achieve more suc-
cessful implementation of projects and to have predictable
and reusable tools, techniques and processes. Therefore,
PMO mandates most often include measurable improve-
ment in the management of projects on time, on budget
and meeting customer requirements. (p. 3). They also
identify as a major success factor, the ability to align pro-
jects with the strategy and organisational goals and deplore
the fact that PMOs are often used to consolidate and dis-
tribute data rather than provide a valuable service to the
organisation. The dichotomy is interesting in the sense that
based on this research, as well as that of Hobbs et al. [28],
the primary task of a PMO seems to be monitoring, report-
ing, standardizing processes and procedures as well as
ensuring training in project management skills, whereas
success factors seem to be linked to the alignment with
strategy. This operational view of the PMO is in line with
that of Kwak and Dai [45], who stated that: the PMO is
viewed as a central point for PM implementation through-
out an organisation as well as a supportive element that
applies PM tools and techniques eectively. Our view,
which is based on recent organisational developments
and practice, is that the PMO is a governance structure
for organisational project management, as shown in Fig. 3.
The studies described above show that most PMOs cur-
rently focus on the bottom part of the governance structure
which consists of optimising eort and gathering data as
well as setting standard processes and procedures. As more
recently outlined by several authors [27,46,74,78], we
believe that, in order to foster the exibility and dynamism
of the project environment and deal with turbulent envi-
ronments, the strategic link, which consists of interpreting
the strategy and oering the means to reformulate it, is cru-
cial. Strong statements in that direction have been made
recently by the European foundation for quality manage-
ment (EFQM) and the association for project mangement
(APM). The EFQM business excellence model [19] clearly
states that a sustainable organisation must rely on leaders
(who) develop and facilitate the achievement of the mission
and vision (and) develop values (p. 14) and be supported
by relevant policies (through which) the organisation
implements its mission and vision via a clear stakeholder
focused strategy (p. 14). The recently published APM
guide to governance of project management [1] identies
portfolio direction and project sponsorship as two of the
key four components of project governance; the two other
being project management and disclosure and Reporting.
4. Analysis
In the last 20 years, the essence of the rm has changed
with important consequences. Human capital (industry or
rm-specic skills and knowledge the know-how) has
become more and more important compared to physical
assets (the know-what), which is transferable and
mobile. Two other factors, depending on human capital,
have gained in importance: innovativeness and reputation
for quality. Finally, this has initiated a break-up of tradi-
tional vertically integrated rms and created new bound-
aries for legal, economic and technical areas [4,13,15,
37,56]. This means that the organisations boundaries are
becoming more uid and that they are more and more
dened by complementarity rather than by imposed struc-
tures. It also means that strategies are harder to implement
if they are structured from the top [7,46,79].
When set in traditional structures, project-based
organisations (PBO) display certain weaknesses like: the
diculty to coordinate organisational learning and devel-
opment [30,7]; the linking of projects to the organisational
business processes [20,46] and the dicult grouping of a
Fig. 3. The PMO as a governance structure.
654 M. Thiry, M. Deguire / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 649658
number of stakeholders from dierent thought worlds
[16] or the acceptance by traditional functional areas [17].
Few, if any, papers in the project community of research
and practice discuss or investigate these issues by challeng-
ing the current dominant organisational paradigms;
instead of looking for ways to adapt the organisation to
the project-based approach, they look for ways to force-
t the project approach to existing organisational para-
digms of which the matrix organisation is a good
example.
In turbulent environments, the relative autonomy of
project teams, constantly changing project conditions and
ambiguity of the organisational context often result in
emergent working practices that inuence the organisa-
tional environment [27,46,74,78]. This enactment process
results in two basic praxeological implications:
(a) the recognition that project management practice can
and will inuence organisational practices and, in so
doing;
(b) that an alternate position may open a door for a
redenition of organisations through projects by sup-
porting the adoption of new challenging organisa-
tional theories for project-based organisations.
The strategy process, in contrast to the project pro-
cesses, is often not planned, linear and rational, but rather
ongoing, emergent and enacted [15,52,6]. In project-based
organisations, this stimulates potential for projects to
shape or reshape strategies. Project-based organisations
further enhance this tendency because the project is the
primary business mechanism for coordinating and integrat-
ing all the main business functions of the rm [30, p.874].
In the same line of thought, Lindkvist [46] states that we
have to move beyond such bureaucratic and cultural ruling
in governing a highly individualized, project-based rm.
Sydow et al. [69] also express some of the challenges fac-
ing the PBO and their managers:
Project-based organizing seems to pose a recurring set
of dilemmas for managerial practice that have implica-
tions for the theory of project-based organisation struc-
ture and project organisation practices. One such
recurring dilemma or tension within project-based
organisations is between the autonomy requirements
of project participants and their embeddedness within
organisational and interorganisational settings that
demand integration of project activities within organisa-
tion command and control routines and/or interorgani-
sational coordination eorts. (p. 1475)
These inherent tensions observed in PBOs have been
reported to create a complex interplay system between
multiple projects and stakeholders with continually chang-
ing situations as well as decentralization and reorganisa-
tion of organisational frames which, in turn result in
increased knowledge diusion, distributed and emergent
work practices [7,46]; cf. [78]. Management research has
exposed pressures on decentralized organisations a char-
acteristic of PBOs to move towards loosely coupled
structures [55] and distributed knowledge [77] to ease ten-
sions. Some authors [30] argue that project-based organi-
sations are ideally suited to deal with complex and
turbulent environments; additionally, others [40] argue
that the use of traditional project management methods
stie innovation and that project-based organisations need
to adopt a more organic approach to succeed in turbulent
environments.
Go ro g and Smith [21], argue that strategic management
is based on continuous re-formulation and is a form of
ongoing adjustment, whereas projects concentrate on
achieving one single particular result within set time and
cost constraints. Wijen and Kor [82] write that programme
management strives for the achievement of a number of,
sometimes conicting, aims and has a broader corporate
goal than projects. Partington [57] argues that programmes
require integration across strategic levels, controlled exi-
bility, team-based structures and especially, an organisa-
tional learning perspective, which is able to accept
paradox and uncertainty. Murray-Webster and Thiry [53]
advocate a vision of interdependent projects and actions
which includes mechanisms to identify and manage emer-
gent change. Still, more recently, Lycett et al. [47], Jaafari
[32], Morris [51] and Thiry [71] have advocated programme
management as a strategic benet delivery process. Pro-
gramme management, contrary to project management, is
meant to deal with complex and ambiguous situations,
where a number of actors interact with each other at dier-
ent levels and is therefore essential to develop an integra-
tive approach to PBOs.
PBOs also create challenges for managerial practice.
These challenges have consequences for both the theory
and practice of project organisations. One area of tension
that has been identied by many authors [55,69,46,7] is
the autonomy requirements of project teams and the decen-
tralized, distributed knowledge and structure of projects
versus the organisational constraint to embed and integrate
project activities within their planning and control pro-
cesses and to coordinate strategies and resources at organ-
isational level. This tension is even greater and more
obvious in organisations that have adopted the dominant
mechanistic, control-based organisational paradigm.
Recently, Dovey and Fennech [17] have reported on a case
where, although the value of the PMO had been measured
and demonstrated, functional managers have succeeded in
sabotaging it and senior management has disbanded it.
They report strong preference for the traditional func-
tional organisational form and its sequential assembly line
approach to managing projects, over the autonomous
cross-functional team approach supported by the Pro-
gramme (p. 16). They conclude that upper management
did not support the PMO because managing power down-
wards is a taken-for-granted situation embedded in the
M. Thiry, M. Deguire / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 649658 655
culture of the organisation and the upwards management
of power created an unacceptable threat of political
disharmony.
Because traditional approaches to organisational change
and design have been dominated by stability, routine, and
order [78], there is a risk in trying to t projects into an
organisational iron cage and losing project managements
identity. In doing so, its main characteristics of exibility
and dynamism will be lost and its contribution to the man-
agement world much reduced. PBOs feature a number of
potentially interesting characteristics, among which: decen-
tralization, short-term emphasis and distributed work prac-
tices [7]; structural characteristics: strongly decentralized
but quite loosely coupled [55]; enacted strategies [6] distrib-
uted knowledge [77] and emergent working practices and
behaviors [46,74,78]. In a recent study on the role of
human resource management in project-oriented organisa-
tions, Huemann et al. [27] have conrmed that the envi-
ronment in a project-oriented organisation is more
dynamic and discontinuous.
A review of the general management literature, using the
academy of management (AoM) publications since 1999
demonstrates that PM does not appear as a keyword for
papers or conferences. When references to the project eld
are present it is more often through the concept of project-
based organisations (PBO) and solely under the operations
management heading. Projects, project management (PM)
and PBO do not appear in the management consulting or
strategic management tracks. Project management papers
are too often conned to either the project management
journal or the international project management journal
that are not usually read by the larger management com-
munity. As previously mentioned, many project managers
do not see themselves as Managers nor do they actively
take part in the general management communities, except
at individual level. Our literature review shows that this
relationship is the object of only very narrow systematic
study [27,58]. When references to the relationship between
projects and general management are made, it is often in
the context of practitioner focused PM publications and
conferences. Such titles as selling project management
(a whole track in the PMI EMEA global congress) are
appearing more and more in these conferences and publica-
tions, with paper titles such as: leading with power in a
project-based organisation, how to bridge the manage-
rial gap between strategy and projects, building the pro-
ject managers credibility etc. . . [64].
These observations support the research ndings from
Keegan and Turner [39] and Thomas et al. [76], who con-
clude that convincing managers of the ecacy of relaxing
assumptions of linearity and rationality may depend, ulti-
mately, on the development of concepts and vocabulary to
carry that process forward. Keegan and Turner [39] fur-
ther argue that the sensual descriptions of innovation
management given by respondents seem to contradict
their use of formal, rational, linear, mechanistic, and con-
trol laden concepts to describe real management. Lan-
guage would appear to be a strong barrier to acceptance
of more intuitive and emergent forms of managing in gen-
eral [39]. For these authors, models that are premised on
language and emphasise consistency, rationality, linearity
and formality, still seem to tap a chord with managers
and management is thus more easily conceived of in terms
of certainty, control, clarity and rationality. Interestingly,
Thomas et al. [76] oer the same message for project man-
agers in their quest to sell project management to
executives.
Studies in strategy implementation have demonstrated
that strategies are seldom implemented as planned
[15,49,66]. Strategy analysis, formulation and implementa-
tion are not a linear process, but the three activities are
going on concurrently all the time and strategies are there-
fore formed incrementally [15]. If programmes and projects
are used to implement strategies in relatively unstable envi-
ronments, PBOs are expected to be designed to cope with
emergence and enactment, therefore allowing great auton-
omy to programme managers, who would have responsibil-
ity for the business level strategy and displaying value chain
principles of cooperation and collaboration between the
stakeholders of a programme.
5. Conclusions
This paper concludes that an important aspect of PBOs
is yet unexplored and lies in the development of a collabo-
rative relationship between the elds 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 manage-
ment practice can and will inuence organisational prac-
tices as well as the obvious reverse.
Although PBO originally stemmed from the desire to
manage projects eectively without disrupting the tradi-
tional organisational model, the force tting of a project
environment into existing mechanistic models has cre-
ated negative eects that have minimized the positive
eects of a project model.
This has emphasised the dichotomy between organisa-
tional management and project management as well as
between the language and identity of managers at organ-
isational and project levels.
This dichotomy is reected both from a theoretical and
practical perspective through the publications and pre-
sentations of both groups. It translates through dicul-
ties experienced in developing an organisational
structure that reects the dynamism of a project
approach on strategy formation.
Little or no research has been conducted in the areas of
the inuence 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.
656 M. Thiry, M. Deguire / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 649658
References
[1] APM. Directing change: a guide to governance of project manage-
ment. High wycombe: association for project management; 2004.
[2] BIA (business improvement architects). The impact of implementing
a project management oce report on the results of the on-line
survey. Extracted from: www.bia.ca on 09-06-05; 2005.
[3] Blair MM. Closing the theory gap: how the economic theory of
property rights can help bring stakeholders back into theories of
the rm. J Manage Governance 2005;9:339.
[4] Bolman LG, Deal TE. Reframing organisations. San Francisco, CA:
Josey-Bass; 2003.
[5] Bredillet C. Beyond the positivist mirror: towards a project manage-
ment gnosis. In: Proceedings of the IRNOP IV conference. Turku,
Finland; 2004.
[6] Bredillet C, Thiry M, Deguire M. Enacting strategy through projects:
an archetypal approach. In: Proceedings of 2005, Munich, May.
European academy of management (EURAM); 2005.
[7] Bresnen M, Goussevskaia A, Swan J. Embedding new management
knowledge in project-based organisations. Organ Stud 2004;25(9):
153555.
[8] CCTA. Managing successful programmes. London, UK: central
computer and telecommunications agency (now called OGC-Oce of
government communications) CD Rom Version; 2000.
[9] Clark KB, Wheelwright SC. Organizing and leading heavyweight
development teams. Californian Manage Rev 1992;34(3):928.
[10] Clarke T, editor. Theories of corporate governance: the philosophical
foundations of corporate governance. Abingdon, OX, UK: Routel-
edge; 2004.
[11] Cooke-Davies T. De-engineering project management. In: Proceed-
ings of the IRNOP IV conference. Turku, Finland; 2004.
[12] Crawford JK. Strategic project oce, the: a guide to improving
organizational performance. Marcel Dekker; 2001.
[13] Dallago B. Corporate governance, governance paradigms, and
economic transformation. In: Proceedings of the institutional and
organizational dynamics in the post-socialist transformation confer-
ence, Amiens, 2526 January; 2002.
[14] DeFillippi RJ, Arthur M. Paradox in project-based enterprise: the
case of lmmaking. California Manage Rev 1998;40(2):12539.
[15] De Wit B, Meyer R. Strategy: process context, content an
international perspective. 3rd ed. London, UK: Thomson Learning;
2004.
[16] Dougherty D. Interpretative barriers to successful product innovation
in large rms. Organ Sci 1992;3:179202.
[17] Dovey K, Fenech B. The role of enterprise logic in the failure of
organisations to learn and transform: a case from the nancial
services industry. Management Learning: The Journal for Managerial
and Organizational Learning. Sage Publications, in press.
[18] EDS. Extracted from http://www.eds.com/services_oerings/so_pro-
ject_mgmt.shtml on 02-2004.
[19] European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM). The
EFQM excellence model. Retrieved 08 February 2004 from http://
www.efqm.org/model_awards/model/excellence_model.htm; 2000.
[20] Gann DM, Salter AJ. Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced
rms: the construction of complex products and systems. Res Policy
2000;29:95572.
[21] Go ro g M, Smith N. Project management for managers. Sylva, NC:
Project Management Institute; 1999.
[22] Grabher G. Temporary architectures of learning: knowledge gover-
nance in project ecologies. Organization studies special issue project
organisations, embeddedness and repositories of knowledge
2004;25(9):1491514.
[23] Grundy T. Strategy implementation and project management. Int J
Project Manage 1998;16(1):4350.
[24] Gutting Gary. Michel Foucault: a users manual. In: Gutting Gary,
editor. A Cambridge companion to Foucault. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press; 1994.
[25] Hartman FT, Ashra RA. Project management in the information
systems and information technologies industries. Project Manage J
2002;33(3):515.
[26] Hatch MJ. Organization theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press; 1997.
[27] Huemann M, Turner R, Keegan A. The role of human resource
management in project-oriented organisations. In: Proceedings of the
3rd PMI research conference. London, July; 2004.
[28] Hobbs B, Aubry M. A realistic portrait of the PMOs: the results of an
empirical investigation. In: Proceedings of the PMI North American
global congress 2005. Toronto, Canada, Newton Square, PA: Project
Management Institute; 2005.
[29] Hobday M. Product complexity, innovation and industrial organisa-
tion. Res Policy 1998;26:689710.
[30] Hobday M. The project-based organisation: an ideal form for
managing complex products and systems? Res Policy 2000;29:87193.
[31] Hodgson DE. Disciplining the professional: the case of project
management. J Manage Stud 2002:379.
[32] Jaafari A. Project management in the 21st century. In: Proceedings of
the IRNOP VI conference. Turku, Finland; 2004.
[33] Jamieson A, Morris PW. Moving from corporate strategy to project
strategy. The Wiley guide to managing projects. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons; 2004.
[34] Jennings D. Strategic decision making. In: Jennings D, Wattam S,
editors. Decision making An integrated approach. Harlow, UK:
Prentice Hall Pearson; 1998. p. 25182.
[35] Jensen MC. Value maximisation, stakeholder theory, and the
corporate objective function. Eur Financ Manage 2001;7(3):297317.
[36] Johnson G, Scholes K. Exploring corporate strategy. 4th ed. Hemel
Hempstead, UK: Prentice Hall Europe; 1997.
[37] Jugdev K, Thomas J. Blueprint for value creation: developing and
sustaining a project management competitive advantage through the
resource based view. In: Proceedings of the PMI research conference
2002. Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute; 2002.
[38] Kaplan RS, Norton DP. Having trouble with your strategy? Then
map it. Harvard Bus Rev 2000(SeptemberOctober):16776.
[39] Keegan A, Turner RJ. The organic management of innovation
projects. Comportamento Organizacional e Gestao 2001;7(1):5770.
[40] Keegan A, Turner RJ. The management of innovation in project-
based rms. Long Range Plan 2002;35:36788.
[41] Kendall GI, Rollins SC. Advanced project portfolio management and
the PMO: multiplying ROI at warp speed. NY: International Institute
for Learning and J. Ross Publishing; 2003.
[42] Kim WC, Mauborgne R. Value innovation: the strategic logic of high
growth. Harvard Bus Rev 2004(JulyAugust):17280.
[43] Kim WC, Mauborgne R. Blue ocean strategy. Harvard Bus Rev
2004:7685.
[44] Kurtz CF, Snowden DJ. The new dynamics of strategy: sense-making
in a complex-complicated world. IBM systems journal. Retrieved 04
December 2003, from www.ibm.com/services/cynen; 2003.
[45] KwakYH, Dai CXY. Assessingthe value of project management oces
(PMO). In: Proceedingsof therst PMIresearchconference. Paris; 2000.
[46] Lindkvist L. Governing project-based rms: promoting market-like
processes within hierarchies. J Manage Governance 2004;8:325.
[47] Lycett M, Rassau A, Danson J. Programme management: a critical
review. Int J Project Manage. Oxford, UK, Elsevier Science.
2004;22(4):28999.
[48] Martinsuo M, Dietrich P. Public sector requirements towards project
portfolio management. In: Proceedings of PMI research conference
2002. Seattle, Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute,
July; 2002.
[49] Mintzberg H, Waters JA. Of strategies, deliberate and emergent.
Strategic Manage J 1985;6(3):25772.
[50] Moore T. An evolving programme management maturity model:
integrating programme and project management. In: Project man-
agement institute 31st annual seminars and symposium proceedings,
PMI communications, Drexel Hill, PA; 2000.
M. Thiry, M. Deguire / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 649658 657
[51] Morris P. Moving from corporate strategy to project strategy:
leadership in project management. In: Proceedings of the PMI
research conference 2004, London, UK; 2004.
[52] Morris P, Jamieson A. Translating corporate strategy into project
strategy: realizing corporate strategy through project management.
Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute; 2004.
[53] Murray-Webster R, Thiry M. Managing programmes of projects. In:
Turner JR, Simister SJ, editors. Gower handbook of project
management. Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing; 2000.
[54] Neal RA. Project denition: the soft systems approach. Int J Project
Manage 1995;131:59.
[55] Orton DJ, Weick KE. Loosely coupled systems: a reconceptualiza-
tion. Acad Manage Rev 1990;15:20323.
[56] OSullivan M. The innovative enterprise and corporate governance.
Cambridge J Econ 2000;24:393416.
[57] Partington D. Implementing strategy through programmes of pro-
jects Gower handbook of project management, 3rd ed. In: Turner
Simister, editor. Chapter 2. Aldershot, UK, Gower Publishing; 2000.
[58] Pellegrinelli S, Partington D, Young M. Understanding and assessing
programme management competence. In: Proceedings of the PMI
EMEA global congress 2006. The Hague, Netherlands, May; 2003.
[59] Pellegrinelli S, Bowman C. Implementing strategy through projects.
Long Range Plann 1994;27(4):12532.
[60] PMI. A guide to the project management body of knowledge
(PMBOK

Guide). 2000 ed. Project Management Institute; 2000.

[61] PMI. Organizational project management maturity model (OPM3):
knowledge foundation. Newton Square, PA: Project Management
Institute; 2003.
[62] PMI. Guide to the PMBOK

. 3rd ed. Newton Square, PA: Project

Management Institute; 2004.
[63] PMI. Career track. PMNetwork, May 2005. Newton Square, PA:
Project Management Institute; 2005.
[64] PMI. Proceedings of the PMI EMEA global congress. Newton
Square, PA: Project Management Institute; 2006.
[65] Porter M. Competitive advantage. New York: Free Press (Simon &
Schuster); 2004[1985].
[66] Quinn JB. Strategic change: logical incremetalism. Sloane Manage-
ment Review 1978;1(20):721.
[67] Richards D. Implementing a corporate programme oce. In:
Proceedings of the 4th PMI-Europe conference, London, UK; 2001.
[68] Senge PM. The fth discipline the art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Currency Doubleday; 1994.
[69] Sydow J, Lindkvist L, DeFillippi R. Project-based organisations,
embeddedness and repositories of knowledge: editorial. Organ Stud
2004;25(9):147589.
[70] Thiry M. The development of a strategic decision management model:
an analytic induction research process based on the combination of
project and value management. In: Frontiers of project management
research and application: proceedings of PMI research conference
2002 (Seattle, July 2002). Newton Square, PA: Project Management
Institute; 2002. p. 48292.
[71] Thiry M. Programme management: a strategic decision management
process. In: Morris PWG, Pinto JK, editors. The Wiley guide to
project management. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 2004 [chapter
12].
[72] Thiry M. Managing portfolios of projects. In: Turner JR, editor.
Gower handbook of project management. Aldershot, UK: Gower
Publishing; 2006 [chapter 4].
[73] Thiry M. Managing programmes of projects. In: Turner JR, editor.
Gower handbook of project management. Aldershot, UK: Gower
Publishing; 2006 [chapter 3].
[74] Thiry M, Deguire M. Programme management as an emergent order
phenomenon. In: Proceedings of the 3rd PMI research conference.
London, July; 2004.
[75] Thiry M, Matthey A. Delivering business benets through projects,
programmes, portfolios and PMOs. In: Proceedings of the Asia-
Pacic PMI global congress 2005. Singapore: Project Management
Institute; 2005.
[76] Thomas J, Delisle C, Jugdev K, Buckle P. Selling project
management to senior executives: whats the hook? In: Project
management research at the turn of the millennium: proceedings of
PMI research conference 2000. Sylva, NC: Project Management
Institute; 2000.
[77] Tsoukas H. The rm as a distributed knowledge system: a construc-
tionist approach. Strategic Manage J 1996;17(Winter Special Issue):
1125.
[78] Tsoukas H, Chia R. On organisational becoming: rethinking organ-
isational change. Organ Sci 2002;13(5):56782.
[79] Weick KE. Making sense of the organization. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing; 2001.
[80] Wideman RM. A management framework for project, programme
and portfolio integration. Traord, Victoria, BC; 2004.
[81] Winch G. 2004. Rethinking project management: project organisa-
tions as information processing systems? In: Proceedings of the 3rd
PMI research conference, London, July; 2004.
[82] Wijen G, Kor R. Managing unique assignments. Gower Publishing;
2000.
[83] Zubo S, Maxmin J. The support economy: why corporations are
failing individuals and the next episode of capitalism. New York:
Allen Lane; 2002.
658 M. Thiry, M. Deguire / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 649658