On Practices: Linking Projects and Entrepreneurship

Arvi Kuura1, Robert A. Blackburn2 and Rolf A. Lundin3

Abstract
This article aims to explore the essential links between project management and entrepreneur-
ship and to indicate potential synergies in both their practice and academic research areas.
In terms of practice, planning and implementation of projects and acts of entrepreneurial
behaviour are both generally considered to be ‘ancient’ activity. Yet, surprisingly both areas
have developed quite separately in the academic literature. Both areas are relatively young
within the social sciences but are undergoing development. Entrepreneurship has been
characterized as eclectic, without an overarching conceptual framework etc. and having
permeable boundaries; and project management has been called a ‘Cinderella subject’ because
of immature (or even missing) theory and memes like “if you can move a mouse you can
manage a project” abound. However, both areas are emerging and promising, and it is arguable
that common characterisations – negative and positive – for one are also valid for the other.
Thus, this paper seeks to explore the links between the two areas. There is (almost) a missing
link between the two areas from an academic point of view. In contrast, there are organic links
in practical work. As projects are designed to deal with changes or innovations, and since
entrepreneurship and innovation are also inherently linked, there is a prima facie case for a link
between projects and entrepreneurship. Another interlocking dimension is singularism-
pluralism. From a ‘classical’ point of view an entrepreneur is the owner and the manager of an
enterprise, but in this modern world complex, multi-level ownership structures are expanding,
and scholars speak about entrepreneurial teams, as well as habitual – serial and portfolio –
entrepreneurs. A parallel trend can be seen in the ‘project world’ where multi-project
management is proliferating. The main differential is probably the permanent-temporary
dilemma. Entrepreneurship is used to be based on permanent processes and organisations, but
the average ‘life expectancy’ of SMEs is indeed quite short, high failure rates are common
topics in entrepreneurship literature. Hence, the average life cycles of many SMEs could be
compared to projects (or even programmes).
In practice, new businesses may be regarded as projects. Entrepreneurs act as project leaders
in certain stages like start-up, (re-)development, relocation, closing and renewal. However, the
project-related aspects of the entrepreneurship process are almost absent in the
entrepreneurship literature and vice versa. In our opinion, it is possible and necessary to
overcome this lacuna and we try to show that there are several potentials for synergies in
developing theory and practice for mutual learning.
Keywords: entrepreneurship; project management.

1
Corresponding author – Senior Lecturer of Entrepreneurship, Pärnu College, University of Tartu – Ringi
35 80010 Pärnu, Estonia. Tel. +372 44 505 32 or + 372 52 87 321 E-mail arvi.kuura@ut.ee
2
Professor, Small Business Research Centre, Kingston University, Kingston Hill, Surrey KT2 7LB, UK. Tel.
+44 20 8417 9000 Ext: 65354 (or 65247) E-mail:R.Blackburn@kingston.ac.uk
3
Professor of Business Administration, Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping University –
P. O. Box 1026 SE-55111 Jönköping, Sweden Tel. +46 36 10 17 06 E-mail Rolf.A.Lundin@jibs.hj.se

1
An overview of entrepreneurship and project management
In this article we try to demonstrate that entrepreneurship and projects (or project manage-
ment) are inherently linked. As a result we argue that there are several potentials for synergies
in developing theory and practice for mutual learning. For that purpose we shall examine both
entrepreneurship and project management along two dimensions – as practice fields and as
academic disciplines.
Entrepreneurship is considered to be an ‘ancient’ practice field. For instance, Bitros and
Karayiannis (2004) analysed the texts of Athenian writers (particularly philosophers as Aristotle
and others) and concluded that already ancient Athens applied a consistent policy in support of
entrepreneurial activities. In the literature one can find a number of different definitions of
“entrepreneurship”, as well as of “entrepreneur”. The latter is contested ground because
different terms, such as “self-employed”, “small business owner/manager” are often used
interchangeably. An overview of widespread definitions of entrepreneurship is provided by
Davidsson (2004) and even wider overview on ‘entrepreneurial’ definitions (including
“entrepreneur” and “entrepreneurial” issues such as process, culture, etc.) by Lundström and
Stevenson (2005). As a longer discussion of ‘entrepreneurial’ definitions would not fit in the
scope of this article, we will follow with latter authors (ibid), considering it useful to adopt the
process perspective. We also agree with Davidsson (2004) who notes that a good description
has been provided by Drucker (1985) who associates entrepreneurship with innovative and
change-oriented behaviour rather than merely starting, or running, a business. Indeed, Drucker
emphasises that entrepreneurship may also take place in large and old enterprises given that
the emphasis is on a mindset rather than just new venture creation. Hence, in this view the
difference between entrepreneurial and ‘unentrepreneurial’ businesses (which are usually large
and established) consists in their willingness to innovate.
Attempts by policy and government agencies to define entrepreneurship have tended to
acknowledge the underlying concepts of ‘innovation’ and ‘change’. The definition of the
European Commission (2006), for example, specifies entrepreneurship as “… a dynamic and
social process where individuals, alone or in collaboration, identify opportunities for innovation
and act upon these by transforming ideas into practical and targeted activities, whether in a
social, cultural or economic context.” We shall follow mainly this definition but in doing so we
do not want to discredit other widely quoted definitions and properties of entrepreneurship
such as new entry, creation of (new) organisation, profit-seeking and risk-taking, etc.
Hence, in reviewing the above literature we define entrepreneurship as changes in existing
practices and processes, or the establishment of new activities, that lead to changes in the
economy and society.
The significance of entrepreneurship seems to be almost undeniable in academic and policy
literatures. Although wide definitions of entrepreneurship are plentiful, measuring this activity
is problematic. There tends to be an emphasis on measuring business formation and numbers
of SMEs etc., rather than process activities. For example, the European Commission (2010) has

2
stated that SMEs4 are significant contributors to macro-economic growth and employment
generation. Moreover, SMEs and new enterprises are crucial in the innovation process, either
as adaptors of existing technologies, or part or a wider innovation network, collaborating with
suppliers and clients (Fayolle 2007).
SMEs account for 99.8 % of the total number of enterprises across the EU and there is almost
no difference between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ Member States. In the EU the average share of SMEs
in private sector employment is 67.4 % but (in terms of employment generation) there are
small differences between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ Member States (67.2 % and 68.6 %, respectively).
These facts briefly show the positive contributions of SMEs to economic and social
development. As the differences between well and less developed countries (‘old’ and ‘new’ EU
members) are not significant, this could be generalised for other countries. Finally, the positive
impact of SMEs outweighs their shortcomings – generally known facts that in most cases, large
enterprises outperform SMEs in labour productivity, profitability and other common para-
meters. (European Commission 2010)
Given the contributions of SMEs to the economy, public policy has tended to focus on stra-
tegies to enable new firm formation, development and growth through DG Enterprise. At the
same time, however, the EU has sought to promote entrepreneurship through the Entre-
preneurship Action Plan (Commission of the European Communities, 2004). Whilst SME policy
aims to strengthen existing SMEs, entrepreneurship policy aims to stimulate higher levels of
entrepreneurial activity by influencing a greater supply of new entrepreneurs. Compared with
SME policies, entrepreneurship policies have a broader focus: SME policies are primarily targe-
ted on existing (small) businesses, whilst entrepreneurship policies seek to capture and stimu-
late potential entrepreneurs. This also means that entrepreneurship policies are more process-
oriented, while SME policies concentrate on organisations (Lunström and Stevenson, 2005).
For the purpose of this article, we adopt a broader meaning of the concept of entrepreneurship
on the grounds that entrepreneurship and small (and medium) business activities have much in
common. Their conformities are apparently reflected in research agendas (Blackburn &
Kovalainen 2009). Moreover, acknowledging the significance or impact of entrepreneurship,
most sources (including those cited before European Commission 2010) talk about the share of
SMEs in the total number of enterprises and the contribution of SMEs to the generation of
employment and GDP or value added, etc. There are obvious reasons for that: the SMEs (and
SME sector) are easily identifiable as they have a clear and verifiable characteristic (the number
of employees, annual turnover, etc.). As the data on SMEs can be identified and measured in
published statistics, this leads to analysts of entrepreneurship inadvertently slipping into
reinforcing the equating of entrepreneurship with small (and medium) business. In the brief
discussion (above) of definitions of entrepreneurship we recognised that this may not be
analytically satisfactory, or indeed reflect reality: many small businesses are not entre-
preneurial in the sense of being innovative and stimulating change in the economy and society
whilst some large organizations can. Hence, we have to take care not to simply suggest that
entrepreneurship is a function of organization size.

4
SMEs stands for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises. There are several quantitative criteria but we use the
‘European’ definition (European Commission 2003).

3
As an academic discipline, entrepreneurship is much younger than its practice. According to
several authors (as Katz 2003, Cooper 2003, etc.), its history (in the modern sense) began in
mid-20th century when Myles Mace and Peter Drucker started their first entrepreneurship
courses. As usual, nothing comes from nothing, and entrepreneurship has also a pre-historic
period. For instance, Katz (2003) provided an extensive (more than 100-item) chronology of
entrepreneurship education (in the USA), starting from 1876. Murphy et al (2006) presented a
comprehensive (and illustrated) conceptual history of entrepreneurial thought, discerning three
major periods: prehistoric (until the end of the 18th century), economic (from the end of the
18th to the 1970s) and multidisciplinary (since the 1980s).
A number of academics have commented on the condition of the field and its level of maturity.
For some, the absence of clearly defined conceptual boundaries of entrepreneurship denoted a
lack of maturity (Shane & Venkataraman 2000). Without clear definitions and a focus,
entrepreneurship suffers from a lack of intellectual identity and therefore, levels of theorising,
hindering its legitimacy (see Busenitz et al 2003). Characterising the field of entrepreneurship
in the early 21st century, Acs and Audretsch (2003) note that it includes such a wide-ranging set
of topics that it is impossible to include them all under one umbrella. On the other hand, some
have argued in favour of a permeable field which draws upon and contributes to mainstream
fields (Blackburn & Kovalainen 2009). This school of thought argues that there is another,
converse way for the field to develop: to draw upon the ‘mainstream’ disciplines, such as
economics, sociology, psychology, etc., and use flavour from other business disciplines, such as
management, marketing, finance5, etc. and then feed back into such disciplines.
In terms of the status of the field, Davidsson (2003) perceived progress which is confirmed by a
growth in papers on entrepreneurship in highly respected, mainstream journals, also manuals
and textbooks compiled, providing the field with more of a common body of knowledge6. This is
evidence of conceptual developments that attract attention. Furthermore, taking stock of
European entrepreneurship research, Welter and Lasch (2008) pointed out the need to ground
entrepreneurship research in its national context. According to their opinion, the field can
benefit from accepting wider diversity instead of looking for “norm” theories, concepts,
methods, etc. In our opinion, this is another sign of maturity when attention drifts from
generalized observations into making use of a wide variety of contexts for entrepreneurship.
Thus we can conclude that the once ‘emerging field’ is now beyond its adolescence but is not
yet as well established as mainstream fields.
Project Management is also an ‘ancient’ phenomenon, used throughout the recorded human
history and most likely even before it. Understandably, there is little recorded evidence from
the pre-historic period but Cleland & Ireland (2006) cite three types of evidence – artefacts (like
the Great Pyramids), cultural strategies (like the Magna Carta), and literature and documents.
More recent examples of project management span major civil engineering projects, such a
railway construction, although in the 19th century these still tended to be planned and
organised by engineers themselves rather than project managers.

5
Finance is probably a good example of symbiosis, because a sub-discipline – entrepreneurial finance – has
emerged – see, for instance, the website of The Academy of Entrepreneurial Finance (http://www.aoef.org/).
6
It is probably a coincidence, but the phrase ‘body of knowledge’ is very common in Project Management field.

4
However, when project management actually became recognised as a subject field, or
profession in itself, is open to debate. Artto et al (2006) distinguished three viewpoints to a
project as: 1) tasks or phases in a process, 2) products or work breakdown structures, 3)
temporary organizations. The first two encompass most aspects that appear in ‘classical’
definitions of a project, but the third is quite a novel aspect, introduced by Lundin & Söderholm
(1995).
In addition, we point out another trend in the understanding of ‘a project’. Engwall (2003), also
Turner et al (2010) called into question the popular notion (or ‘mantra’) that perceived projects
to be unique. It might be true in some particular cases (see Mote et al 2010) but in practice
most projects are actually repetitive and have minimal uniqueness. The trend in current
understandings of the nature of projects is that the uniqueness draws back but as a
counterbalance, the temporality pops up.
In the literature one can find also several definitions for project management but again, Artto
et al (2006) have distinguished also three viewpoints to ”what is project management” – it can
be seen as: 1) tools and documentation, 2) competences and characteristics (of the project
manager) and 3) knowledge areas or (sub-)processes. The first is the most classical meaning,
which is nowadays criticised, for example by Turner et al (2008) who reproved such common
memes as “If you can move a mouse you can manage a project”. But yet, as we provided a
definition of entrepreneurship, we offer also a suitable definition of project management.
“Project management is the process by which projects are defined, planned, monitored,
controlled and delivered such that the agreed benefits are realised. … Projects bring about
change and project management is recognised as the most efficient way of managing such
change.” (APM BOK 2006: 3). As seen, it accentuates process and innovation – like the
definition of entrepreneurship given above.
Continuing with the history of project management, it is appropriate here to point out the claim
by Cleland and Ireland (2006) that project management, in whatever form, even rudimentary,
has been used to create change or deal with change in societies. This is important because it
links project management to innovation since ancient times. But also here it is necessary to
take into account that not all projects are innovative – as not all small-medium and new
businesses are innovative or entrepreneurial.
However, we should mention that there is no agreement on the history of project management
even though most would trace the most recent history back to either the construction industry,
or the so called military-industrial complex. Possibly a break-through can be expected soon
(Söderlund & Lenfle 2011). Nevertheless, most scholars7 in the field agree that modern project
management came into being in 1950s and this concerns both the practice field and the
academic discipline. The take-off can be connected with the invention of planning techniques
for major and complicated projects – how can one employ techniques to handle project
implementation efficiently? As project management is used to be a ‘practice-driven’ field, the
practice and academic sides are well-linked but this has not been so clear-cut during all the

7
A rather good overview is presented by afore-cited Cleland and Ireland (2006). In its early rudimentary forms
project management was used over many centuries – for the creation of artefacts and cultural enhancements, but
the literature started to reflect the evolving theory and practice of this discipline only in 1950s.

5
about 60 years history of the discipline. According to Lundin (2011a), more than 20 years ago
research in the field was very scattered and bifurcated – almost totally practice-oriented or
(with some exceptions) purely theoretical and abstract. The latter was understandably
unintelligible for most practitioners and therefore they did not pay much attention to research
side. But the situation has changed by now and people in project practice are so much
interested in research developments that researchers are not always able (or willing) to meet
their expectations.
Fruitful partnership of practice and research has probably caused intensive development in the
field of project management and the discipline has evolved noticeably during the past decades.
Turner et al (2010) discern nine schools in project management and show that the needs of
projects and project management are much more diverse than they are used to be in older or
‘classical’ understandings8. They believe that nine schools provide a perspective on the theory
of project management and support for the development of the theory; and can help
practitioners gain a much wider understanding of the key issues on their projects. , However,
Turner et al (2008) noted9 that the academic (management) community does not treat project
management seriously. This is mainly because of claims as “There is no theory of Project
Management” – if so, it cannot be an academic discipline. But after all, they (ibid) claimed that
the theory of project management exists but is immature.
The significance of projects (and/or temporary organisations) and project management in
contemporary societies is evidently remarkable and growing. According to Bredillet (2010),
Gareis (2005) and many others, the past 60 years can be described by increasing use of projects
for achieving the strategic objectives of organizations, as well as for dealing with increasing
complexity, uncertainty, ambiguity, etc. in the contemporary socio-economic environment.
Projects (and other temporary settings) are used to mobilise resources, including
competencies, to effectuate strategic change and thereby competitive advantage. Until the
mid-1980s, they were limited to engineering, construction, defence, and information
technology, but by now, they have diversified into many other (perhaps all) areas.
The importance of projects and project management can also be characterised in a quantitative
way. It is estimated that at least 20% of global economic activity10 takes place as projects, and
in some emerging economies it exceeds 30% (Turner et al 2010; Bredillet 2010). In many public
and private organizations, some operating expenditures are also project-based. According to
the findings of Turner et al (2009), on average, projects account for one third of the turnover of
SMEs. Taking into account the share of SMEs in the whole economy (in the EU the SMEs
generate 56% of GDP) they claimed that the average overall share of projects in world economy

8
These older or ‘classical’ understandings may include (criticised already before) memes as “If you can move a
mouse you can manage a project”, also characterised by the ‘iron’ or ‘golden’ triangle of project management: the
main success criteria are time, cost and scope/quality but not the value to the project sponsor/owner, etc. which
certainly belittles the richness of project management, as well as the role of the project managers.
9
They (ibid) provide examples: no department in business schools in the U.S. has Project Management in its name;
Journal of Management does not include Project Management in its list of key words. Because of all this they (ibid)
called PM a ‘Cinderella subject’.
10
Their estimations rely on World Bank data, indicating that 22% of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP) is
gross capital formation which is almost entirely project-based. But in India this is 34% and in China even 45%.

6
is more than one third, which is quite significant. Thus, projects and project management make
an important (and probably growing) contribution to global value creation.
The importance of projects and project management are also characterised by such
phenomena as ‘projectization’, ‘projectification’ and ‘project orientation’. Projectization
indicates the extent to which a business is based on projects and the degree the project way of
working pervades practice within an organisation (Müller 2009). The term projectification was
introduced by Midler (1995) in his seminal article where he examined Renault’s path towards
project orientation. The concept of project orientation was taken from Gareis (1989). According
to this concept, companies are becoming more project-oriented. This trend lies on the
simultaneous performing of a network of projects which creates a demand for a new approach
– management by projects. Later Gareis (2002) expanded this concept also to societies, using a
construct of ‘project-oriented society’ and claimed that more projects are performed in new
social areas, such as (small) municipalities, associations, and even families. Maylor et al (2006)
explained that the main idea of projectification was not so much a trend in the organising of
work through projects but in concurrent organisational changes. In addition Maylor et al
introduced a new concept – programmification, standing for implementation of programmes
and portfolios of programmes as management mechanisms in organisations. In other words,
they (ibid) brought in the multi-project dimension, which (in their own words) should be an
area of great interest for both practitioners and scholars.
Projectization is a typical trend for neo-industrial organisations for several reasons, spanning
supply and demand in the economy. In other words, there are push and pull effects, which can
act simultaneously. For instance, an increase in service activities has driven to the use of more
temporary solutions (projects) in organisations. So projectization has a visible role in many
significant developments in contemporary economy and society, including in the labour market.
(Ekstedt et al 2005) Moreover, Lundin (2011b) found not only the number of projects to be
increasing, but also new areas of application to emerge. An example of a new application area
is the EU: in a modern view it is not a question of government but of governing – i.e. activities.
Noting the on-going (and probably accelerating) projectization and projectification (or just
proliferation of projects), it is astonishing that most governments do not care about project
management, although there are a few (according to some indicators) positive examples such
as China, the UK and Australia (Turner et al 2008). Bredillet (2010) insists that developing
relevant competence at all levels, from individual to society, is the key to better performance
and brings out educational programs in project management, which have (at least
quantitatively) grown rapidly11 during the recent decades. We have also seen a growth in the
number of academic journals on project management, including International Journal of Project
Management (Elsevier/IPMA); Project Management Journal (Wiley/PMI); and (since 2008)
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business.
To sum up with the state of entrepreneurship and project management, we provide a brief
comparison presented in Table 1.

11
He (ibid) brings an example - within the last three years, the Chinese Ministry of Education has supported the
creation of 120 master’s programs in project management to support their rapid economic development. This
example was also used by Turner et al (2008) when pointing out China as a positive example.

7
Table 1. Comparison of the state of entrepreneurship and project management
Aspects compared
A) as practice fields
- history (origin)
- significance
- public support (policies)
- profession
B) as academic disciplines
- history (origin)
- nature
- state of theory
- main linkages
C) relations between
practice and academic
side (theory)
Entrepreneurship
ancient, as old as mankind
great and (probably) growing:
on an average about 2/3 of
private sector employment
and more than a half of value
added
all public bodies (from the EU
and states to communities)
implement coherent policies
via support systems/schemes,
significant resources allocated
up to mid-1970s amateurism,
afterwards a certain degree of
professionalism, supported by
the friends of SMEs, which is
not extended to how to make
entrepreneurship more
efficient
having roots in other (general)
disciplines but emerged in the
middle of 20th century
inter-/multi-disciplinary field
still accused of lacking a solid
theoretical basis (and/or being
immature) but significantly
evolving within the last
decades – bifurcated into
macro aspects on entre-
preneurship and micro
oriented approaches
Innovation
growing recognition of
practising bodies by academia
through (inter)national
organizations (e.g. USASBE;
ICSB/ECSB; ISBE) but (so far)
very little interest in academia
on the part of practice
Project Management
ancient, as old as mankind
great and (probably) growing:
on an average about 1/3 of
world economy is done via
projects (in fast developing
countries even more)
almost no public support (only
a few exceptions), but strong
professional organizations and
support for appropriate
planning techniques from for
instance EU organizations
up to mid-1970s amateurism,
afterwards professionalism,
rapidly growing number of
(certified) professionals, who
seek support for professional
procedures
having roots in other (general)
disciplines but emerged in the
middle of 20th century
inter-/multi-disciplinary field
still accused of lacking a solid
theoretical basis (and/or being
immature) but significantly
evolving within the last
decades – bifurcated into
project work and planned
behaviour and project as a
form for organizing
innovation
coming closer (during the past
20 years) through project
academies and special
cooperative events, and vast
and growing interest in
academia on the part of
practice
8
As seen in Table 1, the two examined practice fields as well as academic disciplines have a lot in
common – in terms of history, significance, nature, status of theory, etc. The main (and only)
distinctive aspect seems to be the public support and policies – in this respect, entrepreneur-
ship is flourishing while project management is developing beyond its ‘Cinderella’ status.

Existing linkages between entrepreneurship and project management

The overview on entrepreneurship and project management presented in the first section (and
summarised in Table 1) brought into spotlight a number of similarities between the two
practice fields and academic disciplines. Set against this background, it is somewhat surprising
that the two academic disciplines have ostensibly, hitherto, developed quite separately. For
example, widely quoted names in entrepreneurship do not appear in project management
literature and vice versa. Keyword ‘Project Management’ (if there is such keyword12) gives little
(or even no) search results in entrepreneurship literature and vice versa.
Yet, there are some connections between the two areas which are worth mentioning. First,
there is an exception – a researcher whose name does appear both in entrepreneurship and
project management literature – Dennis Slevin. He has published, for instance, in "International
Journal of Project Management” and "Journal of Business Venturing"; he is a member of the
U.S. Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship and the Project Management
Institute. (University of Pittsburgh 2009) In entrepreneurship his name relates prima facie with
the construct of entrepreneurial orientation13. In project management he has authored and
edited several popular books (mostly with David Cleland and/or Jeffrey Pinto). However, he is
still a rare exception.
However, a closer look at the existing academic literature reveals some historical linkages
between entrepreneurship and project management. These ‘early’ linkages might be not
explicit – the French-origin ‘entrepreneur’ may be not used in project management literature
and projects (or temporary organisations) not mentioned in entrepreneurship literature – but
in essentially the concepts used may have synergies.
For instance, Lundin and Söderholm (1995) outlined their theory of temporary organization,
based on four interrelated basic concepts – time, task, team and transition (four T-s) and four
sequencing concepts – action-based entrepreneurialism, fragmentation for commitment-
building, planned isolation and institutionalized termination. It is obvious that the first
sequencing concept has essential relation to entrepreneurship, because there is a need for an
entrepreneur to initiate and provide the impetus for the creation of a temporary organization.
Lundin and Söderholm also stressed on differences between repetitive tasks (providing a typical
example – construction industry) and unique tasks. In the case of repetitive tasks the
procedures for initiation are institutionalized and the process is a (more or less) day-by-day
activity14. In bigger organisations (with multi-level management hierarchies) such processes are

12
Turner et al (2008) brought an example – Journal of Management has not keyword ‘Project Management’.
13
Wiklund (1998) has provided quite a comprehensive (especially in Table 1) literature overview on this.
14
In project-related literature such activities are named in different ways – permanent activities (or business),
business-as-usual etc. Also the permanent organisations are called differently – parent organizations etc.

9
normally managed by lower-level officials and do not require involvement of the entre-
preneur15, and these processes are not entrepreneurial in essence. But the unique tasks require
‘genuine’ entrepreneurialism and the fulfilment of entrepreneurial role, characterised by risk-
taking etc. Entrepreneurial behaviour is mostly based on ‘action’ and this has also an important
place in rhetoric, helping in legitimatisation of temporary organisational settings (ibid).
Significant attempts to relate entrepreneurship and project management have been made by
Lindgren and Packendorff (2002). They pointed out that projects can be seen as structured
processes of social interaction, intended to bring something new to their originate environ-
ment. Studying these innovative projects will help to delimit the entrepreneurial processes. The
idea is that (most of) the existing operations within organisations were developed in projects –
what are considered as ‘entrepreneurial acts’ – but when the ‘entrepreneurial act’ (project) is
over, its result is diffused into permanent context for further exploitation. Such construct is
actually following the ideas of division of roles between permanent and temporary
organisational settings (Lundin & Söderholm 1995; Ekstedt et al 2005).
Developing further their ideas Lindgren and Packendorff (2003) proposed a project-based view
of entrepreneurship, characterised by three keywords: action-orientation, collectivity and
seriality. The first is standing for the organising of entrepreneurial acts. This has a place also in
traditional views but mainly in terms of individual actors starting enterprises. Lindgren and
Packendorff argued that business start-ups are only one form of entrepreneurial acts –
entrepreneurship can also happen in many other forms – and as those acts are temporary by
nature, they should be treated as projects. Besides, they emphasised that entrepreneurial acts
should be viewed rather collective, organised by several actors in temporary networks. The last
aspect is probably less novel – treating the (new) venture process as a social rather than
individual phenomenon is quite common in the entrepreneurship literature (Landström 2008).
The most novel aspect in the project-based view by Lindgren and Packendorff (2003) is seriality.
Considering that entrepreneurial acts are temporary (projects) means that during their lifetime
people can perform several entrepreneurial acts and do it in different ways and with different
results. Nowadays an increasing share of entrepreneurs starts several businesses during their
lives and/or even run several businesses in parallel. The authors (ibid) also pointed out an
important fact that entrepreneurial acts may also happen elsewhere than in new businesses
but also in existing organisations, what could be public authorities, universities, voluntary
associations etc. Moreover, entrepreneurial acts might happen also in (informal) subgroups of
society and even in the private life of individuals.
The most novel aspect of Lindgren and Packendorff (2003) – seriality – is actually well-known in
entrepreneurship literature as serial entrepreneurship, representing one kind of habitual entre-
preneurship (see Ucbasaran et al 2008). Serial entrepreneurs exit one business before owning
a subsequent one; another kind – portfolio entrepreneurs – start or purchase and retain owner-
ship of several private businesses concurrently (or in parallel).
Linkages between entrepreneurship and project management have been also observed by
several other authors.

15
In common understanding, an entrepreneur is a person who owns and manages his/her business.

10
An interesting attempt to link entrepreneurship and project management has made by
DeFillippi and Spring (2004). They linked these two fields through competencies, pointing out
four ‘project entrepreneurial competencies’ (visioning, resourcing, organizing and sustaining)
and discussing the possible career paths of ‘project entrepreneurs’. They concluded that project
managers are probably able to learn the skills of the project entrepreneur, if they discover and
cultivate the values and aspirations that define an entrepreneurial role within project-based
enterprises and an entrepreneurial career within the project-management profession.
Kwak and Anbari (2008) examined the impact of allied disciplines on project management. They
conducted extensive literature reviews and discerned “Technology Management and Entre-
preneurship, and Information Technology / Systems (IT/IS)” as one of influencing domain.
Within this domain they pay less attention to entrepreneurship, speaking more about
‘technovation’. But anyway, they again fasten the relations of project management and
innovation but (as discussed in first section) innovation and entrepreneurship are also related.
Semolic and Kovac (2008) noted that formation of inter-corporate networks based on very
loose and temporary pooling of the necessary resources is a possible solution for SMEs to
achieve competitiveness in the globalising business environment. In this context they pointed
out two important positive features of project management: to pool resources (experts, funds,
etc.) for solving the problem or task to reach the objective set; and the project form is more
effective compared to the classic way of management and functional approaches.
Frederiksen and Davies (2008) used the concept of a ‘vanguard project’, a first-of-its-kind
project, enabling a firm to diversify into a new market or technology (i.e. innovation) and
hence, made an unconventional linkage between the literature on project business and
entrepreneurship. They also argued that their concept can be broadened into corporate
entrepreneurship and that the entrepreneurship perspective is useful for developing a better
understanding of organisational designs associated with vanguard projects and the emergence
of firm capabilities. They also paid attention to learning in organisations. This article can be
considered seminal in that the references one can notice names which are well-known both in
project management and entrepreneurship literature16.
Ferriani et al (2009) stated that the project-entrepreneurial challenge has not been investigated
in extant entrepreneurship or project management literatures. Their main contribution is that
in the project-based enterprises, the realization of new projects follows a typical process of
opportunity identification and team assembly, what is classic for any entrepreneurial effort.
Using a relational perspective of entrepreneurial discovery and team composition, they find out
that project-entrepreneurs’ performance depends on their position (centrality) within the social
network, and their familiarity with the selected project team. Based on these findings, they
suggested that network-based arguments may help to illuminate these two crucial dimensions
in entrepreneurship. Following their findings, it should be mentioned that the considerable role
of social networks in entrepreneurship has been widely recognised during the past decades
(Hoang & Antoncic 2003, Johannisson 2002, and many others), and in turn, this endorses the
premise that entrepreneurship is rather a collective than an individual phenomenon.

16
For instance, first two items in their references are Artto and Wikström (2005) and Audretsch and Thurik (2000).

11
In the most recent literature there are more examples, demonstrating a link between entre-
preneurship and project management. Soila-Wadman (2009) examined the initial phase of a
film project and considered this to be an ‘entrepreneurial project’ where entrepreneurial
networks are crucial. Manning (2010) analysed the career paths of (by DeFillippi et al) project
entrepreneurs in regard to emerging of the professional networks into project networks.
Meanwhile, also Lindgren and Packendorff (2009) developed further their ideas and proposed
to apply the social constructionist perspective to entrepreneurship research.
Lindgren and Packendorff (ibid) mostly cover the entrepreneurship aspects but treat also issues
related to projects. Their main suggestion of is that the social constructionist perspective may
contribute to the development of research in entrepreneurship through opening up possibilities
for the inclusion of new theoretical fields, as well as creating demands for new methodological
approaches.
More recently, Lindgren and Packendorff (2011) outlined a view of entrepreneurial processes
as temporally, spatially and socially distinct interactions, what is a significant step towards
seeing them as projects. Lindgren and Packendorff speak modestly about ‘project metaphor’
because they do not want to “squeeze entrepreneurial processes into the project management
toolbox” but view them as discontinuous, discernible and disaggregated series of events, co-
constructed by involved actors as limited in time, scope and social involvement. From the
empirical aspects they suggest focusing on different projects intended to be entrepreneurial
and/or innovative.
Significantly, Mounir Ajam published an advisory paper (April 2011) where he explicitly pointed
out “the missing link”. Proceeding from a notion that launching a business is a project, he
derives place of project management in managing of the launching process. Ajam argues that
although existing business planning techniques (focusing on finance, competition, market,
operation etc.) are useful, they are not enough. In addition, the entrepreneur needs also to
think about project management, including proper project management planning because this
includes setting realistic time and cost targets and developing an understanding of project and
venture risks etc. When an entrepreneur starts to implement the business plan (s)he becomes a
project manager who needs to care of two aspects – the project (from idea to initial operations)
and the post-project phase – sustaining the business (operations). (Ajam 2011)
The chronological overview presented above on existing linkages between entrepreneurship
and project management is briefly summarised in Table 2. Some trends can be noted. Firstly,
there have been several attempts to link entrepreneurship and project management, especially
since the beginning of this century. Secondly, during the past couple of years the occurrence of
such endeavours seems to be growing. Third, looking at the linking concepts and main
contributions one can notice some recurrent keywords – particularly innovation and social
networks. The prominent role of innovation in linking entrepreneurship with project
management has already been identified (see Table 1). The second recurrent keyword is
probably social networks, which is obviously related to collectivity (that is, seeing entre-
preneurial acts as collective phenomena). Likewise, there are some non-recurrent and quite
stand-alone keywords, such as competences and entrepreneurial orientation.

12
In our opinion, all the aforesaid indicates several potential linkages between these academic
fields, even if these links have not yet been explored to a full extent.

Table 2. Existing links between Project Management and Entrepreneurship

Authors, publications
Dennis Slevin *
Lundin and Söderholm
1995
Lindgren and
Packendorff 2002
Lindgren and
Packendorff 2003
DeFillippi and Spring
2004
Kwak and Anbari 2008
Semolic and Kovac
2008
Frederiksen and Davies
2008
Ferriani et al 2009
Soila-Wadman 2009;
Manning 2010
Lindgren and
Packendorff 2009
Lindgren and
Packendorff 2011
Ajam 2011
* Most of Slevin’s lifework can be listed here.
Linking concepts, Main contributions and comments, etc.
(sub)fields, etc.
entrepreneurial a rare example of researchers involved in
orientation both fields
temporary action-based entrepreneurialism, what is
organisation needed in relation to unique tasks
innovation (by innovative projects can be considered as
projects) ‘entrepreneurial acts’
project-based view characteristic keywords: action-
of entrepreneurship orientation, collectivity and seriality;
links through 4 ‘project entrepreneurial’ competencies:
competencies visioning, resourcing, organizing, sustaining
and ‘project entrepreneurs’ career paths
impacts on PM from one of influencing domains is ‘Technology
other domains Management, Entrepreneurship, and IT/IS’
resource-based view formation of networks/clusters is a chance
on SME networks for SMEs and PM is needed in this process
innovation by relying on project business/management
‘vanguard projects’ and entrepreneurship literature
social networks ‘project-entrepreneurial challenge’, typical
process of opportunity identification, etc.
‘entrepreneurial networks – entrepreneurial, professional
projects’ and project networks – are crucial
social … that may contribute to the development
constructionism of research in entrepreneurship
process-based view entrepreneurial processes as temporally,
on entrepreneurship spatially and socially distinct interactions.
the “missing link” entrepreneurs need project management,
including proper planning

Finally, based on Ajam (2011) we can state that the ‘missing’ link between entrepreneurship
and project management has been explored and in a very practical way. It is hard to believe
that there is much new for practitioners – more probably they have been acting like described
already during decades. When set against this background of practice linkages it is somewhat
surprising these two fields are quite distinctive and separate in the academic world.

13
Possible recipes for further advances
Our analysis of the entrepreneurship and project management literatures has shown, that
despite some progress, there remains inadequate links between the two academic disciplines.
In the final section we bring out the embryonic links between the two practice fields and
discuss the possibilities of linkages and mutual enrichment between the two academic fields.
Academic fields have a tendency to be fragmented where advancement is measured exclusively
in relation to the mainstream research within that specific field. This is in line with the on-going
specialization of research work and the increase of academic publication outlets with a very
narrow focus. Interdisciplinary research has been a popular concept on a discourse level on
what is aspired, but in practical academic research it has been frowned upon. Contributions
academically are made within a very limited sphere. We are convinced that now there is a need
for close academic ventures overlapping entrepreneurship and project work. In such ventures
the prospects should be quite good considering the closeness between the two practical fields.
In order to reconsider the relations between the two practice fields, it will be useful to clarify
the role of projects in contemporary business. This is because entrepreneurship is inherently
linked with (mostly small and medium) business. For that we use a suitable division proposed
by Ekstedt (2011) – three models of project organisations:
1) Project Based Organisations (PBOs) – revenue is directly based on project activities and
projects are the ‘line’ (examples are: design, advertising, architecture, culture, fashion, film,
publishing, IT, multimedia, construction, telecommunications, infrastructure etc.);
2) Project Supported Organisations (PSOs) – project activities (such as R&D and design etc.)
support core activities (production etc.) to cope with innovation-based competition;
3) Network-Based Projects (NBPs) – projects are inter-organisational, formed in networks or
clusters by traditional PBOs and PSOs (examples: TV production, construction, etc.).
At this point we will omit the third category but emphasise the first two. Our earlier
examination of the trends of projectization and projectification shows that they are based on
the first and the second models of project organisations (the third simply adds the inter-
organisational aspect). Their relationship with entrepreneurship is obvious. An entrepreneur
who enters the first kind of business – called ‘project business’17 (Artto & Kujala 2008) – has an
essential need to organise the work of a firm by projects. In some industries (activity fields) the
core activities or processes may be nearly entirely project-based. Therefore, the entre-
preneur(s), that is the owners and managers of a (small or medium) firm in some industries
such as film, need to know about project management because otherwise they will probably be
less efficient than most competitors leading to failure. Hence, this demonstrates that a
significant part of entrepreneurship is related to project management to a great extent.
Another example is in social entrepreneurship (Bloom 2006). However, this comprises only a
certain type of entrepreneurs, who are involved in project-based businesses.

17
Standing for “… business that relates directly or indirectly to projects, with the purpose of achieving objectives of
a firm or several firms.” As nowadays organisations often have several projects in parallel and join into networks,
they (ibid) added the multi-project and multi-firm perspective to the classical single project – single firm case.

14
If we now examine the second kind of organisations, where project activities support core
activities (or business processes), there are obvious strong connections with entrepreneurship.
This is especially needed where the business faces innovation-based competition. Such projects
within the enterprise is a matter of strategic effectiveness and includes strategic decisions such
as developing the right products/services, to enter a right market (or region) – until making a
right decision on exiting – terminating or selling the business. This leads to (mentioned in the
first part) the main existing linkage between entrepreneurship and project management –
innovation. Thus, it should be emphasised that certain stages in life cycle of every business –
like (re-)development, relocation, renewal, etc. – meet the substantial criteria of a project and
therefore should be treated as projects. It means that in such stages the entrepreneurs act as
project leaders. Unlike project-based business, this project-by-project approach, where
activities contribute to the performance and direction of the whole organisation, is to some
extent embedded in all businesses and organisations, large and small. In some cases, these
projects may involve a deliberate strategy to make the organisation become more
‘entrepreneurial’, such as through teams or the stimulation of intrapreneurship, or in other
cases it may be focused on the development of a new process, product or service.
Several researchers have already alluded to such linkages between entrepreneurship and
projects. For example, Clarysse and Moray (2004) explored the process of entrepreneurial team
formation18 and descried four phases: the idea, the pre-start-up, the start-up and the post-
start-up phase. However, they rely on the entrepreneurship rather than the project
management19 literature and hence, we contend that the case could be developed even further
and is currently understated.
In reflecting on this case20 we argue that (in addition to the team) the other main attributes of a
temporary organization (Lundin & Söderholm 1995) were present – the time, the task and the
transition. The time was crucial in several moments (This process … cannot be forced to quicken
its pace, since the team needs a sufficient amount of time …) and there were obviously tasks
(The goal was to commercialize the datacasting system …) and transition (even several – see
Figure 1), influenced by relations between the individuals, the teams and the environment of
teams. In addition, the four important sequencing concepts were also present. The main idea in
this case (… there was a clear objective of valorization of research and the creation of a spin-off
…) and all followed actions can be taken as evidence of action-based entrepreneurialism. Also,
we can see there fragmentation for commitment-building and planned isolation (best seen in
Figure 1 “Development of the venture along the organizational life cycle”) but there was no
institutionalized termination. According to the initial ideas of Lundin and Söderholm (1995) a
temporary organisation has to be dissolved at some point but if this does not happen, the
organization becomes institutionalized and will continue in a (more) permanent form. In fact,
this is an important point in this case, which may also be generalised.

18
The case was quite specific – the start-up of a high-tech, university and research-based spin-off – but provided
processual view on development of an entrepreneurial team within a new venture seems to be general.
19
Later on they name the first (idea) phase as ‘project phase’ and use word ‘project’ several times, often with
additions like ‘team’ and ‘leader’ – what is understandable considering their main interest.
20
The case (with following citations) is from the article of Clarysse and Moray (2004). Words ‘task’ and ‘goal’ are
considered as synonyms here.

15
Most businesses are started to last for a long time or (in other words) to be permanent
organisations. If we accept that the starting-up of a business is substantially a project, there is a
discrepancy with common understandings of a project (or a temporary organisation) as a
temporary setting (or subsystem) in permanent organisational environment. For example, an
entrepreneur who is going to establish a company will not establish a temporary entity first and
later reorganise it into a permanent one. However, it is generally recognised that there are
several stages21 that people pass ‘walking their walk’ into the entrepreneurship. This is also
reflected in the case analysed by Clarysse and Moray (2004) where the observed “team” had
several changes in organisational environment. Moreover, in this case there was also a possi-
bility to rely more on literature on organisational behaviour, particularly on formation of groups
(group processes). The last statement can actually support what we argued before: there is a
converse way to develop academic discipline22 drawing upon other ‘mainstream’ disciplines
(hereby management) which in turn, relate to other fields (such as psychology in this case).
In examining the entrepreneurship and project management literatures, we would also want to
highlight their heterogeneity – different approaches, schools, etc. exist and different themes,
topics, etc. appear in both fields. For instance, Xheneti and Blackburn (2011) scrutinised the
development of Small Business and Entrepreneurship (SBE) research and classified 29 topic
areas; Themistocleous and Wearne (2000) analysed project management topic coverage in
journals and discerned 42 topics. Similarly, nine schools of project management were identified
by Turner et al (2010). Hereby we recognise our limitation: there is a need for detailed cross-
examination of the two bodies of literature. Yet, our preliminary examination shows that there
are (more or less) matching but unequally represented topics in the domains compared. For
example, a topic represented in both fields is finance and financial management, yet it is worth
mentioning that it is more popular in entrepreneurship. At the same time, there are topics that
are represented only in entrepreneurship or in project management. A remarkable example is
‘public policy and state intervention’ – a topic that is absent in project management. On the
other hand, risk management seems to be nearly uncovered topic in entrepreneurship but
obviously there is no need for risk management in entrepreneurship. Quite a popular topic as
‘SBE in transition/developing economies’ has virtually no counterpart in project management.
Therefore, our main recipe to researchers in both fields is to open their eyes for major
developments in other fields, and apply appropriate research questions, methods, paradigms
etc. to their studies. There are already some examples of such ‘bridging’ between the two fields
but these tend to be rare. For example, a topic of gender is emerging in the project
management literature but regrettably, mostly without drawing upon the entrepreneurship
literature. This is a major weakness given that ‘gendered entrepreneurship’ is quite a well
developed topic in the SBE literature (Xheneti & Blackburn 2011) and much could be learned by
those in the project management field.
Moreover, recalling the request of Welter and Lasch (2008) about grounding entrepreneurship
research in its national context we want to stress that different theoretical models, concepts
etc. are not equally idoneous for that. We consider that project management research can also

21
There is a massive body of literature on that topic but we do not provide any overview here.
22
In the first part we particularly spoke about entrepreneurship, resting on Blackburn and Kovalainen (2009).

16
be grounded in its national context. In looking for a suitable approach in project management,
we propose the ‘Scandinavian School’ which has distinctive assets. According to Sahlin-
Andersson and Söderholm (2002) the Scandinavian school23 has widened the scope beyond of a
single project, is theoretically based (in particular organization theory) and is based on in-depth
empirical studies. The most important is probably: "The Scandinavian School offers one simple
lesson: in order to utilize the complete potential of project organizing for enhancing control,
flexibility, and change, more systematic attention must be paid to the ways in which projects
develop relative to their corporate and temporal context." (ibid: 24). In our opinion, following
the ideas of the Scandinavian school is the best in order to ground the research (both in entre-
preneurship and project management) in its context on national, as well as organisational and
even individual levels.
Our particular recipe for researchers in SBE is to consider more ‘temporary’ perspectives and
recognise that entrepreneurs act in social networks, habitual entrepreneurs proliferate, etc. It
also means that ‘classical’ views on entrepreneurs as single persons (or small groups) who start
and run their ‘one and only’ enterprises, considered to be ‘permanent’ (to be handed over to
successors or sold after the founders exit) and static (significant growth, changes in strategy,
relocation etc. are rather exclusions than norms) do not reflect activity in our contemporary
world.
Our particular recipe for the researchers in the project management field is to look more
beyond a (single) project and to open their context in terms of time, organisational boundaries,
resource ties etc. As identified, there are many potential linkages with the SBE literatures which
would be beneficial to these researchers in developing project management.
We assume that in the near future there will be more and more evidence of mutual enrichment
between these academic fields and new topics and keywords, such as ‘entrepreneurial projects’
and ‘projects in entrepreneurship’ appear in the literature. We may be dreamers but we hope
that soon the respected journals in entrepreneurship shall have projects-related keywords in
their lists and vice versa. This will certainly be a big challenge but there will be also a risk – to
fall into total eclecticism. Thus, there is a need for theoretical and/or methodological baseline.
Hereby we can recall that Lindgren and Packendorff (2009) have proposed to apply the social
constructionist perspective to entrepreneurship research. In our opinion, this is quite true and
it is worth mentioning that the social constructivist perspective has significantly spread also in
project management research (see for instance, Berdillet 2010; Turner et al 2010; Gareis 2005;
and many others).
In sum, our analysis has shown limited and partly successful efforts to connect the two
academic fields. In our view, discussions on a conceptual level between the two academic fields
are inadequate. Doing work together on the same or similar empirical bases would most
certainly be beneficial, considering the closeness of the two areas from a practical point of
view. Rather than being myopic, researchers should also widen their perspectives in empirical
work. Whether or not recognition of the benefits of openness can outweigh those of research
in silos and the drive for ring fencing research fields, remains to be seen.

23
The ‘Scandinavian School’ cannot be listed along with the nine schools (Turner et al 2010) but compared with
mainstream supra-national approaches/standards, such as PMBoK of PMI, ICB of IPMA, PRINCE2 of OGC, etc.

17
References
Acs, Z. and Audretsch, D. Introduction to the Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research. In Acs, Z. and
Audretsch, D. (eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 3–20.
Ajam, M. (2011) Entrepreneurship & Project Management – the Missing Link. PM World Today – April
2011 (Vol. XIII, Issue IV) [http://www.pmforum.org/library/tips/2011/PDFs/april/Advisory-AJAM.pdf]
APM Body of Knowledge (2006) 5th Edition, Buckinghamshire, UK, 200 pp.
Artto, K., Kujala, J. (2008) Project business as a research field. International Journal of Managing Projects
in Business 1 (4) pp. 469-497
Artto, K., Martinsuo, M., Kujala, J. (2006) Projektiliiketoiminta. WSOY, Helsinki.
Bitros, G. and Karayiannis, A. (2004) The Liberating Power of Entrepreneurship in Ancient Athens. Athens
University of Economics and Business Working Paper No. 155. [http://ssrn.com/abstract=664346]
Blackburn, R. and Kovalainen, A. (2009) Researching small firms and entrepreneurship: Past, present and
future. International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 11, No 2, pp. 127–148
Bloom, G. (2006) The Social Entrepreneurship Collaboratory (SE Lab): A university incubator for a rising
generation of social entrepreneurs. In Nicholls, A. (Ed.) Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of
Sustainable Social Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 271-306
Bredillet, C. (2010) Blowing Hot and Cold on Project Management. Project Management Journal, 41 (3)
pp. 4–20
Busenitz, L.W., West III, G.P., Shepherd, D., Nelson, T., Chandler, G.N., Zacharakis, A. (2003) Entrepre-
neurship Research in Emergence: Past Trends and Future Directions. Journal of Management, 29 pp. 285-
308
Clarysse, B. and Moray, N. (2004) A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: the case of a
research-based spin-off. Journal of Business Venturing 19 (1) pp. 55-79
Cleland, D. and Ireland, L. (2006) The Evolution of Project Management. In Cleland, D. and Gareis, R.
(eds.) Global Project Management Handbook: Planning, Organizing, and Controlling International
Projects. 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill.
Commission of the European Communities (2004) Action Plan: The European Agenda for
Entrepreneurship. COM (2004) 70 final, 11.02.2004. Brussels
Cooper, A. (2003) Entrepreneurship: the past, present and future. In Acs, Z. and Audretsch, D. (eds.),
Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 21–34.
Davidsson, P. (2003) The Domain of Entrepreneurship Research: Some suggestions. In Katz, J., Shepherd,
S. (eds.) Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, Vol. 6. Oxford, Elsevier / JAI Press.
Davidsson, P. (2004) Researching Entrepreneurship. Springer, Boston
DeFillippi, R. and Spring, S., 2004. Project entrepreneurs for project-based enterprises: extension or
complement to project management competencies? Projects and Profits 4 (2), pp. 50–57.
Drucker, P. (1985) Innovation & Entrepreneurship. New York, Harper & Row
Ekstedt, E. (2011) Projectification in a Historical setting. Presentation at seminar ‘Projects and temporary
organizations from an interdisciplinary perspective’ Helsinki, January 13-14.
Ekstedt, E., Lundin, R., Söderholm, A., Wirdenius, H. (2005) Neo-Industrial Organising: Renewal by action
and knowledge formation in a project-intensive economy. Taylor & Francis e-Library
Engwall (2003) No project is an island: linking projects to history and context. Research Policy 32 (5) pp.
789–808
European Commission (2003) Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of
micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. (2003/361/EC) Official Journal of the EU
European Commission (2006) Entrepreneurship Education in Europe: Fostering Entrepreneurial Mindsets
through Education and Learning. Final Proceedings, Oslo, October 26-27.

18
European Commission (2010) European SMEs under Pressure: Annual report on EU small and medium-
sized enterprises 2009. European Commission, DG for Enterprise and Industry
Fayolle, A. (2007) Entrepreneurship and New Value Creation. The Dynamic of the Entrepreneurial
Process. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Ferriani, S., Cattani, G. and Baden-Fuller, C. (2009) The relational antecedents of project-entrepreneur-
ship: Network centrality, team composition and project performance. Research Policy 38 pp. 1545–1558
Frederiksen, L. and Davies, A. (2008) Vanguards and ventures: Projects as vehicles for corporate
entrepreneurship. International Journal of Project Management 26 pp. 487–496
Gareis (1989) Management by project: the management approach for the future. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 243-249
Gareis (2002) Management in the Project-Oriented Society. WU-Jahrestagung "Forschung für Wirtschaft
und Gesellschaft" [http://epub.wu-wien.ac.at/]
Gareis, R. (2005) Happy projects! Vienna, Manz.
Hoang, H. and Antoncic, B. (2003) Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A critical review. Journal
of Business Venturing 18 (2) pp. 165-187
Johannisson, B. (2002) Entrepreneurship as a collective phenomenon. Working paper, Scandinavian
Institute for Research in Entrepreneurship (SIRE), Växjö University.
Katz, J. (2003) The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education 1876–
1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18 pp. 283–300
Kwak, Y.H. and Anbari, F. (2008) Impact on Project Management of Allied Disciplines: Trends and Future
of Project Management Practices and Research. Project Management Institute, Inc., Publ. Newtown
Square, PA.
Landström, H. (2008) Entrepreneurship research: A missing link in our understanding of the knowledge
economy. Journal of Intellectual Capital 9 (2) pp. 301-322
Lindgren, M. and Packendorff, J. (2002) Interactive Entrepreneurship – On the Study of Innovative Social
Processes. Paper submitted for the EURAM 2nd annual conference “Innovative Research in
Management”, May 9-11, Stockholm, Sweden.
Lindgren, M. and Packendorff, J. (2003) A project-based view of entrepreneurship: Towards action-
orientation, seriality and collectivity. In Steyaert, C. and Hjorth, D. (eds.) New movements in
entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, pp. 86-102
Lindgren, M. and Packendorff, J. (2009) Social constructionism and entrepreneurship: basic assumptions
and consequences for theory and research. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
Research 15 (1) pp. 25-47
Lindgren, M. and Packendorff, J. (2011) On the temporary organizing of entrepreneurial processes:
Applying a project metaphor to the study of entrepreneurship. Article to be published in Revue de
l’Entrepreneuriat, Special issue on “Le projet entrepreneurial”
Lundin (2011a) Guest Editorial by the winner of the IPMA Research Achievement Award 2010 “On trends
and the future of project management research and profession”. International Journal of Project
Management, in press
Lundin, R. (2011b) Project Management Research and the Profession. IPMA Research Management
Board Newsletter 5 (1) (March 2011)
Lundin, R. and Söderholm, A. (1995) A Theory of the Temporary Organization. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 11 (4), pp. 437-455
Lundström, A. and Stevenson, L. (2005) Entrepreneurship Policy: Theory and Practice. (International
Studies in Entrepreneurship, Volume 9) New York, Springer, 310 pp.
Manning, S. (2010) The strategic formation of project networks: A relational practice perspective. Human
Relations 63 (4) pp. 551–573

19
Maylor, H., Brady, T., Cooke-Davies, T., Hodgson, D. (2006) From projectification to programmification.
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24, No 8, pp. 663–674
Midler (1995) Projectification of the Firm: the Renault Case. Scandinavian Journal of Management 11 (4)
pp. 363-375
Mote, J., Hage, J., Clark, A. and Jordan, G. (2010) Few Projects Are Islands: Issues with the Project Form in
Publicly-funded R&D. APPAM Research Conference.
[https://www.appam.org/conferences/fall/boston2010/sessions/.../4013.1.pdf]
Murphy, P., Liao, J. and Welsch, H. (2006) A conceptual history of entrepreneurial thought. Journal of
Management History, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 12-35
Müller, R. (2009) Project Governance. Gower, England
Sahlin-Andersson, K. and Söderholm A. (2002) The Scandinavian School of Project Studies. In: Beyond
project management - New perspectives on the temporary-permanent dilemma. Sahlin-Andersson, K.
and Söderholm A. (editors) Liber, Abstract and CBS Press, pp. 11-24
Semolic, B. and Kovac. J. (2008) Project Management in Connection to Entrepreneurship and Network
Organizations. In: Project manager's handbook: applying best practices across global industries. Cleland,
D. and Ireland. L. (eds.) McGraw-Hill, N.Y. etc. pp. 407-426
Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000) The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy
of Management Review, 25, pp. 217–226
Soila-Wadman, M. (2009) Entrepreneurship and film making: Translation of ideas in the initial phase of a
film project needs attention. Paper presented at International Conference CREATIVE ECONOMY AND
BEYOND (Sept 9-10, 2009) School of Art and Design, Helsinki, Finland
Söderlund, J. and Lenfle, S. (2011) Special issue: Project history: International journal of project
management. International Journal of Project Management, 29 pp. 491–493
Themistocleous, G. and Wearne, S.H. (2000) Project management topic coverage in journals.
International Journal of Project Management 18, pp. 7-11
Turner, J., Bredillet, C. and Anbari, F. (2008) The Nine Schools of Project Management. Presentation at
Special EDEN Doctoral Seminar, Lille, August 18-22.
Turner, R., Huemann, M., Anbari, F. and Bredillet, C. (2010) Perspectives on Projects. Routledge, UK, 368
pp.
Turner, R., Ledwith, A. and Kelly, J. (2009) Project Management in Small to Medium-sized Enterprises: a
comparison between firms by size and industry. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,
2(2) pp. 282-296
Ucbasaran, D., Alsos, G. A., Westhead P. and Wright, M. (2008) Habitual Entrepreneurs. Foundations and
Trends in Entrepreneurship 4 (4) pp. 309-450
University of Pittsburgh (2009) University of Pittsburgh Names Inaugural Holder of the Tom W. Olofson
Chair in Entrepreneurial Studies. [September 28, 2009 www.news.pitt.edu/news/university-pittsburgh-
names-inaugural-holder-tom-w-olofson-chair-entrepreneurial-studies]
Welter, F. and Lasch, F. (2008) Entrepreneurship Research in Europe: Taking Stock and Looking Forward.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32 pp. 241–248.
Wiklund, J. (1998) Entrepreneurial orientation as predictor of performance and entrepreneurial
behaviour in small firms – longitudinal evidence. Reynolds, P. et al (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship
research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Xheneti, M. and Blackburn, R. (2011) Small business and entrepreneurship (SBE): an analysis of publi-
cations and implications for the development of the field. In: Lee, Bill and Cassell, Catherine, (eds.)
Challenges and controversies in management research. Abingdon, U.K. Routledge. pp. 367-388

20