Link to thesis - Concept - NTNU

1. Introduction1. IntroductionThis chapter discusses different approaches to project management from a flexibilityperspective. One purpose of the chapter is to define how project flexibility isunderstood in this thesis, but also to give some illustrations of how others have usedthe concept of flexibility. Key research questions related to project flexibility arestated in this chapter. These questions have in common that they address the dynamicsbetween utilising benefits from flexible approaches and avoiding drawbacks. Thethesis is designed to address these questions.A number of scholars have argued that flexibility is necessary to face the changes anduncertainty in the business environment. On the other hand, a wide range of studiesindicate that a clear project definition and minimisation of changes also are criticalfactors for the success of projects. These approaches to project flexibility, which canappear as conflicting, have justified the study of the dynamics related to projectflexibility that is presented in this thesis. The subject is analysed both from atheoretical and an empirical perspective.1.1 Perspectives on project managementIn a wide sense, projects include any activity that meets the characteristics of projectslisted by the PMI (Project Management Institute) (2004: 5): ‘A project is a temporaryendeavour undertaken to create a unique product or service’. Common characteristicsof projects include: finite budgets and schedule constraints, complex and interrelatedactivities, clearly defined goals, and uniqueness (PMI 2004).Projects are traditionally seen as temporary organisations designed for unique tasks(Cleland 2004), often in contrast to the mass producing core activities oforganisations. Projects are initiated to solve tasks of almost any type (Engwall 2003)to such an extent that Western society seems to be heading towards a projectifiedsociety (Lundin & Söderholm 1998, Gareis 2004). A major benefit of organising atask as a project is the freedom to create an organisation more or less from scratch.While uniqueness is the competitive advantage of projects as a way of organising,changes and lack of predictability are commonly seen as the major pitfalls of projects.Successful projects are often claimed to be characterised by control and governance(Hall 1980, Morris & Hough 1987, Miller & Lessard 2000).Söderlund (2004) discusses two main theoretical traditions in project managementresearch. The first tradition has its roots in engineering science. Planning techniquesand methods of project management, including the recent emphasis on uncertaintyquantification and risk management, have been the major focus. This is in accordancewith Packendorff (1995), who claims that a number of writers trace the intellectualroots of project management research and knowledge to various types of planningtechniques, such as PERT (program evaluation and review technique) and CPM(critical path method). The other tradition has its intellectual roots in the socialsciences and focuses especially on the organisational and behavioural aspects ofprojects. Söderlund (2004) terms these the engineering tradition and the socialscience tradition, respectively. In a similar distinction between project managementtraditions, Crawford & Pollack (2004) use the terms ‘hard’ and ‘soft’. Crawford &1