research paper on project management

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Impact of agile management on project performance: Evidence from I.T sector of Pakistan

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Management Science, COMSATS University Islamabad, Wah Cantt, Pakistan

Roles Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Roles Data curation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft

Affiliation Department of Management Science, Riphah International University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision

Affiliation Department of Civil Engineering, COMSATS University Islamabad, Wah Cantt, Pakistan

Roles Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation

Roles Project administration, Resources, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Project administration, Validation

Roles Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Computer Science, COMSATS University Islamabad, Wah Cantt, Pakistan

• Umer Muhammad, 
• Tahira Nazir, 
• Najam Muhammad, 
• Ahsen Maqsoom, 
• Samina Nawab, 
• Syeda Tamkeen Fatima, 
• Khuram Shafi, 
• Faisal Shafique Butt

• Published: April 5, 2021
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249311
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

Over the past several years, global project management teams have been facing dynamic challenges that continue to grow exponentially with the increasing number of complexities associated with the undertaken tasks. The ever-evolving organizational challenges demand project managers to adapt novel management practices to accomplish organizational goals rather than following traditional management practices. Considering which, the current study aims to explain the effect of agile management practices upon project performance directly as well as while being mediated through project complexity. Furthermore, the aforementioned mediatory relationship is evaluated in terms of the moderating effect of leadership competencies. The current study utilized the survey approach to collect the data from registered I.T firms deployed in the potential metropolitans of each province of Pakistan including, Peshawar, Islamabad, Lahore, Sialkot, Faisalabad, Hyderabad, Sukkur, and Karachi. A total of 176 responses were utilized for statistical evaluations. As result, it was observed that the negative influence anticipated by project complexity on project performance was compensated by the agile management practices. Further, the leadership competencies played a pivotal role in managing project complexity while implementing agile management practices and therefore enhancing project performance. The current study abridges the potential knowledge gap conceptually by evaluating the direct impact of agile management upon project performance while considering all of its aspects, exploring the mediatory role of project performance and evaluating the moderating role of leadership competencies in attaining optimum project performance. In contextual terms, the current study fills the knowledge gap by gauging the implications of agile management practices within the I.T sector of Pakistan. The results of the current study can be a potential guide for both the academicians and the industry professionals.

Citation: Muhammad U, Nazir T, Muhammad N, Maqsoom A, Nawab S, Fatima ST, et al. (2021) Impact of agile management on project performance: Evidence from I.T sector of Pakistan. PLoS ONE 16(4): e0249311. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249311

Editor: Dejan Dragan, Univerza v Mariboru, SLOVENIA

Received: October 1, 2020; Accepted: March 16, 2021; Published: April 5, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Muhammad et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The agile management approach in terms of project development process remains rather a novel practice for most of the organizations of today to adapt and practice. Regardless, recent studies have indicated that organizations around the globe considering their long terms benefits are adapting the agile management practices more, in comparison to the traditionally followed waterfall management practices; especially in the IT sector. Research so far has highlighted the relevance of the agile management practices as well as has justified its constructive impact on the performance of an organization [ 1 , 2 ]. In specific to the management trends being followed, a recent global report of PMI comprising opinion of 727 executive members deployed on 3,234 projects across Europe, Asia Pacific, North America, Latin American, Middle East, Africa, and Caribbean Regions, proposed the implementation of agile management practices as a potential reason to trigger organizational productivity. Therefore, signifying the impact of agile management practices upon the performance of the firms [ 3 ]. Moreover, another recent study conducted by Ambysoft indicated agile management practices to deliver a success rate of 55% in comparison to the waterfall management practices with a success rate of 29% only. The report further indicated that 36% of the projects completed under the agile management practices remained challenged and required limited fulfillment of constraints to accomplish the projects. In contrast, the waterfall management practices were credited 67% of the challenged projects. The study also revealed the agile management practices to be attributed with only a mere 3% of project failure rate [ 4 ]. Thus, justifying the constructive impact of agile management practices in terms of enhanced performance measures. Regardless, the precise study indicating the impact of implementing agile management practices upon the project performance while considering all of its related aspects is yet to be explored [ 5 , 6 ]. Considering the potential research gap, the current study took into account of all relevant aspects of project performance including ‘time’, ‘finances’, ‘magnitude of efforts’, ‘work environment moral’, ‘fulfillment of quality criterions’ as well as the ‘satisfaction of regarding stakeholders’ and further observed the variation, in terms of the implementation of the agile management practices.

Considering the organizational accomplishment related aspect of the current research, the performance associated with the projects is often challenged by the magnitude of the complexity faced by the firms. Complexity, if not addressed timely can rile up to potential risks and consequently result in declined performance to a limit where it can jeopardize the existence of an organization itself. Considering which, research so far has indicted that implementation of relevant management practices can enable the mitigation of complexity associated to a project [ 7 , 8 ]. As Sohi, Hertogh [ 9 ] in their recent study were able to justify the association of agile management practices with the abridged level of project complexity to some extent. It was further speculated by the researchers to enhance the project performance of any given firm. Therefore, to address the existing knowledge gap the current study took into account the mediating role of project complexity, to be able to analyze the direct impact of agility upon project complexity as well as the project performance. Moreover, justify the theorized impact of agility in terms of reduced project complexity and enhanced project performance.

Taking into account the managerial aspect of the current study, prior studies have indicated that the efficient and effective implementation of management practices for the most part has remained predominated by the human factor, and of which leadership competencies is of most vital consideration [ 10 ]. In various contexts, the effective implementation of leadership competencies has been found to have a significant impact on the overall organizational performance of any given firm [ 11 , 12 ]. In relevance, a consolidated view of the implementation of leadership competencies to mitigate the organizational complexities and enhance performance measures is yet to be evaluated [ 13 ]. It is very much expectant of the agile management practices to depict enhanced performance as a result of effective leadership competency mitigating the magnitude of dynamic organizational challenges. Considering which, the current study evaluated the moderating role of leadership competencies to observe the controlled impact of professional complexities and the delivered project performance. Therefore, filling in the existing conceptual knowledge gap indicated by prior researchers.

Furthermore, in specific to filling in the contextual research gap, the current study explored the implication of the targeted variables within the I.T sector of Pakistan, which itself has seen significant progression over the years.

The present study aims to accomplish the following research objectives:

• RO1 : Determine the effect of agile management practices on project performance .
• RO2 : Evaluate the mediating role of project complexity between agile management practices and project performance .
• RO3 : Gauge the moderating role of leadership competencies between agile management practices and project complexity .

The following sections of the study comprises of the detailed literature review of all the opted variables of the current study as well as their hypothetical development. Further, the methodological approach to collect the data from the targeted population is presented, which is then further statistically evaluated and explained in the results and analysis section. Followed to which, the deduction based upon the evaluated results are presented in the discussion. Lastly, the outcomes of the current research are deduced in the conclusion section.

Literature review

Agile management..

The concept of agile management got tossed in 1991 when the term agility was defined in a report by the Lacocca Institute, as “the ability to thrive in rapidly changing, fragmented markets”. As the concept evolved, agility was redefined as, “the state or quality of being able to move quickly in an easy fashion”. Therefore, for any firm labeled as agile is expectant to resolve unforeseeable challenges. Therefore, assuring the organizational sustainability in uncertain environments [ 14 , 15 ]. The concept of agile management is multifaceted in nature and the remnants of its implementation have been observed across various disciplines over last few decades. Most early implementation of agile management practices was embraced by the manufacturing sector. At time, agility was defined as, “the capability of an organization to meet changing market requirements, maximize customer service levels and resultantly minimize the cost of goods” [ 16 ]. The agile management practices for a decade and more remained implemented within the manufacturing industry only [ 17 ]. It wasn’t until the commercialization of the internet in 1995 when the agile management practices attained maturity in other industrial sectors as well, especially the software development [ 18 ]. To formalize the agility practices in terms of the software development process the OOPSA conference held in the same year played a momentous role when Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland defined the cardinal principles for the implementation of agility on an organizational scale. Later, the agility saw minuscule implementation in the years to come, till 2001. It happened when various professionals, practitioners, and theorists came up with “Agile Manifesto”, which was mutually signed and published on the internet. The manifesto challenged the implications of traditionally followed management practices onto the project-related outcomes with a higher level of uncertainties. Further, in addition to declaring the traditional management practices misaligned towards the dynamically natured projects, the report emphasized the induction of agile management practices in such environments. Thus, effectively managing organizational objectives, minimizing project complexity, and delivering efficiency in terms of organizational performance [ 16 , 19 ].

To understand what made the implementation of agile management practices a success in the software industry as well as its spread across the globe on the exponential rate in contrast to any other industry, one has to take into consideration the following factors on which the dynamics of agile management rely onto and further draw a comparison of them with the traditionally followed management practices [ 2 , 20 ] (See Table 1 ).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249311.t001

The software industry has for most part evolved over the past 30 years. But the last decade has depicted a significant surge in the industry’s growth and its respective performance. The reason justifying the phenomena has been the broader application of agile management practices, that replaced the traditionally followed management practices over time. The earlier research has justified the execution of agility in terms of ensuring enhanced performance, and also have supported the fact that implementation of agility is most suitable for the business environs that are dynamic in nature. Since, it has very vividly been observed that the implementation of software project development requires the dynamic implementation of operational measures as the problems are evolving real-time, which justifies the complexity associated with the software industry. Considering which, the software development sector is a perfect fit to adapt agile management practices [ 5 ].

Apart from the software products and services, one of the major parts of the project development process is the interaction between the stakeholders which plays a pivotal in determining the performance of the project. Considering which, Uludag, Kleehaus [ 22 ] and Hobbs and Petit [ 23 ] in their respective studies indicated that agile management practices allow organizations for its internal stakeholders to communicate freely as well as maintain a consistent stream of feedback from the external stakeholders. Thus, assuring the regarding organization to achieve optimal performance levels.

Considering the ability of agile management practices to enable its utilizers to accomplish projects in a dynamic environment and be able to deliver optimized performance while considering its respective dimensions i.e., competency, flexibility, quickness, and responsiveness, the current study took into account the implementation of agile management practices in relation to all the aspects of performance.

• H1: Agile management practices will significantly impact the project performance, in a positive manner.

Project complexity.

Any given organization that functions onto various organizational factors either human or non-human operating in parallel to one another, is bound to face unexpected challenges to manage through and accomplish its goals. Considering which, the software industry has been the most critical one on the list [ 24 ]. It has been so because regardless of the business type, every operational entity is reliant on the software utilization either it is in form of communication, logistics, traveling, academia, and even fields as critical as healthcare. Therefore, justifying the software industry to be the one facing crucial levels of complexity [ 25 ].

Typically, for a large-scale operation with a higher magnitude of complexity, like software development, is often considered as a project rather than a routine-based operation/task, by most of the organizations. This demands a persistent application of relevant management practices under effective supervision to tackle the complexity.

For the successful accomplishment of a project, opting relevant management approach plays a pivotal role in tackling the complexities associated with the environment. Since only the right management approach can enable the managers to make correct calculations to allocate the right percentage of resources to the right places at the right time. Moreover, the application of a relevant management approach enables the mitigation of risk and the magnitude of projected losses [ 2 , 26 ].

Prior studies have indicated a directly proportionate relationship between the complexity and the respective performance of an organization and the projects associated with it. This suggests that if the complexities associated with any given project are not handled effectively on time, are probable to cause an escalation in the level of hindrances associated with the project and may even result in failure of the project itself [ 27 , 28 ].

Project complexity attributed to any given project is determined upon the variation in the number of tasks, their respective types, individuals deployed, and numerous other considerations. Considering which, effective prioritization of the entities involved, and the correct allocation of resources is necessary. All of which is only possible through the application of the relevant management approach [ 8 ].

Past decades have seen an evolution in terms of management practices and their respective application. Which have encouraged both academia as well as practitioners to extend the knowledge upon. As a matter of fact, among the two widely practiced project development management approaches i.e. waterfall and agile, it is the agile management approach that has proved itself to be more efficient to accomplish projects, across the world [ 29 ].

Considering which, Zhu and Mostafavi [ 8 ] in their study indicated the ability of agile management practices to manage through complex settings more effectively and efficiently. Thus, suggesting to lead the project towards better performance. Moreover, in another study Maylor and Turner [ 27 ] highlighted the aspect of stakeholder’s involvement in the development process, which justified the mitigation of project complexity to a greater extent. As agile management encourages the internal stakeholders of the project to seek continuous feedback from one another as well as from the clients throughout the process. Doing so reduces the amount of ambiguity from the development phase as much as possible and induce desired changes along the process. Thus, the finished project is much more of a reflection of the client’s expectations and assurance of enhanced performance. Moreover, in specific to the software industry the nature of projects is bound to change much more rapidly than any other industry, which classifies the software industry with the highest level of complexity attributed to it. For its resolution, the agile management approach suggests breaking down of complex scenarios into smaller tasks with reduced complexity. Thus, resulting in the effective and focused application of management practices, which would further result in mitigation of complexity associated with the project as well as elevated project performance [ 18 , 27 ].

Considering, the ability of agile management practices to mitigate the magnitude of complexity associated with the project and enhance the chances of the performance associated to the regarding project accomplish projects in a dynamic environment, the current study took into account the direct implementation of agile management practices in relation to the diminished project complexity. Moreover, the project complexity was evaluated in terms of a mediator.

• H2: Agile management practices will significantly impact the project complexity, in a negative manner.
• H3: Project complexity will significantly impact the project performance, in a negative manner.
• H4: Project complexity will significantly mediate the relationship between agile management practices and project performance.

Leadership competencies.

The opting of management practices is not enough for an organization to function properly. Rather it is the effective implementation of those defined policies that ensure the magnitude of performance delivered and subsequently the overall sustainability of an organization. For which, it is the human factor in terms of leadership, within an organization that contributes the most towards it. This is where leadership and its respective competencies come into play. Andriukaitienė, Voronkova [ 30 ] in their study defined project manager competence as a combination of knowledge (qualification), skills (ability to do a task), and core personality characteristics (motives, traits, self-concepts) that lead to superior results.

In the project management literature, few topics are too frequently discussed yet are very rarely agreed upon; such as the aspect of project performance [ 2 ]. The last two decades have extended the scope of project performance far beyond the measures of cost, time, and functionality. The project performance measures of today demand to fulfill the satisfaction criterion of the stakeholder associated with the given project, attainment of business/organizational goals, product success, and development of the team involved. All of which is very much reliant upon the effectiveness of the implied organizational practice under human supervision [ 31 ]. Refereed to which, Maqbool, Sudong [ 32 ] in their study identified the possible shortcoming that may hinder the performance associated to any given project. The findings identified the hindering effects as the ineffective management practice observed in the planning, organization, and controlling of the project. Furthermore, Alvarenga, Branco [ 33 ] identified various performance measures associated with well-executed projects. Overall, the findings reflected the leadership competency in terms of maintaining effective communication and problem solving resulted in enhanced project performance. While, the absence of leadership competency in terms of inadequate administration/supervision, human skills, and emotional influencing skills (IQ & EQ) resulted in declined performance or even failure in some cases. Ahmed and Anantatmula [ 34 ] in his study suggested that the manager’s perception of performance and belief in his/her ability can play a significant role in determining the performance delivered. Thus, deeming the leadership competency to play a pivotal role in the accomplishment of a project. Akin to which, Turner came up with the seven forces model to define the factors influencing the project’s performance. The model highlights the people as the cardinal force to drive the project towards accomplishment; which is only possible through leadership competencies, teamwork, and industrial relations. Hassan, Bashir [ 35 ] in their studies brought up the subject that despite the vast research on the project performance and its related measures the organizations still fail to satisfy its stakeholders. It was because most of the research done so far was considering time, cost, and quality as the only measure to determine the project performance delivered. Hassan, Bashir [ 35 ] and Maqbool, Sudong [ 32 ] indicated the criticality of including the human factor in terms of leadership competence/ability to determine the performance of the project. Zuo, Zhao [ 36 ] and Gunter [ 37 ] as well in their studies reviewed the impact of leadership’s competence and style to determine the project’s outcomes and concluded the fact that the existing literature has for most part overlooked the impact of leadership competence on the project’s performance. Therefore, to evaluate the controlling effect of leadership competency to observe change in the magnitude of the performance delivered, the current study proposed the following hypothesis (See Fig 1 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249311.g001

• H5: Leadership competencies will significantly impact the project performance, in a positive manner.
• H6: Leadership competencies will significantly moderate the relationship between project complexity and project performance.

Research methodology

The survey questionnaire was composed of 48 items in total. To determine the application of agile management practices on the organizational level a 20 relevant items were adapted from the scale developed by Zhang and Sharifi [ 42 ]. The scale itself was based upon four dimensions i.e. ability, flexibility, quickness, and responsiveness. To determine the leadership competencies of managers on various hierarchical levels of an organization, an 10 items were adapted from the scale developed by Chung-Herrera, Enz [ 43 ]. The scale was composed of 8 unique dimensions i.e. self-management, strategic positioning, implementation, critical thinking, communication, interpersonal, leadership, and industry knowledge. To determine the overall magnitude of complexity associated with the project under study, 12 items were adapted from the scale developed by Xia and Lee [ 44 ]. To determine the overall performance of the undertaken projects, a 6 items scale developed by Yusuf, Sarhadi [ 45 ] was utilized in the current study. The responses were recorded upon the 5-Point Likert scale, which had (1) to refer to “Strongly Disagree” up to (5) referring to “Strongly Agree” [ 46 ].

The current study included the opinion of the respondents recorded in terms of quantitative scale. During the data collection process, no confidential information (personal/organizational) was inquired about. Also, the presented research did not categorize the involved workers in terms of race/ethnicity, age, disease/disabilities, religion, sex/gender, sexual orientation, or other socially constructed groupings. Therefore, COMSATS University Islamabad’s Ethics Review Committee declared the current study exempted from the requirement of consent from the respondents. Considering which, a total of 250 questionnaires were disseminated to survey the professionals of the Pakistani IT industry. By the end of the survey process, a total of 190 responses got collected. Thus, the overall response rate of the study was 76%. Further, 7% of the responses were discarded as a result of being incomplete or erroneous. Since both incomplete or redundant data can affect the results adversely [ 47 ]. Followed to the collection of data the next phase demanded the application of appropriate statistical tools and respective data analysis techniques to make deductions regarding the objectives of the study. For which the current study utilized the SmartPLS GmbH’s SMART Partial Least Squares (SMART PLS 3.0) to analyze the dataset. Various studies in recent years have utilized a similar tool and respective techniques to analyze the data and make respective deductions [ 48 , 49 ].

Statistical results & analysis

To begin with, the information was gauged to assess the instrument’s reliability and validity. Further, the instrument’s fitness was evaluated in terms of factor loadings. The results identified few unfit components associated with the variables under study. Suggested to which, the identified unfit components of the hypothesized model were then removed. Followed by which, the information was evaluated to gauge the direct and indirect effects of variables, in alignment with the hypothesized model. Finally, the hypothesized model was concluded upon the evaluation of the total impact of the predictor variables upon the dependent variable [ 50 , 51 ].

Demographical classification

The respondents of the study had variating attributions associated with them in terms of demographics. The current study classified the respondents in terms of age, tenure of employment, sector of employment, the status of employment, and the geographical location of their organization.

As a response to which 63.6 percent of employees were aged between 20–29 years, 21.6 percent were aged between 30–39 years, 10.8 percent were aged between 40–49 years and 4.0 percent were aged 50 years or above.

In specific to the tenure of employment or the managerial experience, 27.8 percent of respondents had an experience of less than 1 year, 20.5 percent had experience ranged between 1–2 years, 19.3 percent had experience ranged between 2–5 years, 9.1 percent had experience ranged between 5–10 years and, 23.3 percent had an experience of 10 years or over.

In terms of the employment sector, 53.9 percent of the individuals were employed in the public sector. While 46.1 percent of the individuals were employed in the private sector.

In terms of the geographical placement of the surveyed organizations, 12.5 percent of the firm were deployed in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Gilgit Baltistan, 50 percent of the firm were deployed in Punjab, 25 percent of the firm were deployed in the Sindh and, 12.5 percent of the firm were deployed in the Balochistan. Thus, deeming the study to utilize the equivalently proportionate responses from each province, that were aligned with the proportion of firms in each province, nationwide.

Structural equation modeling

Structural equation modeling is a multivariate based statistical evaluation approach that is utilized to determine structural associations between the components of a hypothesized model [ 52 , 53 ]. The adapted approach is a combination of factor analysis and multiple- regression analysis. The current study took a two-stage approach to conduct SEM. The first stage involved the application of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which justified the consistency of the research instrument and its associated components/items. Followed by which, the research instrument was tested for its respective reliability and validity in the first stage of SEM, as commended by prior research [ 53 ]. The second stage of SEM involved the evaluation of measuring the magnitude of impact existent between the observed and latent variables under discussion. Which were further justifies in terms of their significance and their respective relevance in alignment to the hypothesized relationships [ 54 ].

SEM (stage 1).

To begin with, the first stage of the SEM tested the measurement model for its reliability, validity (convergent, discriminant), and consistency to the components towards the research instrument, utilizing the CFA approach. CFA is a commended approach to test adapted research instruments for their consistency [ 49 , 55 ].

Instrument’s reliability.

The reliability of a research instrument is its ability to give consistent results with negligible variation regardless of the environment it is utilized in. SEM utilizes Cronbach’s Alpha as the criterion of reliability associated with a research instrument. For a research instrument and its respective components to be reliable the value of Cronbach’s Alpha is commended to be higher than 0.70 [ 56 ]. Keeping that in view, the values of Cronbach’s Alpha associated with all the variables under study were above 0.70 (See Table 2 ). Thus, deeming the respective research instrument to be reliable.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249311.t002

Instrument’s validity (convergent).

The validity of a research instrument is defined as its ability to measure the phenomena that it is supposed to measure. There are two types of validity i.e. convergent and discriminant [ 57 , 58 ]. The convergent validity associated with a research instrument is the measure to determine the relatability of research items to their respective variable. SEM utilizes Average Variance Extracted (AVE) as the criterion of validity associated with a research instrument. For a research instrument and its respective components to be convergently valid, the value of AVE is commended to be higher than 0.5 [ 49 , 59 ]. Keeping, that in view the values of AVE associated with all the variables under study were above 0.5 (See Table 3 ). Thus, deeming the respective research instrument to be convergently valid.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249311.t003

Instrument’s validity (discriminant).

The discriminant validity associated with a research instrument is the measure to determine the magnitude of dissimilarity of research items associated with a variable towards the research items of the rest of the variables under study. SEM utilizes Fornell-Larcker Criterion as the criterion of discriminant validity associated with a research instrument. For a research instrument and its respective components to be discriminately valid, the correlative value of Fornell-Larcker Criterion of a variable with its components is commended to be higher than the correlative value of other variables in the study [ 48 , 49 ]. Keeping, that in view the values of the Fornell-Larcker Criterion associated with all the variables under study were comparatively higher than the correlative values of other variables in the study (See Table 4 ). Thus, deeming the respective research instrument to be discriminately valid.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249311.t004

Another measure to determine, the discriminant validity associated to a research instrument is the Cross Loadings. For a research instrument and its respective components to be discriminately valid, the correlative values of Cross Loadings of the items of a variable are commended to be higher than the correlative values of similar items with other variables in the study [ 49 ]. Keeping, that in view the values of Cross Loadings associated to all the items of the variables under study were comparatively higher than the correlative values of similar items with rest of the variables in the study (See Table 5 ). Thus, deeming the respective research instrument to be discriminately valid.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249311.t005

Lastly, in terms of evaluating the discriminant validity, the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) is considered as the most precise measurement. HTMT is based upon a higher level of specificity that is ranged between the measurement precision of 97%-99%. On the contrary, the measures of Cross Loadings followed by the Fornell-Larcker Criterion can only depict a measurement precision ranged between 0.00%-20.82% [ 49 , 60 ]. In terms of HTMT, for a research instrument to be valid, the correlational terms must be valued lower than the 0.90. Keeping that in view, the correlation values associated with all the variables were below 0.90 (See Table 6 ). Thus, deeming the respective research instrument to be discriminately valid.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249311.t006

Multi-collinearity.

Multi-Collinearity is the state of higher correlation existent between the variables and the indicators associated with them. Which can further lead to unreliable statistical projections and inferences. To test a variable and its respective indicators for collinearity, the proposed criterion of VIF is followed. The referred criterion suggests for all the indicators of the regarding variable to have a VIF value lower than 5 to be fit in terms of collinearity measure [ 48 ]. Keeping that in view all the indicators associated with the variables under study were found to have VIF value under 5 (See Table 7 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249311.t007

Factor loadings.

Followed to fulfilling the criterion of the research instrument’s reliability and validity the respective components must fulfill the criterion of factor analysis that is measured in terms of Factor Loadings. Factor Loadings are determinant of the variability and correlation associated with the items of the observed variables under study. For an item associated with a variable to fulfill the Factor Loading criterion, must be valued above 0.7 [ 61 , 62 ]. In comparison to which, selective items associated with agile management (AM13) and project complexity (PC2, PC4) were found below the commended threshold value (See Table 8 ). Thus, these items were removed from the measurement model, to enhance the overall fit.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249311.t008

SEM (stage 2).

After the deletion of unfit components of the measurement model, the second stage involved the reassessment of the measurement model. The model was retested in terms of Factor Loadings, which depicted all of the values to be ranged above the minimum threshold of 0.70 [ 62 ] (See Table 9 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249311.t009

Path coefficients.

After conforming to the component fitness criterion, the structural model was evaluated in terms of the magnitude of the effect the observed variables had on the latent variables. The said magnitude was evaluated utilizing the measure of Path Coefficients. The value associated to the measure of path coefficient varies between ±1, which suggests the positive and negative relationship between the variables under consideration [ 48 , 63 , 64 ]. The effect of agile management practices over the project performance was valued at 0.473. The effect of agile management practices over the project complexity was valued as 0.703. The effect of leadership competencies over the project performance was valued at 0.664. Lastly, the effect of project complexity over the project performance was valued at 0.149. The evaluated effects were further justified in terms of the level of significance attributed to them i.e. p-value ≤ 0.05. Since all the results fulfilled the significance criterion, for which the evaluated effects were considered as accepted (See Table 10 ). Thus, justifying the following hypothesized relationships between the variables under study:

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249311.t010

Coefficient of determination ( r 2 ).

Coefficient of Determination ( r 2 ) is representative of the amount of variance the exogenous variable/s can cause in the associated endogenous variable/s. The value of the Coefficient of Determination (r2) varies between 0–1. The higher the value of r 2 the higher the magnitude of impact implied by the exogenous variables [ 65 ]. Keeping that in view, the exogenous variables of the study i.e. (Agile Management, Project Complexity, and Leadership Competencies) impacted the endogenous variable i.e. (Project Performance) with an r 2 valued at 0.582. Thus, justifying 58.20% of the variance explained (See Table 11 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249311.t011

Effect size ( f 2 ).

Effect Size ( f 2 ) is representative of the magnitude of effect an exogenous variable can have on an endogenous variable. The respective magnitude of the effect is classified into three tiers. For a given relationship the values of Effect Size ( f 2 ) ranged between 0.02–0.14 are attributed as a small effect. Likewise, values ranged between 0.15–0.35 are attributed as a medium effect, and values ranged 0.36 and above are attributed as a large effect [ 48 , 51 ]. Keeping that in view, both the agile management and project complexity had a medium impact. While leadership competencies and project complexity had a large effect on their respective dependent variables. (See Table 12 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249311.t012

Mediation analysis.

A mediatory variable of the study is known to add an explanation or justify the effect of an exogenous variable over an endogenous variable. The current study took project complexity as a mediator to explain the effect of agile management over the project performance. SmartPLS explains the mediation in terms of Indirect Effects and its respective significance [ 66 , 67 ]. Keeping, that in view the hypothesized mediation was approved (See Table 13 ). Thus, accepting the following hypothesis:

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249311.t013

Moderation analysis.

A moderating variable of the study is known to control the magnitude of the effect of an exogenous variable over an endogenous variable. This effect can be tilted either positively or negatively in presence of a moderator. The current study took leadership competencies as a moderator to control the effect of project complexity over the project performance. SmartPLS explains the moderation in terms of inducing a product indicator term in the structural model and its respective significance [ 68 ]. Keeping, that in view the hypothesized moderation was approved (See Table 14 ). Thus, accepting the following hypothesis:

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249311.t014

Results summary.

The proposed hypotheses for the current study were accepted while considering their significance. The respective summary is depicted in the following Table 15 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249311.t015

To begin with, the first research hypothesis stated, “Are the agile management practices a significant predictor of project performance?”. Keeping that in view, the current study depicted a significantly positive influence of implementing agile management practices onto the overall performance of the projects undertaken. This suggests, that resolving a project into smaller functional proportions and responding timely is a commendable approach to enhance the performance of the undertaken projects.

Furthermore, the statistical findings in accordance with the dimensions of the agile management the significance of the relationship emphasized that an organization must undertake only the projects that it is competent enough to accomplish. Moreover, for a project that is undertaken, must be resolved down to work units that can be matched with the competency level of the employed individual. This would enable them to achieve the targeted goals with fewer hurdles faced along the process. Similar results were concluded by Alvarenga, Branco [ 33 ] in their study conducted on 257 project managers; each having an extensive experience of over 10 years. As it was indicated that it is the competency associated to the employed individuals in an organization that assures the efficient and effective execution of organizational task and result in accomplishment of the undertaken projects. Followed to which, agile management commends the adaption of flexibility in the project development process that allows the project team to incorporate the changes more easily than the traditional implementation of the projects. Similarly, the loss incurred during the development process is relatively less. Since the failure is often observed in one or a few modules at a time, which doesn’t affect the rest of the development process in any way. Most importantly, agile management is most responsible for responding quickly to the areas of projects that demand prioritized completion or technical handling. The respective findings were found in alignment to the study conducted by Serrador and Pinto [ 5 ] on 1002 projects deployed across various nations, that depicted a similar notion of a positive impact of implementing agile management to attain enhanced organizational outcomes. In another mixed-mode study conducted by Drury-Grogan [ 69 ] on various teams utilizing agile tools in the I.T sector as well suggested that application of the referred tools resulted in enhancing the success associated with the regarding projects.

The second research hypothesis stated, “Are the agile management practices a significant predictor of project-related complexities?” Keeping that in view, the current study depicted a significantly negative influence of implementing agile management on the project complexity. This suggests that the implementation of agile management enabled the regarding project managers to be able to effectively foresee the undertaken projects to a greater extent by adapting agile management practices than they would otherwise have had by adapting traditional management practices. The respective findings were found in alignment with the study conducted by Sohi, Hertogh [ 9 ] on 67 projects of complex nature, depicted that in a hybrid system with agile management practices coupled with traditional management approach was able to mitigate the magnitude of complexity faced by the regarding firms. In another subjective study conducted by Maylor and Turner [ 7 ] projected deduction being based upon 43 workshops and the opinion of 1100 managers. The results suggested an agile management approach as possibly the most effective approach to diminish the project complexity to commendable levels. Akin to which, in an extensive literature review conducted by Bergmann and Karwowski [ 70 ] also concluded the similar findings that adaptation of agile management is very effective in terms of mitigating the project related complexities and a accomplishing project outcomes.

The third research hypothesis stated, “Is the project complexity a significant predictor of project performance?” Keeping that in view, the current study depicted a significantly negative influence of project complexity on the overall performance of the projects. This suggests that the uncertainties faced by the project manager may hinder the accomplishment of the project. This would further possibly result in causing unnecessary delays, financial losses, overused employee efforts, working environment with moral, quality compromises, and unsatisfied clients. The respective findings were found in alignment with the study conducted by Floricel, Michela [ 71 ] on 81 projects deployed 5 across continents, depicted the possible negative impact of complexities on the overall performance of the organizations; that may be faced at each step of the development process. In another hybrid study conducted by Zhu and Mostafavi [ 8 ] on various senior project managers employed in the construction sector as well opinionated that complexities associated with organizations can deter the performance observed across their respective projects. Likewise, Luo, He [ 72 ] compile the opinion of 245 project managers that expressed the fact that project complexity can jeopardize the accomplishment of desired organizational outcomes. Therefore, their mitigation is a necessity for an organization to thrive.

The fourth research hypothesis stated, “Are leadership competencies a significant predictor of project performance?” Keeping that in view, the current study depicted a significant relationship between leadership competencies and project performance. This suggests that effective leadership can play a pivotal role in enabling an organization to attain the desired performance targets associated to its respective project. The respective findings were found in alignment to the study conducted by Ahmed and Anantatmula [ 34 ] on 286 project managers serving various construction firms in Pakistan, suggested leadership competencies be an effective measure to enhance the performance of the projects it is utilized onto. In another hybrid study conducted by Berssaneti and Carvalho [ 73 ] on 336 project managers deployed across various Brazilian firms opinionated that effective supervision and managerial support can prove itself to be a potential factor in enabling a firm to deliver desired outcomes.

The fifth research hypothesis stated, “Does the project complexity mediate the relationship between agile management practices and project performance?” Keeping that in view, the current study depicted a significant relationship between agile management and project performance while considering leadership competencies as a moderator. This suggests that effective implementation of agile management practices in a project can prove themselves to be effective in elevating project performance. Though the magnitude of complexity associated with the project can explain the possible decline observed in project performance; regardless of the management practices being observed. Though the observed decline can be minimized to a laudable extent through the utilization of agile management practices. The respective findings were found in alignment with an in-depth correlational study conducted by Sohi, Hertogh [ 9 ] on 67 project managers supervising various projects. The results suggested that inducing agile management practices within any compatible system can enable an organization to manage through its professional challenges which can possibly lead an organization to perform better.

The sixth research hypothesis stated, “Do the leadership competencies moderate the relationship between agile management practices and project performance?” Keeping that in view, the current study depicted a significant relationship between project complexity and project performance while considering leadership competencies as a moderator. Which suggests that effective implication of human factor in terms of leadership competencies can play a vital role in mitigating the hindrances faced during the project development process and can further result in enhanced performance. On the contrary, the absence of required leadership competencies can result in augmentation of adversities that may lead to a decline in the project performance. The respective findings were found in alignment to a mixed-mode study conducted by Aurélio de Oliveira, Veriano Oliveira Dalla Valentina [ 74 ] on 32 highly skilled and influential project managers in the field of R&D; who have served various forms globally. The correlational study depicted a possibly potential impact of an appropriate leadership approach to resolve organizational situations and deliver targeted performance.

Considering the hypothetical contemplations of the current study, various deductions have been made. To begin with, the implementation of agile management practices in the Pakistani I.T industry proves itself to be effective in terms of enhancing the overall performance of the undertaken projects. Thus, ensuring the sustainability of organizations in the industry. Moreover, it was observed that agile management practices enabled its utilizers to cope up with the complexities, by breaking down tasks into smaller work units and implementing the supervision on a horizontal scale rather than top-down. This approach not only made managing tasks effectively and efficiently but also made the decision making swift. Though it was observed that the organizations that weren’t able to take on the implementation of agile management practices on a full scale, faced complexities in various organizational terms, that would lead to declined performance. In addition to the mitigation of complexities through the implementation of agile management practices, it was the effective consideration of human factors in terms of leadership competencies that extended the reduction of organizational complexities and upscaled the magnitude of performance delivered.

The current study offers a pathway to understanding the application of agile management practices in the IT sector. Though it faces various shortcomings in both contextual and conceptual manner, which can further serve as a pathway to future researchers and professionals to look into and extend the knowledge pool.

In conceptual terms, the current study only took into account one mediatory variable i.e., project complexity to explain the implications of agile management onto the project performance. Akin to which, only one moderating variable was considered to evaluate the variability in the magnitude of project performance. Both of these are not enough of a consideration to depict the full potential of application of agile management practices in determining the project performance. Referred to which, it is commended for the future researchers and professionals to look into considering other variables that can explain the phenomena of agile management to variate the magnitude of project performance delivered. In alignment to which, it will also be interesting to see the implementation of agile management to enhance the organizational accomplishments such as, attaining competitive advantage, innovation, industrial sustainability, and more.

In contextual terms, the current study has targeted the IT sector of Pakistan; a developing nation. Since other industries as well are realizing the necessity of agile management and embracing its practices, it will be interesting to see the application of similar study in other developing nations, as well as other industrial sectors.

Supporting information

S1 appendix..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249311.s001

S1 Dataset.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249311.s002

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 2. Kerzner H, Kerzner HR. Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling: John Wiley & Sons; 2017.
• 3. Langley MA. Success Rates Rise: Transforming the high cost of low performance. In: PMI, editor. Pulse of the Profession2017. p. 32.
• 4. Ambler SW. 2018 IT Project Success Rates Survey Results. Ambysoft, 2018.
• 12. Northouse PG. Leadership: Theory and practice: Sage publications; 2018.
• PubMed/NCBI
• 14. Denning S. How major corporations are making sense of Agile. Strategy & Leadership. 2018.
• 15. Denning S. Succeeding in an increasingly Agile world. Strategy & Leadership. 2018.
• 16. Levy R, Short M, Measey P, editors. Agile Foundations: Principles, practices and frameworks2015: BCS.
• 18. Abrahamsson P, Salo O, Ronkainen J, Warsta J. Agile software development methods: Review and analysis. 2017.
• 19. Marcus Ries DS. Agile Project Management, A Complete Beginner’s Guide To Agile Project Management: Ries Publications, New York; 2016.
• 20. Turk D, France R, Rumpe B. Limitations of agile software processes. Third International Conference on Extreme Programming and Flexible Processes in Software Engineering. 2014:43–6.
• 21. Kerzner H. Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling: John Wiley & Sons; 2017.
• 22. Uludag Ö, Kleehaus M, Caprano C, Matthes F, editors. Identifying and structuring challenges in large-scale agile development based on a structured literature review. 2018 IEEE 22nd International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC); 2018: IEEE.
• 27. Maylor H, Turner N. Understand, reduce, respond: project complexity management theory and practice. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 2017.
• 28. Morcov S, Pintelon L, Kusters RJ. Definitions, characteristics and measures of IT project complexity-a systematic literature review. International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management. 2020.
• 31. Larson EW, Gray CF, editors. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge: PMBOK ( ® ) Guide2015: Project Management Institute.
• 33. Alvarenga JC, Branco RR, Guedes ALA, Soares CAP, e Silva WdS. The project manager core competencies to project success. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. 2019.
• 36. Zuo J, Zhao X, Nguyen QBM, Ma T, Gao S. Soft skills of construction project management professionals and project success factors. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. 2018.
• 37. Gunter RC. Emotional Intelligence and Its Relationship to Project Manager Leadership Competencies and Project Success: Saint Leo University; 2020.
• 38. Association PSH. P@SHA IT Industry Report 2017. Report. 2017 Contract No.: 1.
• 39. Neuman WL. Understanding research: Pearson; 2016.
• 41. Hox JJ, Moerbeek M, van de Schoot R. Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications: Routledge; 2017.
• 47. Heeringa SG, West BT, Berglund PA. Applied survey data analysis: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2017.
• 50. Ringle CM, Da Silva D, Bido DdS. Structural equation modeling with the SmartPLS. 2015.
• 51. Ringle C, Wende S, Becker J. SmartPLS—Statistical Software For Structural Equation Modeling. 2017.
• 52. Bowen NK, Guo S. Structural equation modeling: Oxford University Press; 2011.
• 53. Klem L. Structural equation modeling. 2000.
• 55. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming: Routledge; 2016.
• 56. Gliem JA, Gliem RR, editors. Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales2003: Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education.
• 60. Ab Hamid M, Sami W, Sidek MM, editors. Discriminant Validity Assessment: Use of Fornell & Larcker criterion versus HTMT Criterion. Journal of Physics: Conference Series; 2017: IOP Publishing.
• 63. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL. Multivariate data analysis: Prentice hall Upper Saddle River, NJ; 1998.
• 64. Hair Jr JF, Hult GTM, Ringle C, Sarstedt M. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): Sage Publications; 2016.
• 65. Di Bucchianico A. Coefficient of determination (R2). Encyclopedia of Statistics in Quality and Reliability. 2008.
• 68. Bae B. Analyses of moderating and mediating effects with SPSS/Amos/LISREL/SmartPLS. Seoul: Chungram Publishing. 2015.
• 70. Bergmann T, Karwowski W, editors. Agile project management and project success: A literature review. International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics; 2018: Springer.

Perspectives on research in project management: the nine schools

• Theoretical Articles
• Published: 16 January 2013
• Volume 1 , pages 3–28, ( 2013 )

Cite this article

• J. Rodney Turner 1 , 4 ,
• Frank Anbari 2 &
• Christophe Bredillet 3  

19k Accesses

40 Citations

Explore all metrics

This paper demonstrates that project management is a developing field of academic study in management, of considerable diversity and richness, which can make a valuable contribution to the development of management knowledge, as well as being of considerable economic importance. The paper reviews the substantial progress and trends of research in the subject, which has been grouped into nine major schools of thought: optimization, modelling, governance, behaviour, success, decision, process, contingency, and marketing. The paper addresses interactions between the different schools and with other related management fields, and provides insights into current and potential research in each and across these schools.

Similar content being viewed by others

Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations

Exploring the challenges and benefits for scaling agile project management to large projects: a review

Research Methodology: An Introduction

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

For the past 60 years, organizations have increasingly been using projects and programs to achieve their strategic objectives (Morris and Jamieson 2004 ), while dealing with increasing complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity affecting organizations and the socio-economic environment within which they operate (Gareis 2005 ). Through projects, resources and competencies are mobilized to bring about strategic change, and thereby create competitive advantage and other sources of value.

Until the mid-1980s, interest in project management was limited to engineering, construction, defense, and information technology. More recently interest has diversified into many other areas of management activity. Currently, more than 20 % of global economic activity takes place as projects, and in some emerging economies it exceeds 30 %. World Bank ( 2008 ) data indicate that 22 % of the world’s $55 trillion gross domestic product (GDP) is gross capital formation, which is almost entirely project-based. In India it is 39 % and in China it is 43 %. Gross capital formation is defined as “outlays on additions to the fixed assets of the economy plus net changes in the level of inventories. Fixed assets include land improvements (fences, ditches, drains, and so on); plant, machinery, and equipment purchase; and the construction of roads, railways, and the like, including schools, offices, hospitals, private residential dwellings, and commercial and industrial buildings. Inventories are stocks of goods held by firms to meet temporary or unexpected fluctuations in production or sales and work in progress… Net acquisitions of valuables are also considered capital formation.” (World Bank 2008 ). In many public and private organizations some operating expenditures are also project-based. Project management makes an important and significant contribution to value creation globally.

Developing relevant competence at all levels, individual, team, organization, and society is key to better performance (Gareis and Huemann 2007 ). Grabher ( 2004a ) discusses the processes of creating and sedimenting knowledge at the interfaces between projects, organizations, communities, networks, and the socio-economic environment within which projects operate. He proposes the notion of project ecologies and their constitutive layers of the core team, the firm, the epistemic community, and personal networks. He contrasts two opposing logics of project-based learning by juxtaposing learning that is geared towards moving from ‘one-off’ to repeatable solutions with the discontinuous learning that is driven by originality and creativity. He proposes a differentiation of social and communicative logics, wherein “ communality signifies lasting and intense ties, sociality signifies intense and yet ephemeral relations and connectivity indicates transient and weak networks.” (Grabher 2004b ).

Educational programs in project management have grown rapidly during the last three decades to support the need for competence (Atkinson 2006 ; Umpleby and Anbari 2004 ). The number of academic project management programs leading to degrees in project management increased greatly from 1990 onwards. This growth is evident in the US, Europe, Australia, Japan and other parts of the world. Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) with programs in project management in the US include: Boston University–Metropolitan College, Colorado Technical University, DeVry University, Drexel University, Eastern Michigan University, Northeastern University, Stevens Institute of Technology, The George Washington University, University of Alaska, University of Management and Technology, University of Maryland–A. J. Clark School of Engineering, University of Maryland University College, University of Texas at Dallas, University of Wisconsin–Platteville, Western Carolina University, and several others. Project management programs are offered internationally by several IHEs including the University of Quebec at Montreal, University of Technology at Sydney, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, University of Limerick–Kemmy Business School, School of Knowledge Economy and Management–SKEMA (which resulted from the merger of two French business schools, CERAM Business School and ESC Lille), and several others. In the last 3 years the Chinese Ministry of Education has supported the creation of 120 masters degree programs in project management to support their rapid economic development. To support this global development it is necessary for project management to develop as a rigorous academic field of study in management. This is essential so that the rapid economic development that is so dependent on project management can be underpinned by sound theory and not just case histories and opinions of doubtful rigour.

Modern project management started as an offshoot of Operations Research, with the adoption of optimization tools developed in that field, and some members of the community have continued to present it as such. However, authors of this paper wish to demonstrate that project management has now grown into a mature academic discipline of some diversity and complexity. At least nine schools of thought in project management can be identified, and project management is increasingly drawing on and making contributions to research in other fields of management, as the authors aim to demonstrate in this paper. In this way, project management is becoming substantially different from Operations Management, which continues to emphasize the application of optimization tools to the analysis of production processes (Slack et al. 2006 ).

The paper is based on an extensive review of academic research literature on project management that reflects the evidence advanced by leading thinkers and researches in the field. The literature is organized into nine major schools of thought on the basis of the key premise that drives each one. The intent of separating these schools of thought is to gain insight into current and potential research, within a manageable number of research themes without over-simplification of the richness of the underlying thought. However, the overlap and interactions between project management schools is also discussed.

Project management as a recognizable field of study

Audet ( 1986 ) defines a knowledge field as:

… the space occupied by the whole of the people who claim to produce knowledge in this field, and this space is also a system of relationships between these people competing to gain control over the definition of the conditions and the rules of production of knowledge.

We use this definition to structure our discussion of project management as a knowledge field, while recognizing that other elements can be used to augment and enhance this definition based on other perspectives on how knowledge is gained in other fields (North 1987 ), and different approaches to the classification of a knowledge field (Mintzberg 1990 ), including empirical, rational, historic, and pragmatic methods (Hjørland 1998 ).

With project management making such a significant contribution to the global economy, developing relevant competence at all levels, individual, team, organization, and society is seen as a key for better performance (Gareis and Huemann 2007 ). Knowledge is needed to develop competence (Crawford 2007 ), and that knowledge should be based on sound, academically rigorous research.

In the early days of modern project management in the 1950s, the development of knowledge was led by the users. The US military made significant early contributions to the new discipline, developing such concepts as the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), the Cost and Schedule Control Systems Criteria (C/SCSC) (which evolved into Earned Value Management, EVM), and the Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT), (see Morris 1997 ). Construction companies and their clients also made significant early contributions. For instance, DuPont developed the Critical Path Method (CPM) from a technique devised in the field of Operations Research. The baton was picked up by the growing computer industry in the 1960s (see Brooks 1995 ).

In the 1980s, leadership of the development of knowledge was taken over by the professional associations: The Project Management Institute (PMI ® ), based outside Philadelphia, the UK’s Association for Project Management (APM), the Australian Institute of Project Management (AIPM), and the International Project Management Association (IPMA). They needed to develop bodies of knowledge to support their certification programs. The focus of this work continued to be very user oriented, and so did not always adhere to recognized standards of academic rigour.

It is only over the last 15 to 20 years that universities and other academic research institutions have begun to provide leadership. The first academic research conference in project management, the biennial IRNOP conference (International Research Network for Organizing by Projects), was initiated in 1994. PMI ® started holding its biennial research conference in 2000, and the annual EURAM conference has had a project management track since its inception in 2001.

So we see that project management is a relatively young field of study as an academic discipline. Initially advanced study in project management in universities was located in schools of engineering or construction, and then in schools of computing, and so was viewed as a technical subject. More recently project management has also been incorporated into schools of business or management, and so is now gaining recognition as a branch of management. To our knowledge, the first doctorates in the field were done in engineering and construction in the late 1960s at the University of Manchester, Faculty of Technology (degrees conferred in 1971 and 1972), and the first doctorates in the field in schools of business in the UK were done during the 1980s at Henley Management College and the Cranfield School of Management. Europe has led the way in the growth of project management as an academic subject in management. The first doctorate in the field in a school of business in the US was done in the late 1980s at Drexel University, Department of Decision Sciences (degree conferred in 1993). At a recent meeting of a government sponsored research network in the UK (Winter et al. 2006 ), there were more researchers from business schools than schools of engineering, construction, and computing combined.

As a young discipline, the epistemological foundation of the field is still in its early stages of development. Meredith ( 2002 ) indicated that development of a theory of project management is important to progress in the field. Söderlund ( 2004 ) highlighted the wider interest in project management from other academic disciplines, the increasing need for discussing research on the subject, and the usefulness of examining project management and project organization from several perspectives. He discussed emerging perspectives within the field and presented questions that project research needs to discuss to further knowledge about project management. He argued that these questions include: why project organizations exist, how they behave and why they differ, what is the value added by the project management unit, and what determines the success or failure of project organizations. Turner ( 2006a , b , c , d ) outlined a theory of project management based on work he did in the early 1990s (see Turner 2009 , first edition published in 1993). Sauer and Reich ( 2007 ) agreed that such a theory was necessary as a basis for sound research in the subject, but suggested that Turner’s approach was very normative, and that alternatives were possible. Cicmil et al. ( 2006 ) suggested that to develop a sound theoretical basis for project management, the very nature of projects needs to be examined, and fundamental questions addressing the different underlying theoretical perspectives emerging from and supporting the project management field are yet to be explored. Walker et al. ( 2008 ) highlighted the value of reflective academic research to project management practitioners and suggested that a reflective learning approach to research can drive practical results through the commitment of academic and industry partners. Artto et al. ( 2009 ) conducted a comparative bibliometric study and showed that projects have product development as their dominant theory basis, whereas programs take an open system view, seek change in permanent organizations, and have organizational theories, strategy, product development, manufacturing and change as their theoretical bases.

With the academic community now providing leadership to the development of knowledge in the field, greater academic rigour is being applied, meaning project management is now more deserving of recognition as an academic subject, and the admission of the International Journal of Project Management to the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) is an important step in that process. Project management is drawing on other management disciplines and making contributions to them (Kwak and Anbari 2008 ), and we believe that all fields of management will be richer for that growing interchange. Against this background, several schools of project management thought have developed reflecting different trends, and the influence of other management disciplines. We now outline these major schools of thought and review progress, trends, and potential research in each of them.

Project management schools of thought

Project management is a relatively young academic discipline, but with the help of other fields of management, it has quickly evolved into a field of some diversity and richness. It has been common to assume that projects and project management are fairly homogeneous (Project Management Institute 2008 ; Association for Project Management 2006 ; International Project Management Association 2006 ). However, there is a growing belief that projects are different, their success can be judged in different ways, and they can require different competency profiles for their successful management (Crawford et al. 2005 , 2006 ; Shenhar and Dvir 1996 ; Turner and Müller 2006 ). Building on prior work, we can recognize several perspectives of project management. Anbari ( 1985 ) identified five schools of thought. Söderlund ( 2002 ) through a literature search and Bredillet ( 2004a ) through a co-word analysis each identified seven similar schools. We can now identify at least nine schools, and most research in project management can be said to fall into one of them. Table  1 shows the nine schools, and how they compare to the five schools of Anbari ( 1985 ), and the seven of Söderlund ( 2002 ) and Bredillet ( 2004a ). In fact all nine schools were previously identified by the other three authors. Compared to Söderlund and Bredillet we have added the Process School and split the Optimization School into the Optimization and Modelling Schools to reflect the modelling of multiple parameters and the use of soft systems modelling. Anbari ( 1985 ) called the Process School the Systems School, and his Management Science School covered the Optimization, Modelling and Decision Schools. He did not identify the Success or Marketing Schools. Table  1 also compares the nine schools to conventional fields of management study and to the management disciplines identified by Kwak and Anbari ( 2008 ) in their study of project management research published in top management and business journals. Table  2 shows the key idea associated with each school and the metaphor we have adopted to reflect it. The nine schools are depicted in Fig.  1 in the order in which the school came to prominence.

The Nine Schools of Project Management Research

The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following definition of the word “school” amongst several others:

School: a group of people sharing common ideas or methods; a specified style, approach or method; the imitators, disciples or followers of a philosopher, artist, etc.

That is what we mean by the word school. A group of researchers investigating and developing common methods, tools and techniques (for practitioners to use), often with one or more lead researchers providing the vision in that area. We strongly believe that the word “school” reflects what we mean here.

The optimization school: the project as a machine

Modern project management has its roots in the field of Operations Research of the 1940s and 1950s (Morris 1997 ). During and immediately after World War II, there was an explosion in the development of optimization theory, particularly in the US and the UK (Gass and Assad 2005 ). Optimization tools such as network scheduling techniques including the Critical Path Methods (CPM) and Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) reflect the genesis of modern project management in the management science/decision sciences field. Bar (Gantt) charts, developed in the early 1900s by Henry Gantt for production scheduling, and network scheduling techniques were adopted during the 1950s (Archibald and Villoria 1967 ). Subsequent developments included the resource allocation and leveling heuristics, project crashing, resource constrained scheduling, Graphical Evaluation and Review Technique (GERT), Critical Chain, Theory of Constraints, Monte Carlo Simulation of project networks and cost estimates, and variations of these methods.

The main premise of this school is to define the objective(s) of the project, break the project into smaller components, ensure careful planning, scheduling, estimating, and execution of project tasks, and strive for cost and time efficiency throughout the project to achieve the optimum outcome. This school is very Taylorian in its approach. It treats the project as a system or a machine, once mathematically defined and analyzed will perform in predictable ways.

An important contribution is the textbook by Cleland and King ( 1983 , first published in 1968), in which the authors set out a theory of project management based on the view that the project is a system to be optimized. This textbook had a substantial influence on the early development of the field, and became a dominant view. The textbook by Kerzner ( 2009 , first published in 1979) can be considered the main textbook for this school. Its title reflects what the school is about: the use of a systems approach to planning and controlling the project, to model and optimize its outcome. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK ® Guide) (Project Management Institute 2008 , originally published in 1996) is currently considered the de facto global standard for project management, and has done much to shape the subject globally (its predecessor publication (1987) was entitled Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) of the Project Management Institute ). Several elements of the PMBOK ® Guide derive from this school, particularly the management of scope, time, and cost.

A current, prominent area of research in the optimization school is the EVM method and its extensions (Anbari 2003 ). We expect research to continue into the extensions of EVM such as forecasting project completion time, the earned schedule method, integration of planning and control of various project parameters, in particular scope, time, cost, quality, and risk, as well as the relationship of project management to the operational life cycle of the completed project.

Both fields of Operations Management and Project Management continued to develop their mathematical arsenals to improve decision making in operations, projects, and supply chain management, as well as incorporate contributions from other management disciplines. The field of Operations Management did not move substantially beyond the Optimization School (Slack et al. 2006 ), but in the field of project management this was found to be insufficient. The need to model multiple parameters, growing calls to include organizational and behavioural factors, and limitations of most optimization algorithms, led to the adoption of soft systems modelling to reflect the significant social element in projects. Project management has now advanced along a number of different avenues, which we review.

The modelling school: the project as a mirror

Project management thought progressed from optimization of one or two objectives (such as time and cost) to modelling the total project management system and the interactions among its components (Williams 2002 ). Thus the optimization school, based on a hard systems approach evolved into the modelling school, in which project management is broken into its main elements for study and understanding, and these elements integrated to obtain a full view of the total system. This is akin to Descartes’ reductionism approach of dividing a complex problem into its parts, solving each part, and then integrating back to solve the entire problem.

Anbari ( 1985 ) discussed elements of the project management system and their interactions, and postulated the quadruple objectives/constraints of project management: scope, time, cost, and quality. Turner ( 2009 , first published 1993) independently added project organization to give five project objectives. Anbari et al. ( 2008 ) suggested two sets of constraints: the primary triple constraints (scope, time, and cost) and the secondary triple constraints (meeting customer expectations, final quality, and mitigation of risks). Eisner ( 2008 ) stressed the importance of using a systems approach in projects and highlighted the relationship between Systems Engineering and project management. Williams ( 2002 ) postulated that “it is generally held that the complexity of projects is also increasing” (p. 4), and suggested that the compounding causes of complexity in projects are the increasing complexity of products being developed and tightening of timescales. He provided a comprehensive approach to developing models to understand the behaviour of complex projects. Techniques used in modelling are based on the System Dynamics approach developed by Forrester ( 1961 ) and applied to a wide variety of situations (Sterman 2000 ). While fundamentally similar to discrete event simulation, System Dynamics modelling focuses on the understanding of feedback and feed-forward relationships. Williams and others showed that projects can contain complex causal chains of “hard” and “soft” effects that can form into reinforcing feedback loops, and at times applying accepted project management theory can make these loops worse. For example, adding resource, which CPM predicts would expedite the project, could exacerbate the problems that are causing the delay and result in further delays. This calls for the application of more sophisticated modelling tools (Williams 2005 ).

The Modelling School later encompassed soft-systems methodology and sense-making with the aim of addressing organizational, behavioural, political, and other issues affecting projects and the complex environments within which they operate. Whereas the focus of hard systems is optimization, the focus of soft systems is clarification and making sense of the project and its environment. The soft systems methodology (SSM) was originally proposed by Checkland ( 1972 ) to resolve unstructured management, planning, and public policy problems that often have unclear or contradictory multi-objectives. Thus, SSM extends the ideas of optimization to modelling of real-world messy problems. SSM does not assume a systemic view of such problems but uses ideas of systems analysis to help form the process of inquiry (Gass and Assad 2005 ). Yeo ( 1993 ) linked project management to SSM, and Neal ( 1995 ) suggested using the soft systems approach for managing project change. Winter and Checkland ( 2003 ) examined the main differences between hard systems and soft systems thinking through a comparison of their different perspectives on the practice of project management. Crawford and Pollack ( 2004 ) identified dimensions of hardness and softness of projects based on differences in the philosophical basis of that dichotomy.

Alderman et al. ( 2005 ) drew upon sense-making literature to address the management of complex long-term service-led engineering projects and suggested such an approach may help untangle project management challenges in a new way. Atkinson et al. ( 2006 ) maintained that “common project management practice does not address many fundamental sources of uncertainty, particularly in ‘soft’ projects where flexibility and tolerance of vagueness are necessary” (p. 687), and suggested that to manage sources of uncertainty more sophisticated efforts are needed encompassing aspects of organizational culture and learning. Winter ( 2006 ) highlighted the importance of problem structuring during the front-end of projects and the potential role that SSM can play. Pollack ( 2007 ) indicated that there is a growing acceptance of the soft paradigm, and suggested that a paradigmatic expansion to include soft systems thinking could provide increased opportunities for researchers and practitioners. Integrating into models the interactions among people and their relationships, communications, and power relationships, could add even more power to the tools of the Modelling School (Williams 2007 ).

It can be argued that hard systems include simulation, which provides a way of reflecting how a system evolves according to the influence and level of the initial conditions of its parameters. As such, hard systems are about sense-making as well. However, models are managed and analyzed by people who have to observe and judge to gain data to populate their models. The models that we have discussed in this section try to incorporate some consideration of the causes of attitudes and biases, and thus start to capture the socially constructed nature of “reality” in a project (Bredillet 2004b ). Thus, the Modelling School is about acting and understanding, a mirror to reflect the project and shape our understanding of it. Research in this area will continue into integrating hard systems and soft systems methodologies for modelling the total project management system, including optimization of multiple objectives under multiple constraints, and consideration of various forces in the internal and external project environments, as well as formulation and adoption of lessons learned from previous and ongoing projects to enhance the total system and the approaches used for modelling it.

The governance school: the project as a legal entity

The governance school has had several bursts of activity. The first investigated the relationship between contract management and project management, and the second looked at the mechanisms of governance on a project and in a project-oriented organization. The contract sub-school takes one of two views of the project:

either it views the project as a legal entity in its own right, and describes how the relationship between the parties to that legal entity should be managed (Turner 2004 ), or

it views the project as an interface between two legal entities, the client and the contractor, and describes how that interface should be managed (Barnes 1983 ).

Researchers had been studying contract management on construction contracts for several decades before project management began to develop as a field. The UK’s Institution of Civil Engineers first published its conditions of contract in the 1930s (Institution of Civil Engineers 1999 ). However, with the development of modern project management, researchers began specifically researching contract management from a project perspective (Barnes 1983 ), and the Institution of Civil Engineers ( 1995 ) developed its New Engineering Contract from a more specifically project management perspective.

The second burst of activity began by viewing the project as a temporary organization (Lundin and Söderholm 1995 ; Midler 1995 ; Turner and Müller 2003 ), and moved on to investigate the mechanisms of governance both of the project as a temporary organization (Turner 2006b ; Turner and Keegan 2001 ) and of the project-oriented parent organization (Association for Project Management 2004 ).

The concept of the project as a temporary organization was first propounded in Sweden in the mid 1990s. The Scandinavian literature (Lundin and Söderholm 1995 ; Midler 1995 ) focused on the temporary nature of the project organization and its various implications. Lundin and Söderholm ( 1995 ) point out that mainstream organizational theory is based on the assumption that organizations are (or should be) permanent entities and “theories on temporary organizational settings (projects) are much less prevalent” (p. 437). They stress the importance of developing a theory of the temporary organization, highlight the difference between the role of time in a temporary organization and its role in the permanent firm, and specify that ‘action’ as opposed to ‘decision’ is central to a theory of the temporary organization (p. 437). Turner and Müller ( 2003 ) added to the discussion by showing that the view of the project as a temporary organization leads to the concepts of principal-agency theory and governance. In a series of editorials in the International Journal of Project Management, Turner ( 2006a , b , c , d ) aimed to develop a theory of project management, and defined a project as “a temporary organization to which resources are assigned to do work to bring about beneficial change” (Turner 2006a , p. 1).

The focus of the project governance literature covers three areas:

The principal-agency relationship between client and contractor

Two parties are in a principal-agency relationship when one party, the principal, is dependent on the other, the agent, to do work on their behalf (Jensen 2000 ). The principal suffers two problems, which are at the heart of project management:

they do not always know why the agent takes the decisions they do (the adverse selection problem),

the agent can act opportunistically and will act to optimize their economic outcomes from the project and not the client’s (the moral hazard problem). The contractor will only optimize the client’s economic outcomes if they are aligned with the contractor’s, placing contract management at the heart of this school.

Harrison and Harrell ( 1993 ) showed that the principal-agency theory can explain the decision to continue a failing project when the agent has private information to make such a decision rational from the agent’s perspective despite its being irrational from the principal’s perspective.

Transaction costs associated with projects

Winch ( 1989 ) aimed to identify transaction costs associated with construction projects. Turner and Keegan ( 2001 ) analyzed transaction costs on projects, and what that suggested about mechanisms of governance, roles, and responsibilities. Turner and Simister ( 2001 ) and Turner ( 2004 ) showed how a transaction or agency cost analysis could be used to determine contract strategy, and showed that residual loss (Jensen 2000 ) is the main determining factor. Gerwin and Ferris ( 2004 ) analyzed transaction costs, potential for learning, and development of relations for future projects, in organizing strategic alliances for new product development projects. They determined the points at which it is more beneficial for partners to work with little or considerable interaction, and to have decision-making authority reside in a project manager or be consensual.

Mechanisms of governance of projects

Mechanisms of governance of the individual project are discussed by Turner and Keegan ( 2001 ). Mechanisms in the project-oriented parent organization are being investigated by a special interest group of the UK’s APM ( 2004 ). Rentz ( 2007 ) highlighted the governance gap between project operations and control bodies, suggested that it “applies to any development project, independent of its size, type, or geographic location ” (p. 222), and proposed a project governance model to support the institutionalization of ethical responsibility in nonprofit organizations. Garland ( 2009 ) described the logical steps necessary to establish and implement a project governance framework for a project or across an organization to support effective project decision-making, including the accountabilities and responsibilities of the main roles.

Current research in this area includes effective governance of projects, programs, and organizational portfolio (Jamieson and Morris 2007 ; Morris and Jamieson 2004 ), effective organization and functions of the project management office (PMO), project support office (PSO), and project management centre for excellence (PMCE) (Hobbs and Aubry 2007 ). Winch ( 2006 ) also proposes the need to investigate the governance of project coalitions. Research in this area may continue into project and program selection, portfolio refinement and management, the PMO, and the role of regulatory compliance in project management.

The behaviour school: the project as a social system

The behaviour school is closely associated with the governance school, and takes as its premise that the project as a temporary organization is a social system, and includes several areas focused on organizational behaviour (OB), team building and leadership, communication, and more recently human resource management (HRM).

Pioneering work in this school was done by Galbraith ( 1973 ) on designing complex organizations, and Youker ( 1977 ) on organizational alternatives for project management, in which we believe that Youker coined the term ‘projectized organization’ (p. 47). Other pioneering works include studies extending OB research to the project environment. These works include studies on conflict management in temporary organizational systems (Wilemon 1973 ) and managing conflict in project life cycles (Thamhain and Wilemon 1975 ). Subsequently Thamhain ( 2004 ) has extensively researched working in project teams, and more recently research has begun to investigate working in virtual project teams (Massey et al. 2003 ; DeLisle 2004 ).

In the 1980s, work was done on project start-up (Fangel 1987 ) both from a perspective of project planning and team formation and maintenance (Turner 2009 ). Project Managers have a reputation for being task focused rather than people focused (Turner and Müller 2006 ). A seminal work on bringing a people focus to project management was Graham ( 1989 ). In the early 1990s researchers became interested in the leadership skills of project managers (Briner et al. 1996 , first published in 1990; Pinto and Trailer 1998 ), and recently Müller and Turner ( 2007 ) demonstrated that different profiles of leadership are needed for different types of projects. Pinto ( 1996 ) researched power and politics in projects, and Müller and Turner ( 2005 ) investigated communication between the project manager and sponsor from an agency theory perspective. Pitsis et al. ( 2003 ) studied a significant portion of the Sydney 2000 Olympic infrastructure and concluded that the project was a success, and that problems that arose were largely focused on social rather than on technical issues. Other significant research includes examination of the influence of goals, accessibility, proximity and procedures on cross-functional cooperation and perceived project outcomes (Pinto et al. 1993 ), deployment of dynamic capabilities within the resource-based view of the firm to enhance new product development and other organizational processes (Eisenhardt and Martin 2000 ), team dynamics in Six Sigma projects (Eckes 2002 ), and cross-cultural issues in project management (Anbari et al. 2004 ).

Research has now shifted from strictly OB view on projects to HRM view. Huemann et al. ( 2007 ) and Turner et al. ( 2007 ) researched HRM on projects and in project-oriented organizations. They found that project-oriented firms need to adopt new HRM practices specific to the project and different HRM practices in the line when compared to traditional HRM theory.

Research continues into the workings of virtual project teams, and HRM in project-oriented organizations. Cross-cultural issues and potential synergistic and antagonistic effects on project teams are important areas for research, particularly in view of the growing diversity of project teams, globalization, and global sourcing of project work. Research can also address knowledge management and knowledge sharing issues in view of the temporary nature of project workers who, upon completion of the project, are released and dispersed throughout the organization or may leave the organization entirely and take their knowledge with them.

The success school: the project as a business objective

This school focuses on the success and failure of the project. Project success literature describes two major components of project success:

Project success factors . The elements of a project that can be influenced to increase the likelihood of success; the independent variables that make success more likely.

Project success criteria . The measures by which we judge the successful outcome of a project; the dependent variables which measure project success. These are the business objectives we wish to achieve from the project.

Wateridge ( 1995 ) suggests that the project manager should identify the success criteria for the project, from them determine appropriate success factors to deliver those criteria, and then choose an appropriate project management methodology. Jugdev and Müller ( 2005 ) published a comprehensive review of this school. There has been a shift in emphasis in the project success literature from the 1970s to the present day. Early on the focus for success criteria was achieving time, cost and performance objectives, and it was felt that the greatest contribution to success was in the planning and control of the project—this is in line with the optimization school. Now it is accepted that a much wider range of stakeholders have a view on project success, and a much wider range of factors from project initiation to project commissioning and ensuing operations have an impact on its perceived success—this is in line with the governance and process schools.

Considerable research has been conducted on the factors that affect the success and failure of projects and project management. The first statement in modern project management of what causes project success and failure was made in Andersen et al. ( 2004 , first Norwegian edition 1984), followed by Morris and Hough ( 1987 ), who studied several major projects from the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s in the UK to identify how people judged success and what elements contributed to success. Another seminal study was the work of Pinto and Slevin ( 1987 ), who examined critical factors for project success.

This area continues to provide fertile grounds for research. Recent studies have investigated the relationship between the success of new product development projects and balancing firmness and flexibility in the innovation process (Tatikonda and Rosenthal 2000 ), and further refined our understanding of success factors and success criteria (Cooke-Davies 2002 ; Turner and Müller 2005 ). Other research has examined the relationship between project success and the implementation of the PMO (Dai and Wells 2004 ), use of project management software (Bani-Ali et al. 2008 ), and project risk management practices (Voetsch et al. 2005 ). Other studies showed that teamwork quality is significantly associated with team performance, and assessed the effects of collaborative processes within and between teams on overall project performance, quality, budget, and schedule (Hoegl et al. 2004 ). Other works have addressed project management maturity (Kerzner 2001 , 2006 ), the relationship of capabilities to best practices and to project, program and portfolio outcomes (Project Management Institute 2003 ), and the relationships between project management and the Six Sigma method (Kwak et al. 2006 ). Recently, a major research study was completed to understand how project management is applied within organizations and the value it provides to the organizations that use it. This global, multi-year study, was sponsored partially by PMI ® and was conducted by an international team of 48 researchers. The study demonstrated unequivocally that project management delivers value to the organizations that implement it. “More than half of our case study organizations demonstrate tangible value being realized as a result of their project management implementation (p. 350)… Most organizations demonstrate intangible value as a result of their project management implementation (p. 351)… Almost every organization that participated in a case study within this research project received some degree of value whether tangible, intangible, or both as a result of their project management implementation. For many of those organizations, the level of value was quite high (p. 356).” (Thomas and Mullaly 2008 , p. 356). However, the study cautioned that for many organizations that received value from their project management implementation, there was no assurance that such value would be sustained. For such organizations, there is a question as to whether value would continue to grow or begin to decline. The causes of this “included attitudes that perceived project management as being ‘done’ and something that required no further investment, changes in the market or competitive conditions of the organization, changes in oversight and involvement by executives or parent organizations and loss of key resources that were originally responsible for the implementation.” (Thomas and Mullaly 2008 , p. 357). Research can continue to further refine our understanding of success factors, success criteria, stakeholder satisfaction with project outcomes, causes of failure of projects and programs, and approaches to ensure sustainability of the value of project management.

The decision school: the project as a computer

This school focuses on factors relevant to the initiation, approval, and funding of projects as well as factors relevant to project completion, termination, and conclusions about their success or failure. This approach addresses economic, cultural, and political rules that cause investments in projects. It encompasses issues considered in the application of SSM in project management, and considers the ambiguity surrounding decision-making in the pre-project fuzzy environment.

There are two focuses of this school. The first is on the decision-making processes in the early stages of projects. In particular, why certain decisions are made, and the impact this has on the overall project. Much of the research has focused on major project disasters, what led to them, and whether these disasters were avoidable (Morris and Hough 1987 ; Morris 1997 ). Flyvbjerg ( 2006 ) investigated optimism and political bias in the early decision making processes to explain the continued underestimating of project out-turns. The other focus of this school is on information processing in projects. Winch ( 1989 , 2002a , b ) takes the view that a project is a vehicle for processing information and reducing uncertainty in the process. This links to the process school, the project is a process for processing information, and to the success school, processing information enables us to make better decisions, which is a success factor. Winch ( 2002a , b ) links this view to the importance of decision-making and sense-making at end of stage reviews, and reducing uncertainty there. As such, this school of thought brings project management research a full circle to its optimization and decision making roots while considering various issues that affect organizational decisions.

Current research is addressing factors affecting initial estimates of cost and time required to accomplish project objectives to the level of expected quality, and methods for handling deliberately optimistic estimates and improving such estimates (Flyvbjerg 2006 ; Morris and Hough 1987 , Williams 2002 ), the relationship of the organization’s portfolio of projects and programs to its strategy (Artto et al. 2001 ), as well as factors affecting inclusion of projects and programs in the organization’s portfolio and the ongoing refinement of such portfolio (Morris and Jamieson 2004 ).

The process school: the project as an algorithm

This school became popular in the late 1980s, particularly in Europe. The premise is to define structured processes from the conceptual start of the project to achieving the end objectives. Turner ( 2009 ) suggests that project management is about converting vision into reality; you have a vision of some future state you wish to achieve, and project management is a structured process, a road map, which takes you from the start to the desired end state. Winch ( 2002a ) suggests that through this process we convert desire into memory. The project is like an algorithm that helps you solve the problem of how to get to that desired future state. Proponents include Turner ( 2009 ), Gareis ( 2005 ), and Meredith and Mantel ( 2006 , first published in 1985). The emphasis of Turner’s books is on defining the process to follow to achieve the project’s objectives. He also defines processes for managing scope, organization, quality, cost, time, risk, project life-cycle, and management life-cycle. Gareis argues for process management and bases the maturity and benchmarking models he developed (Gareis and Huemann 2007 ), including the project-oriented company and project-oriented society models, on defining processes for the elements of project management. Meredith and Mantel ( 2006 ) organize various project management processes around the project life cycle as the primary organizational guideline. As such, project life-cycle and management life-cycle belong to this school. Winch ( 1989 , 2002a , b ) advanced this school by taking an information processing approach to managing construction projects. Bendoly and Swink ( 2007 ) extended this approach to the effect of information on post-task sense-making and suggested that greater visibility of situational information impacts project outcomes by affecting the project manager’s actions and perceptions. Several elements of the PMBOK ® Guide derive from this school, particularly the concepts of project life-cycle, management processes, integration management, and the management of quality and risk. Turner ( 2006b ) also showed that the governance of projects implies the project and management life-cycles, and processes for managing the project functions (Turner 2006b , c , d ).

A current area of research is project categorization (Crawford et al. 2005 ; Shenhar and Dvir 1996 , 2004 ) which suggests different processes to be applied to different categories of projects. Research in this area can continue into the extensions of categorization systems of projects, and the effectiveness and refinements of processes used to manage various categories of projects in different environments, as well as project audits and post project reviews aimed at improvement of project management processes in the organization.

The contingency school: the project as a chameleon

This school recognizes the difference between different types of projects and project organizations, considers the approaches most suitable for various project settings, and adapts project management processes to the needs of the project. It stresses that every project is different, and so the management approach and leadership style adopted need to be adapted to the needs of the project. Significant early research included work on project typology (Shenhar and Dvir 1996 ; Turner and Cochrane 1993 ) and more recently on project categorization systems to ensure alignment of capability with strategy (Crawford et al. 2005 , 2006 ), and on the different competencies and leadership styles required to manage different types of projects (Müller and Turner 2007 ). Crawford et al. ( 2005 , 2006 ) showed that project categorization systems have two main elements:

the purposes for which the projects are categorized,

the attributes used to categorize projects.

Most organizations undertaking projects have two main reasons for categorizing projects:

to align projects with strategic intent, and so prioritize projects for assigning resources, that is to choose to do the correct projects,

to assign and develop appropriate capabilities to manage those projects selected, that is to do the chosen projects correctly.

This approach asserts that an organization’s ability to manage complex new projects is related to its ability to remember factors associated with past successes. It considers limitations on this ability due to classifications systems that have evolved over time, rather than being actively designed through a logical, organized categorization process. Further research in this school should clarify the project management approaches most suitable for different project settings and methods for adapting the organization’s existing approaches to various types of projects, and highlight interactions between success factors and criteria, project management approaches, and project categories.

The marketing school: the project as a billboard

This school focuses on the identification of stakeholders and client needs, stakeholder management (McElroy and Mills 2007 ), formation of project organizations, interactions between clients and contractors, and internal marketing of the project to the organization (Cova and Sale 2005 ; Foreman 1996 ). Research also addresses marketing the project to its customers (Pinto and Rouhainen 2001 ), and selling project management to senior executives (Thomas et al. 2002 ). This research addresses the disconnect between the tremendous growth in project management and its impact on increasing productivity and bottom line earnings, and the view of project management by some senior-level executives (and some academics in business schools) that it is not something of value to them.

Future research in this school may investigate the integration of strategic and tactical components of business success, address the linkages between strategic goals and project objectives, and investigate effective approaches for alignment of project management with the perspective of senior executives that focuses on strategic issues (Mintzberg 1990 ) and their common view of project management as an operational/tactical matter. Research can highlight the value of recognizing that everything an organization does is based on previously completed projects, and what it will do in the future is based on the projects it currently does. Research can also investigate customer relationship management in project management, as well as public and media relations in the context of the temporary project organization.

Interactions between project management schools of thought

The discussion above indicates that there is a fair amount of distinction yet overlap in research in various project management schools of thought. Our aim in separating them is to gain insight into current and potential research in each area, but we should not lose sight of their inevitable interactions. After all, all these schools are aiming to understand various perspectives of the same thing—project management:

Governance defines the objectives of the project, success criteria. Governance defines project review points along the process.

The success school defines what has to be marketed. The project has to be marketed to the organization, client(s), and governance council.

Success provides the vision for the process. The process provides a path for making decisions directly and through appropriate model(s). The process is a model of the project.

Success provides the objectives for optimization and the objectives for decision-making.

Governance influences the nature of OB and HRM in the project. Behaviour of the project team needs to be included in the models, and makes every project different. The nature of the project also influences how success will be judged. The nature of the project influences what has to be optimized and how it will be optimized.

Modelling helps us to optimize the project. Modelling helps us to make better decisions.

The decision school provides guidance for improved decision-making. Over time, better decisions at various levels support the success of projects, strengthen the competitive position of organizations, and ultimately enhance the well-being of society.

Conclusions

We have shown that modern project management is a relatively young academic discipline with its roots in Operations Research. After borrowing tools from that discipline and bar (Gantt) charts from Operations Management, project management research was mainly inward-looking for as much as 30 or 40 years. However, as Table  1 illustrates, the development of research in the nine schools led the project management research community to interact strongly with other areas of management. Project management has benefited from progress in research in many areas of management, and has adopted ideas developed in other management disciplines, to apply them to the management of complex projects conducted in a dynamic environment. Project management has thus grown beyond its origins in Operations Research and management science. Project management has also contributed to other fields of management. It is used in strategy, marketing, innovation, change, information, and technology management, amongst others. There is significant interest in project management in the field of information technology management, exploring the various factors affecting the success or failure of systems development projects.

We have summarized in Table  2 the key idea and the key variable or unit of analysis in each of the nine schools of project management research. We have discussed promising areas of productive research in each school, throughout the paper. These areas include:

EVM and its extensions to forecasting project completion time, the earned schedule method, integration of planning and control of various project parameters, in particular scope, time, cost, quality, and risk, and the relationship of project management to the operational life cycle of the completed project.

Integration of hard systems and soft systems methodologies for modelling the total project management system, including optimization of multiple objectives under multiple constraints, consideration of various forces in the internal and external project environments, as well as formulation and adoption of lessons learned from previous and ongoing projects to enhance the total system and the approaches used for modelling it.

Effective governance of projects, programs, and portfolios, project and program selection, portfolio refinement and management, effective organization and functions of the project management office (PMO), project support office (PSO), and project management centre for excellence (PMCE), governance of project coalitions, the role of regulatory compliance in project management, and ethical responsibility.

The workings of virtual project teams, HRM in project-oriented organizations, cross-cultural issues and their potential synergistic and antagonistic effects on project teams, knowledge management and knowledge sharing issues in view of the temporary nature of project workers.

Further refinements of our understanding of success factors, success criteria, stakeholder satisfaction with project outcomes, causes of failure of projects and programs, and approaches to ensure sustainability of the value of project management.

Factors affecting initial estimates of cost and time required to accomplish project objectives to the level of expected quality, and methods for handling and improving deliberately optimistic estimates, the relationship of the organization’s portfolio of projects and programs to its strategy, as well as factors affecting decisions related to the inclusion of projects and programs in the organization’s portfolio.

Extensions of categorization systems of projects, and the effectiveness and refinements of processes used to manage various categories of projects in different environments, as well as project audits and post project reviews aimed at improvement of project management processes in the organization.

Clarification of the project management approaches most suitable for different project settings and methods for adapting the organization’s existing approaches to various types of projects, as well as interactions between success factors and criteria, project management approaches, and project categories.

The integration of strategic and tactical components of business success, the linkages between strategic goals and project objectives, and effective approaches for alignment of project management with the perspective of senior executives that focuses on strategic issues, as well as customer relationship management in project management, and public and media relations in the context of the temporary project organization.

Clarification of the interactions between the nine schools of project management research and with other management disciplines.

Project management is an identifiable field of study. We illustrated its diversity and richness as evidenced by nine schools of thought. Project management continues to draw on and make contributions to other fields of management. We have outlined the research trends in the nine schools of project management thought, highlighted promising areas of productive research in each of them, and shown that they will continue to draw strongly on other areas. We also expect that they will continue to make contributions back in return.

Alderman, N., Ivory, C., McLoughlin, I., & Vaughan, R. (2005). Sense-making as a process within complex service-led projects. International Journal of Project Management, 23 , 380–385.

Article   Google Scholar  

Anbari, F. T. (1985). A systems approach to project evaluation. Project Management Journal, 16 (3), 21–26.

Google Scholar  

Anbari, F. T. (2003). Earned value project management method and extensions. Project Management Journal, 34 (41), 12–23.

Anbari, F. T., Carayannis, E. G., & Voetsch, R. J. (2008). Post project reviews as a key project management competence. Technovation: The International Journal of Technological Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Technology Management, 28 (10), 633–643.

Anbari, F. T., Khilkhanova, E., Romanova, M., & Umpleby, S. (2004). Managing cultural differences in international projects. Journal of International Business and Economics, 2 , 267–274.

Andersen, E. S., Grude, K. V., & Haug, T. (2004). Goal directed project management . London: Kogan Page.

Archibald, R. D., & Villoria, R. L. (1967). Network-based management systems (PERT/CPM) . New York: Wiley.

Artto, K. A., Martinsuo, M., & Aalto, T. (Eds.). (2001). Project portfolio management: Strategic management through projects . Helsinki: Project Management Association of Finland.

Artto, K. A., Martinsuo, M., Gemünden, H. G., & Murtoaro, J. (2009). Foundations of program management: A bibliometric view. International Journal of Project Management, 27 , 1–18.

Association for Project Management. (2004). Directing change: A guide to governance of project management. High Wycombe, UK: Association for Project Management (APM). Retrieved on April 9, 2007 from http://www.apm.org.uk/Governance2.asp .

Association for Project Management. (2006). APM body of knowledge (5th ed.). High Wycombe: Association for Project Management.

Atkinson, R. (2006). Guest editorial: Excellence in teaching and learning for project management. International Journal of Project Management, 24 , 185–186.

Atkinson, R. W., Crawford, L. H., & Ward, S. (2006). Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the scope of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 24 , 687–698.

Audet, M. (1986). Le procès des connaissances de l’administration. In M. Audet & J. L. Malouin (Eds.), La production des connaissances de l’administration (pp. 23–56). Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval.

Bani-Ali, A. S., Anbari, F. T., & Money, W. H. (2008). Impact of organizational and project factors on acceptance and usage of project management software and perceived project success. Project Management Journal, 39 (2), 5–33.

Barnes, M. (1983). How to allocate risks in construction contracts. International Journal of Project Management, 1 , 24–28.

Bendoly, E., & Swink, M. (2007). Moderating effects of information access on project management behavior, performance and perceptions. Journal of Operations Management, 25 , 604–622.

Bredillet, C. N. (2004a). Theories and research in project management: Critical review and return to the future . Thèse de Doctorat, Lille School of Management (ESC Lille), France.

Bredillet, C. N. (2004b). Understanding the very nature of project management: A praxiological approach. Proceedings of PMI Research Conference [CD], London. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.

Briner, W., Hastings, C., & Geddes, M. (1996). Project leadership (2nd ed.). Aldershott: Gower.

Brooks, F. P. (1995). The mythical man-month (20th anniversary ed.). Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.

Checkland, P. (1972). Towards a systems-based methodology for real-world problem solving. Journal of Systems Engineering, 3 (2), 87–116.

Cicmil, S., Williams, T., Thomas, J., & Hodgson, D. (2006). Rethinking project management: Researching the actuality of projects. International Journal of Project Management, 24 , 675–686.

Cleland, D. I., & King, W. R. (1983). Systems analysis and project management (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cooke-Davies, T. J. (2002). The “real” success factors on projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20 , 185–190.

Cova, B., & Sale, R. (2005). Six points to merge project marketing into project management. International Journal of Project Management, 23 , 354–359.

Crawford, L. H. (2007). Developing individual competence. In J. R. Turner (Ed.), The Gower Handbook of Project Management (4th ed., pp. 677–694). Aldershot: Gower.

Crawford, L. H., Hobbs, J. B., & Turner, J. R. (2005). Project categorization systems: Aligning capability with strategy for better results . Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.

Crawford, L. H., Hobbs, J. B., & Turner, J. R. (2006). Aligning capability with strategy: Categorizing projects to do the right projects and do them right. Project Management Journal, 37 (2), 38–50.

Crawford, L., & Pollack, J. (2004). Hard and soft projects: A framework for analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 22 , 645–653.

Dai, X. C., & Wells, W. G. (2004). An exploration of project management office features and their relationship to project success. International Journal of Project Management, 22 , 523–532.

Delisle, C. L. (2004). Contemporary views on shaping, developing and managing teams. In P. W. G. Morris & J. K. Pinto (Eds.), The Wiley guide to managing projects (pp. 983–1013). New York: Wiley.

Eckes, G. (2002). Six Sigma team dynamics: The elusive key to project success . New York: Wiley.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21 , 1105–1121.

Eisner, H. (2008). Essentials of project and systems engineering management (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Fangel, M. (Ed.). (1987). Handbook of project start-up: How to launch projects effectively . Zurich: International Project Management Association.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). From Nobel prize to project management: Getting risks right. Project Management Journal, 37 (3), 5–15.

Foreman, S. (1996). Internal marketing. In J. R. Turner, K. V. Grude, & L. Thurloway (Eds.), The project manager as change agent (pp. 116–125). London: McGraw-Hill.

Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics . Cambridge: MIT Press.

Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing complex organizations . Boston: Addison-Wesley Longman.

Gareis, R. (2005). Happy projects! . Vienna: Manz.

Gareis, R., & Huemann, M. (2007). Maturity models for the project oriented company. In J. R. Turner (Ed.), The Gower Handbook of Project Management (4th ed., pp. 183–208). Aldershot: Gower.

Garland, R. (2009). Project governance: A practical guide to effective project decision making . London: Kogan Page.

Gass, S. I., & Assad, A. A. (2005). An annotated timeline of operations research: An informal history . New York: Springer/Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Gerwin, D., & Ferris, J. S. (2004). Organizing new product development projects in strategic alliances. Organization Science, 15 , 22–37.

Grabher, G. (2004a). Temporary architectures of learning: Knowledge governance in project ecologies. Organization Studies, 25 (9), 1491–1514.

Grabher, G. (2004b). Learning in projects, remembering in networks? European Urban and Regional Studies, 11 (2), 103–123.

Graham, R. J. (1989). Project management as if people mattered . Bala Cynwyd: Primavera Press.

Harrison, P. D., & Harrell, A. (1993). Impact of ‘adverse selection’ on managers’ project evaluation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36 , 635–643.

Hjørland, B. (1998). The classification of psychology: A case study in the classification of a knowledge field. Knowledge Organization, 25 (4), 162–201.

Hobbs, J. B., & Aubry, M. (2007). A multi-phase research program investigating project management offices (PMOs): Results of phase 1. Project Management Journal, 38 (1), 74–86.

Hoegl, M., Weinkauf, K., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2004). Interteam coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in multiteam R & D projects: A longitudinal study. Organization Science, 15 , 38–55.

Huemann, M., Keegan, A. E., & Turner, J. R. (2007). Human resource management in the project oriented company: A critical review. International Journal of Project Management, 25 , 312–320.

Institution of Civil Engineers. (1995). The engineering and construction contract (2nd ed.). London: Thomas Telford.

Institution of Civil Engineers. (1999). Conditions of contract: Measurement version (7th ed.). London: Thomas Telford.

International Project Management Association. (2006). International competency baseline (3rd ed.). Zurich: International Project Management Association.

Jamieson, H. A., & Morris, P. W. G. (2007). Implementing strategy through programs of projects. In J. R. Turner (Ed.), The Gower Handbook of Project Management (4th ed., pp. 27–46). Aldershot: Gower.

Jensen, M. C. (2000). The theory of the firm: Governance, residual claims, and organizational forms . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Jugdev, K., & Müller, R. (2005). A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of project success. Project Management Journal, 36 (4), 19–31.

Kerzner, H. (2001). Strategic planning for project management using a project management maturity model . New York: Wiley.

Kerzner, H. (2006). Project management best practices: Achieving global excellence . New York: Wiley.

Kerzner, H. (2009). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (10th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Kwak, Y. H., & Anbari, F. T. (2008). Impact on project management of allied disciplines: Trends and future of project management practices and research . Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.

Kwak, Y. H., Wetter, J., & Anbari, F. T. (2006). Understanding the interrelationships between project management and Six Sigma method. Proceedings of PMI Research Conference [CD], Montreal, Canada. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.

Lundin, R. A., & Söderholm, A. (1995). A theory of the temporary organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11 , 437–455.

Massey, A. P., Montoya-Weiss, M. M., & Hung, Y. T. (2003). Because time matters: Temporal coordination in global virtual project teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19 (4), 129–155.

McElroy, W., & Mills, C. (2007). Managing stakeholders. In J. R. Turner (Ed.), The Gower Handbook of Project Management (4th ed., pp. 757–778). Aldershot: Gower.

Meredith, J. R. (2002). Developing project management theory for managerial application: The view of a research journal’s editor. Proceedings of PMI Research Conference 2002: Frontiers of Project Management Research and Application [CD], Seattle, WA. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.

Meredith, J. R., & Mantel, S. J, Jr. (2006). Project management: A managerial approach (9th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Midler, C. (1995). “Projectification” of the firm: The Renault case. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11 , 363–376.

Mintzberg, H. (1990). Strategy formation: Schools of thought. In J. W. Frederickson (Ed.), Perspectives on strategic management (pp. 105–209). Boston: Ballinger.

Morris, P. W. G. (1997). The management of projects (2nd ed.). London: Thomas Telford.

Morris, P. W. G., & Hough, G. H. (1987). The anatomy of major projects: A study of the reality of project management . Chichester: Wiley.

Morris, P. W. G., & Jamieson, H. A. (2004). Translating corporate strategy into project strategy: Achieving corporate strategy through project management . Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.

Müller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2005). The impact of principal agent relationship and contract type on communication between project owner and manager. International Journal of Project Management, special issue: What is project business, papers from IRNOP, 6 (23), 398–403.

Müller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2007). Matching the project manager’s leadership style to project type. International Journal of Project Management, 25 , 21–32.

Neal, R. A. (1995). Project definition: The soft-systems approach. International Journal of Project Management, 13 , 5–9.

North, S. M. (1987). The making of knowledge in composition: Portrait of an emerging field . Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

Pinto, J. K. (1996). Power and politics on projects . Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.

Pinto, M. B., Pinto, J. K., & Prescott, J. E. (1993). Antecedents and consequences of project team cross-functional cooperation. Management Science, 39 , 1281–1297.

Pinto, J. K., & Rouhainen, P. J. (2001). Customer-based project organizations . New York: Wiley.

Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1987). Critical factors in successful project implementation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 34 , 22–27.

Pinto, J. K., & Trailer, J. W. (1998). Leadership skills for project managers . Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.

Pitsis, T. S., Clegg, S. R., Marosszeky, M., & Rura-Polley, T. (2003). Constructing the Olympic dream: A future perfect strategy of project management. Organization Science, 14 , 574–590.

Pollack, J. (2007). The changing paradigms of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 25 , 266–274.

Project Management Institute. (2003). Organizational project management maturity model (OPM3 ® ) . Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.

Project Management Institute. (2008). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK ® Guide) (4th ed.). Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.

Rentz, P. S. (2007). Project governance: Implementing corporate governance and business ethics in nonprofit organizations . Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.

Sauer, C., & Reich, B. H. (2007). Guest editorial: What do we want from a theory of project management? A response to Rodney Turner. International Journal of Project Management, 25 , 1–2.

Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (1996). Toward a typological theory of project management. Research Policy, 25 , 607–632.

Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2004). How projects differ, and what to do about it. In P. W. G. Morris & J. K. Pinto (Eds.), The Wiley guide to managing projects (pp. 1265–1286). New York: Wiley.

Slack, N., Chambers, S., & Johnston, R. (2006). Operations management . London: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.

Söderlund, J. (2002). On the development of project management research: Schools of thought and critique. Project Perspectives, 8 , 20–31.

Söderlund, J. (2004). Building theories of project management: Past research, questions for the future. International Journal of Project Management, 22 , 183–191.

Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world . New York: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

Tatikonda, M. V., & Rosenthal, S. R. (2000). Successful execution of product development projects: Balancing firmness and flexibility in the innovation process. Journal of Operations Management, 18 , 401–425.

Thamhain, H. J. (2004). Linkages of project environment to performance: Lessons for team leadership. International Journal of Project Management, 22 , 533–544.

Thamhain, H. J., & Wilemon, D. L. (1975). Conflict management in project life cycles. Sloan Management Review, 16 (3), 31–50.

Thomas, J., Delisle, C., & Jugdev, K. (2002). Selling project management to senior executives: Framing the moves that matter . Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.

Thomas, J., & Mullaly, M. (2008). Researching the value of project management . Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.

Turner, J. R. (2004). Project contract management: Incomplete in its entirety. Construction Management and Economics, 22 (1), 75–83.

Turner, J. R. (2006a). Editorial: Towards a theory of project management: The nature of the project. International Journal of Project Management, 24 , 1–3.

Turner, J. R. (2006b). Editorial: Towards a theory of project management: The nature of project governance and project management. International Journal of Project Management, 24 , 93–95.

Turner, J. R. (2006c). Editorial: Towards a theory of project management: The functions of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 24 , 187–189.

Turner, J. R. (2006d). Editorial: Towards a theory of project management: The nature of the functions of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 24 , 277–279.

Turner, J. R. (2009). The handbook of project based management (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Turner, J. R., & Cochrane, R. A. (1993). The goals and methods matrix: Coping with projects with ill-defined goals and/or methods of achieving them. International Journal of Project Management, 11 , 93–102.

Turner, J. R., Huemann, M., & Keegan, A. E. (2007). Human resource management in the project-oriented organization . Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.

Turner, J. R., & Keegan, A. E. (2001). Mechanisms of governance in the project-based organization: The role of the broker and steward. European Management Journal, 19 (3), 254–267.

Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2003). On the nature of the project as a temporary organization. International Journal of Project Management, 21 , 1–8.

Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2005). The project manager’s leadership style as a success factor on projects: A review. Project Management Journal, 36 (2), 49–61.

Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2006). Choosing appropriate project managers: Matching their leadership style to the type of project . Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.

Turner, J. R., & Simister, S. J. (2001). Project contract management and a theory of organization. International Journal of Project Management, 19 , 457–464.

Umpleby, S., & Anbari, F. T. (2004). Strengthening the global university system and enhancing projects management education. Review of Business Research, 4 , 237–243.

Voetsch, R. J., Cioffi, D. F., & Anbari, F. T. (2005). Association of reported project risk management practices and project success. Project Perspectives, 27 , 4–7.

Walker, D. H. T., Cicmil, S., Thomas, J., Anbari, F. T., & Bredillet, C. (2008). Collaborative academic/practitioner research in project management: Theory and models. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1 (1), 17–32.

Wateridge, J. H. (1995). IT projects: A basis for success. International Journal of Project Management, 13 , 169–172.

Wilemon, D. L. (1973). Managing conflict in temporary management systems. Journal of Management Studies, 10 (3), 282–296.

Williams, T. (2002). Modelling complex projects . Chichester: Wiley.

Williams, T. (2005). Assessing and moving on from the dominant project management discourse in the light of project overruns. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 52 , 497–508.

Williams, T. M. (2007). Project modelling. In J. R. Turner (Ed.), The Gower Handbook of Project Management (4th ed., pp. 587–599). Aldershot: Gower.

Winch, G. M. (1989). The construction firm and the construction project: A transaction cost approach. Construction Management and Economics, 7 (4), 331–345.

Winch, G. M. (2002a). Managing construction projects: An information processing approach . Oxford: Blackwell Science.

Winch, G. M. (2002b). Rethinking project management: Project organizations as information processing systems? Proceedings of PMI Research Conference 2002: Frontiers of Project Management Research and Application [CD], Seattle, WA. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.

Winch, G. M. (2006). The governance of project coalitions: Towards a research agenda. In D. Lowe & R. Leiringer (Eds.), Commercial management of projects: Defining the discipline (pp. 323–324). Oxford: Blackwell.

Winter, M. (2006). Problem structuring in project management: An application of soft systems methodology. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57 , 802–812.

Winter, M., & Checkland, P. (2003). Soft systems—A fresh perspective for project management. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Civil Engineering, 156 (4), 187–192.

Winter, M., Smith, C., Morris, P. W. G., & Cicmil, S. (2006). Directions for future research in project management: The main findings of a UK government funded research network. International Journal of Project Management, 24 , 638–649.

World Bank. (2008). Little Data Book . Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Development Data Group.

Yeo, K. T. (1993). Systems thinking and project management—Time to reunite. International Journal of Project Management, 11 , 111–117.

Youker, R. (1977). Organization alternatives for project managers. Management Review, 66 (11), 46–53.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Skema Business School, LSMRC, Univ Lille Nord de France, Avenue Willy Brandt, 59777, Euralille, France

J. Rodney Turner

Goodwin College of Professional Studies, Drexel University, One Drexel Plaza, 3001 Market St., Suite 100, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

Frank Anbari

Project Management Academy, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George St, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia

Christophe Bredillet

Wildwood, Manor Close, East Horsley, Surrey, KT24 6SA, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Rodney Turner .

About this article

Turner, J.R., Anbari, F. & Bredillet, C. Perspectives on research in project management: the nine schools. Glob Bus Perspect 1 , 3–28 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40196-012-0001-4

Download citation

Published : 16 January 2013

Issue Date : March 2013

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40196-012-0001-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Optimization
• Contingency
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

TechRepublic

Techrepublic resource library.

IT white papers, webcasts, case studies, and much more - all free to registered TechRepublic members.

• Find Search or Browse our extensive library
• Download Free resources at the click of a button
• Solve If you have a problem, we have the solution

Featured Resources

Quick glossary: insurance technology.

The insurance industry is a major component of any economy by virtue of the amount of premiums it collects, the scale of its investments and, more fundamentally, the essential social and economic role it plays by covering personal and business risks. In the U.S. and most European countries, a significant portion of the population typically ...

Hiring Kit: Prompt Engineer

The application of artificial intelligence to business and organizational operations, particularly generative AI, is predicted to be one of the fastest growing areas of worldwide job growth for the next decade at least. Successfully fitting established AI technology such as language models into the everyday functions of a business organization requires technical expertise, experience and ...

Hiring Kit: Web3 Technical Writer

Successful Web3 technical writers craft compelling and customer-oriented content by translating complex information and documentation into a simple and cohesive form. With a strong background in emerging technologies like blockchain and Web3, they have the ability to communicate brand vision to end users. This hiring kit, written by Avya Chaudhary for TechRepublic Premium, provides a ...

How to Manage File and Folder Permissions in Linux

From the beginning, Linux has made it possible for admins and users to get fairly granular with file and folder permissions. From the user perspective, it’s simple: If you created a file, you own it and have permission to read or write to the file. But that doesn’t always apply to the ability to execute ...

Employee Termination Policy

Whether due to resignation, layoff or firing, separating employees from the business is never a pleasant process nor is it always easy. Because many staff members have access to confidential data or company assets, it is critical to utilize a series of detailed and comprehensive steps to complete employee terminations and streamline the experience as ...

Hiring Kit: Cryptography Engineer

Cryptography engineers often collaborate with cybersecurity teams to integrate robust cryptographic solutions into software, hardware and network infrastructure, addressing potential vulnerabilities and mitigating risks associated with data breaches or cyberattacks. This hiring kit, written by Franklin Okeke for TechRepublic Premium, provides a practical framework you can use to hire the ideal cryptography engineer for your ...

Quick Glossary: Edge Computing

Edge computing is a distributed computing approach that delivers hosted cloud services, storage resources and other data processing capacities closer to the data’s source. Although its origins began in the late 1990s, edge computing has become more prevalent in recent years as a way to increase the efficiency in data processing. Megan Crouse, writing for ...

How to Optimize the apt Package Manager on Debian-Based Linux Distributions

When it comes to Linux and installing software via the package manager, you can always ensure the system will be aware of the package, updates are easily applied and systems can always be repaired (should they go awry). In this guide, Jack Wallen writing for TechRepublic Premium, explains how to make the most out of ...

Find By Topic

• Artificial Intelligence
• Collaboration
• Data Centers
• Data Management
• Digital Transformation
• Virtualization

TechRepublic Premium

• More Topics 5G After Hours Amazon Android Apple Asean Australia Banking CIO50 CXO Consumerization Decade in Review Digital Health and Wellness E-Commerce EU Enterprise Software GDPR Google Google Hangout IT Policies India Internet of Things Microsoft Open source Printers Project Management SMBs Samsung Security Smart Cities Smart Office Social enterprise Software Start-Ups Tech & Work Tech Industry

Latest From TechRepublic Premium

Latest from Premium

Recent Additions

Nist cybersecurity framework: a cheat sheet for professionals (free pdf).

The tech world has a problem: Security fragmentation. There’s no standard set of rules or even language for mitigating cyber risk used to address the growing threats of hackers, ransomware and stolen data, and the threat to data only continues to grow. President Barack Obama recognized the cyber threat in 2013, which led to his ...

Predictions 2024: Executive Edition

Ready or not, here comes 2024. From resilience to board priorities, Splunk executives across security, IT and engineering weigh in on what to expect in the era of AI. AI: The hype will pay off, but business impact will take another 12-24 months. C-suite transformation: CISOs, CTOs and CIOs will have expanded roles in the ...

The AI Philosophy Powering Digital Resilience

3 AI Strategies for Cybersecurity and Observability As organizations embrace dispersed architecture, grapple with an evolving threat landscape and heavily rely on digital systems, AI steps in as a promising solution to control IT chaos. But without clear guardrails that address data privacy and security concerns, we must determine how to build AI models that ...

Vix Makes Travels Safer and Smoother With Proactive Global Visibility

Vix Technology is a global leader in intelligent transportation systems, automated fare collection, and transit analytics. Transit agencies and operators — including the major transportation systems of major cities like Edmonton and Seattle — rely on Vix to help travelers process fare payments and arrive safely and on time at their destination. Previously, Vix relied ...

Observability Buyer’s Guide

This guide is for ITOps and engineering leaders and practitioners who want to lower the cost of unplanned downtime. Learn why Splunk customers like Lenovo, Puma and Rappi lean on observability as a critical solution for modern software development and discover how an observability practice can improve digital resilience. In this guide, you’ll get: An ...

Evolving From Monitoring: Why Observability Is Essential for Your Business

Faster is better, especially for businesses. Cloud-native technologies — while they deliver customer-facing applications and new features faster than ever — come with potential challenges, like complex dependencies. For every deployment, there are new potential errors, slowness or outages. Monitoring solutions have come a long way, but they often fall short in modern environments. That’s ...

Observability Predictions 2024

We’re sitting squarely at the beginning of an AI hype cycle that will cause businesses to rethink their people, processes and technology. What emerging trends do we see around the corner in the observability space? AI: AI will bring an explosion of productivity across environments, applications, microservices — as well as an uptick in data ...

Why You Need a Single Tool for Infrastructure Monitoring and APM

Now, more than ever, many organizations face immense challenges to maximize revenue. Inflation. Tighter budgets. Cost reallocations. Competitive growth opportunities. Whatever the reason, they demand highly available, customer-facing applications and services that rely on a high-performing and reliable underlying infrastructure. And they want it all without excessive spending on engineering resources. To achieve this goal, ...

State of Ecommerce in India

The ecommerce industry is hugely important to India, and opportunities abound for existing and new players alike. But amid such a competitive landscape, it’s crucial for ecommerce organisations to deliver the best possible digital experiences to those making purchases online. The State of Ecommerce in India report provides insights into the current state of the ...

State of Observability in Retail

Today, the retail industry faces new macroeconomic challenges, with the rapid increase in energy costs, high inflation, and supply chain disruptions. As the threat of shrinking margins looms, retailers are focusing on cost reduction and strategic investments to ensure the best possible business value without sacrificing the customer experience. While omnichannel is essential, retailers don’t ...

TechRepublic Premium, directly to your inbox. Sign up today.

Create a techrepublic account.

Get the web's best business technology news, tutorials, reviews, trends, and analysis—in your inbox. Let's start with the basics.

* - indicates required fields

Sign in to TechRepublic

Lost your password? Request a new password

Reset Password

Please enter your email adress. You will receive an email message with instructions on how to reset your password.

Check your email for a password reset link. If you didn't receive an email don't forgot to check your spam folder, otherwise contact support .

Welcome. Tell us a little bit about you.

This will help us provide you with customized content.

Want to receive more TechRepublic news?

You're all set.

Thanks for signing up! Keep an eye out for a confirmation email from our team. To ensure any newsletters you subscribed to hit your inbox, make sure to add [email protected] to your contacts list.