This paper takes a fresh look at both decision-making research and the actual process of organizational decision making. A model is proposed that captures the true complexity of decision making, including the ambiguity of commitment, decision maker experience, affect and insight, and the interwoven network of issues associated with each decision. This article provides new insight and ideas about organization decision making.
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to improve understanding and practice of project management by assessing whether two of its core myths also prevail in international development (ID): first, that project managers (PMs) plan fully for project success, including implementation success and end‐user satisfaction; and second, that they can focus on “getting things done”, free of concern for strategic issues.Design/methodology/approachThe analysis of a high‐profile World Bank project and of the policies and rules under which their PMs operate serves as a means to carry out the research. The authors uncover certain “facts” that challenge the myths that prevail in standard project management. Furthermore, they examine how these facts and the corollaries they produce guide the behaviours of PMs differently in the ID field.FindingsIn the ID field, and contrary to the standard practice in project management, it is found that: PMs are not involved in overall planning, and are limited to implementation planning, because they lack the necessary latitude. Hence, they practice project implementation as the art of avoiding making mistakes as they juggle donor procedures and guidelines. Second, PMs are well informed about the overall strategy of their project, which is articulated by the donors and the beneficiary country, but they are limited in their ability to contribute directly to its success. Thus, they may fail to deliver the intended development strategy even if they “get things done”.Research limitations/implicationsThis paper argues that these two core PM tenets are convenient myths at best, given the asymmetrical distribution of power, the strong front‐end activity, and the procedures orientation of international development projects.Practical implicationsThis paper addresses questions regarding the nature and the content of the work of PMs in the context of ID. In contrast to other sectors, projects are found to be linked more clearly to the higher strategic issues, and yet PMs are less empowered to contribute to them. Thus, all stakeholders may have to revise their expectations regarding what PMs can realistically do in ID. These findings are relevant to scholars and practitioners alike.Originality/valueThe value of this paper lies in examining the basic question of “what PMs do”. Although ID has been project‐oriented since the 1950s, this question has not received much attention in standard PM literature. In assessing “what PMs do”, the paper also brings into question “what project management is”.
Les parties prenantes constituent un élément clé pour la réussite ou l'échec d’un projet. Pour en assurer une gestion plus efficace, cet article propose une approche qui tient compte des aspects politiques du projet. S'appuyant sur un cadre théorique et deux cas réels, il pose quatre questions clés pour mieux identifier, évaluer, mobiliser et gérer les parties prenantes, sur une base continue. Cette approche instrumentale se concentre sur les profils des parties prenantes et sur la distinction entre leurs positions déclarées et leurs intérêts réels. Ainsi, elle permet de mieux gérer les parties prenantes existantes, d’en inclure de nouvelles au besoin, et de modifier le contexte politique du projet. En ralliant les parties prenantes et en se concentrant sur la satisfaction de leurs intérêts réels - mais souvent voilés - le projet peut être coproduit, ce qui se traduit par une situation « gagnant-gagnant » pour tous.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.