Deviations, Ambiguity and Uncertainty in a Project-Intensive Organization

Hällgren, Markus; Maaninen-Olsson, Eva

doi:10.1177/875697280503600303

Cited by 65 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Best practices for project management include identification of the critical sequences in the project (Wiest, 1964;Woodworth & Shanahan, 1988) and robust project scheduling that includes allowance for resource constraints (Herroelen & Leus, 2004b); project buffering that takes into account statistical dependence between activities caused by estimation bias (Leach, 2003), especially in larger projects (Trietsch, 2005); and mechanisms for addressing the gaps between project planning and execution (Hällgren & Maaninen-Olsson, 2005), such as changing customer needs (Hellström & Wikström, 2005) and requirements for new capabilities (Brady, Davies & Gann, 2005). Additionally, staggered start times in a multiproject environment are essential (Cohen, Mandelbaum & Shtub, 2004).…”

Section: The Contingency Of Successful Project Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tying the pieces together: A normative framework for integrating sales and project operations

Cooper

Budd

2007

Industrial Marketing Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Contingency Of Successful Project Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tying the pieces together: A normative framework for integrating sales and project operations

Cooper

Budd

2007

Industrial Marketing Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It is the nature of projects-particularly R&D projects (Cummings and Teng, 2003). A lack of key knowledge in a project means that the project is not fully capable of accomplishing its objectives without facing issues, problems, and even crisis (Lossemore, 1999;Hallgreen and Maaninen-Olsson, 2005). This lack of knowledge capability in projects can also generate challenges at the project-based organizational level.…”

Section: Background and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Every project faces uncertainty and ambiguity (i.e., lack of knowledge) throughout its life cycle (Pavlak, 2004;Hallgreen and Maaninen-Olsson, 2005;Yang, 2005). It is the nature of projects-particularly R&D projects (Cummings and Teng, 2003).…”

Section: Background and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Benefits and Challenges of Knowledge Transfer Across Projects

Landaeta

2008

Engineering Management Journal

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The complexity of project-based environments (Russell, 1992) is rooted in the execution of multiple projects sequentially and/or concurrently (Nobeoka, 1995). Although the complexity of project-based environments imposes diffi culties in their operations, this complexity also offers the opportunity to continuously improve the organization's performance through knowledge (Kotnour, 2000). In their work on learning in project organizations, Gann and Salter stated the diffi culty of managing knowledge in project environments as: "While learning is generally cumulative, the discontinuous and temporary nature of project-based systems makes challenging the rapid assimilation of new knowledge throughout project-based organizations" (2000). The problem of managing knowledge for the projectbased organization is not only based on the fast assimilation of knowledge. Gann and Salter's statement points out only one of the possible scenarios that can result from the combinations among the nature of projects (Bacarini, 1987;Nobeoka, 1995; Gann and Satler, 2000;Loo, 2002;Kerzner, 2005), and the management of projects' knowledge.The nature of projects group a project's critical success factors in six categories (Tannenbaum et al., 1992): project team characteristics (e.g., available resources, time), project team members' characteristics (e.g., motivation), project tasks' characteristics (e.g., complexity), project team processes (e.g., communication), project management processes (e.g., leadership), and project work structure (e.g., norms).Knowledge management in projects includes the policies, tools, and knowledge processes that projects and project-based organizations can use to take advantage of the knowledge that is available within and outside projects (Kotnour, 1999). Knowledge processes that aid in the management of knowledge across projects include but are not limited to knowledge transfer, creation, assimilation, storage, organization, protection, application, validation, verifi cation, and identifi cation (Kotnour and Landaeta, 2005).Consequently, the relationship between the nature of projects and the management of projects' knowledge creates several combinations that lead to a high number of knowledge management scenarios in project-based organizations. The challenges for managers of projects and project-based organizations are to understand and address these complex relationships between knowledge management and the nature of projects in order to promote project and organizational learning. The demonstrated benefi ts that learning in projects brings to the performance and capabilities of a project-based organization (Nobeoka, 1995;Kotnour, 1999Kotnour, , 2000 impose on its leaders the necessity to understand how to successfully promote learning within and across projects (Kotnour, 1999(Kotnour, , 2000. The problem resides in the fact that many questions remain unanswered on Refereed research manuscript. Accepted by Associate Editor Abel. Abstract:The complex and unpredictable nature of projects generates serious cha...

show abstract

“…But what if they know, and they do not come forward, or they do come forward and others do not listen? Judgment as the prerequisite of the manageability of complex techno-organizational risks depends on the communication of intellectual and practical contributions to decisions, and this requires the sponsoring of esteem to the ones who can raise their voice in intra-organizational communication (Hällgren and Maaninen-Olsson 2005;Doorn 2010). In the Gulf of Mexico many informed observers had been witnesses of risky practices, many had noticed violations of industry standards, or, and this is crucial, they were aware of the urgent need to improve industry standards because teams encountered unprecedented conditions in deepwater drilling.…”

Section: Techno-organizational Failurementioning

confidence: 99%

Insurance of Techno-Organizational Ventures and Procedural Ethics: Lessons from the Deepwater Horizon Explosion

Kyrtsis

2011

J Bus Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hazardous operational consequences of unethical behavior in high-risk projects can be traced back to inadequate relationships between businesses and the insurance industry. The communication of blame, as a consequence of major industrial accidents like the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010, and the relevance of this communication of blame for subsequent insurance litigation, show that the awareness of the relationship between unethical behavior resulting in irresponsible procedural action and deficient loss-prevention practices is a significant component of risk consciousness. The awareness of ethical origins of project risks could alter the methods of design and monitoring of insurance contracts for risky technoorganizational ventures.

show abstract

Deviations, Ambiguity and Uncertainty in a Project-Intensive Organization

Cited by 65 publications

References 12 publications

Tying the pieces together: A normative framework for integrating sales and project operations

Tying the pieces together: A normative framework for integrating sales and project operations

Evaluating Benefits and Challenges of Knowledge Transfer Across Projects

Insurance of Techno-Organizational Ventures and Procedural Ethics: Lessons from the Deepwater Horizon Explosion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About