Managing temporal misfits in institutional environments

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to conceptualize time as an important dimension of institutions and, more specifically, to develop the analysis of institutions, time, and temporal misfits. The paper explores these matters in the context of an inter‐institutional project where actors, who represent different organizational fields and respond to different institutional requirements with regards to time and timing, need to collaborate.Design/methodology/approachThe paper centers on three critical incidents taken from a study of a large‐scale telecom project in Norway. The paper is based on an analysis of public documents and 35 interviews with key stakeholders and managers in the focal project.FindingsThis research shows that temporal misfits are a critical, yet understudied, element of project organizing. The paper suggests and discusses three primary measures – detecting, correcting, and escaping – that project management makes use of to resolve temporal misfits among the actors involved. To advance the analysis of problems facing projects in institutionally‐bounded settings, the paper proposes a typology of temporal misfits (phase and tempo) and different types of complexity (analyzable and systemic).Practical implicationsAlthough purposeful in many instances, especially in collaborations across institutional boundaries, timing norms may cause profound organizational problems due to temporal misfits among the actors involved. The paper argues that project managers need to identify and be prepared for such organizational problem by being equipped with a repertoire of resolution strategies to handle them. New concepts and approaches are needed to identify and deal with temporal misfits among important stakeholders in projects.Originality/valueA number of previous studies on project organizing have emphasized the critical aspects of studying institutions and time; but to date, no comprehensive efforts have been made to combine these ideas in empirical investigations. This study emphasizes the criticality of timing norms and temporal misfits to enhance our understanding of the linkages between projects, institutions, and time.

Temporary Organizing and Institutional Change

“…These studies highlight the importance of taking into account the history, institutional, and organizational context of projects and the 'external' pressures arising from these in order to understand the effects of institutional embeddedness and various stakeholders on their progress (e.g. Dille & Söderlund, 2013;Engwall, 2003;Sallinen et al, 2011). However, studies have also begun to account for the 'outward-oriented' impact of projects on institutions (e.g.…”

Synchronous and Diachronic Timing: Insights into Managing Projects from Disaster Management and Fast-Response Organizations

“…Typically, large projects involve different stakeholders and overlapping organizational structures with different ideas about time horizons, temporal perspective, and speed (Dille & Söderlund, 2011; Dille et al, 2018). Stjerne et al (2019) found a small number of temporal boundary-spanning practices, referring to the various bundles of activities and everyday occurrences in which actors engage to address temporal tensions.…”

“…Not long ago, agile approaches turned upside down the relationships among scope, cost, and time (Fernandez & Fernandez, 2008). Recent research on time and temporality in project management concentrates on philosophical foundations of time and temporality (e.g., Bakker & Janowicz-Panjaitan, 2009; Biesenthal et al, 2015); temporal plurality in megaprojects (Brookes et al, 2017); temporal misfits in inter-institutional projects, and temporal boundary spanning (e.g., Dille & Söderlund, 2011, 2013; Dille et al, 2018; Stjerne et al, 2019), as well as tensions between temporary and permanent organizations (e.g., Stjerne & Svejenova, 2016; van Marrewijk et al, 2016).…”

A systematic review of the knowledge domain of institutional theory in construction project management

“…Further examination of the co-citation analysis revealed that the research in cluster 3 (red) appears to have relied extensively on the institutional logic and project management literature, a domain that combines neo-institutional theory and project management and outlines how project actors address institutional issues (Dille and S€ oderlund, 2011). This cluster focused on the impacts of institutional dynamics on project management (Dille and S€ oderlund, 2013), the impacts of institutional environments on international projects (Javernick-Will and Scott, 2010;Scott, 2012) and the impacts of institutional pressures on the adoption of new practices (Cao et al, 2017).…”