Participative project management as a comprehensive response to postmodernism criticisms

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand the philosophical changes which underpin research and practices in project management. This study is an attempt to challenge previous studies that have tried to explain this change in order to provide a better explanation. Design/methodology/approach The authors adopt a critical review research method to challenge previous explanations of the paradigm change and definition of communication. For this purpose, philosophical and social theories and concepts have been used. Findings This paper proposed changing the paradigm from modernism to postmodernism and the paradigm shift, which happens from postmodernism to participation, as a better explanation for the paradigmatic change in project management. Furthermore, the important role of communication has been illustrated in the participation paradigm. Originality/value For the first time in project management, the authors attempt to clarify the role of power in this paradigmatic shift, especially because this concept is an axial concept in postmodern philosophy and a neglected concept in project management literature. In addition, communicative action theory has been used with the aim of pursuing the influence of informal power in the participation paradigm and paving the way for confronting its emerging challenges in future studies.

Stakeholder Analysis in the Feasibility Process of Projects: A Structural Evaluation of the Power-Oriented Relationship

“…Improper participation: Improper participation is identified as a structural phenomenon, including the collection of subcategories, such as the absence of some stakeholders, especially public stakeholders; the inappropriate presence of some other stakeholders; the government's inability to represent the interests of public; as well as several general challenges that stakeholder participation is facing with such as weak participation mechanisms and low ability of public and other stakeholders for effective participation (Sarhadi et al, 2018).…”

“…However, there are also differences in terms of engaged institutions and stakeholders, and these differences are reflected in the research results (axial coding and selective coding sections). Power and benefit are fundamental concepts in stakeholder theory (Freeman, 2010), and are rooted in Western continental philosophy (Ferris & Treadway, 2012;Foucault, 1976Foucault, /1990Habermas, 1984;Jonasson & Ingason, 2013;Klosko, 2013a;Mill, 1861Mill, /2002Sarhadi et al, 2018).…”

“…Dividing the project into different phases is in accordance with the modern paradigm of project management and it has been the subject of postmodern criticisms; thus, a spectral perspective is prioritized. (Cicmil et al, 2006;Gauthier & Ika, 2012;Sarhadi et al, 2018;van der Hoorn & Whitty, 2015). Using the concept of the process makes it possible to evaluate the relationship between the feasibility process and stakeholders, as well as its relation to contextual and structural factors (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).…”

“…Participation is considered to be the most effective strategy in the area of stakeholder management, which was raised by Arnstein (1969) before Freeman's stakeholder theory (1984) (Eskerod et al, 2015). Stakeholder participation is supported by a considerable number of philosophical and theoretical findings that identify the underlying reasons for its effectiveness (Dekker, 2007;Ferilli et al, 2016;Parés et al, 2012;Sarhadi et al, 2018). Researchers have emphasized the significance of stakeholder participation in the feasibility process (Cano & Lidón, 2011;Fageha & Aibinu, 2013;Keeys & Huemann, 2017;Liu et al, 2016;Pinto & Winch, 2016;Yang, Zou, et al, 2015).…”

“…For this purpose, communication and negotiation (Fageha & Aibinu, 2013;Kähkönen, 1999;Taylan et al, 2014;Winch & Kelsey, 2005;Yang, Zou, et al, 2015), transparency, and information sharing (Lameijer et al, 2016;Liu et al, 2016;Taylan et al, 2014) are essential. Effective participation in the feasibility process includes challenges such as coordination difficulties of stakeholders, leading to increases in time and cost (Kähkönen, 1999;Taylan et al, 2014); low stakeholder motivation (Liu et al, 2016;Winch & Kelsey, 2005); low stakeholder capability and awareness (Taylan et al, 2014); increased risk (Yang, Chen, et al, 2015); political pressure (Aaltonen et al, 2015;Sarhadi et al, 2018); severe conflicts of interest among government, public, and executive stakeholders (Yuan, 2017); and, finally, lack of adequate participation mechanisms (Innes & Booher, 2004). In this regard, this research is concentrated on the participation manner of stakeholders, which can pave the way for structural and procedural reforms, leading to a sustainable project.…”