Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Project management: Epistemological issues and standardization of knowledge

  • Published:
Operational Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A part from some sporadic attempts, an investigation of the theoretical foundations of Project Management (PM) has not been yet conducted. Such an investigation is of great importance both at academic level, as a basis of research and education, and for the standardization of knowledge. This paper claims that the innate difficulties in forming a theoretical base of PM are due on the one hand to the fact that PM inherits all the intrinsic weaknesses of management sciences and on the other hand to the lack of a coherent design theory. However, dealing with PM as an organizational phenomenon, in particular as “a temporary organization”, is a realistic perspective for exploring the new practices which emerged recently in business. Moreover, this study argues that, first, a sound foundation of PM, although welcomed, is not necessary for PM to become a profession; and, second, it is worthwhile for an efficient standardization to determine a stable core of knowledge.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anagnostopoulos, K.P. (2002), “Conventions and rational coordination”. Social Science Tribune 32, 35–55 (in greek).

    Google Scholar 

  • Artto, K. A. (2001). “Editorial: Management of projects as portfolios?”. Project Management vol. 7(1), 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baccarini, D. (1996). “The concept of project complexity-A review”. International Journal of Project Management vol. 14(4), 201–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchot, F. (1999). “La connaissance objective de Karl Popper: Principales thèses et apports pour les recherches en gestion”. Finance Contrôle Stratégie vol. 2(3), 25–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bredillet, C. (2002). “Killing the false gods of Project Management”. www.pmforum.org (27.12.2002).

  • Bredillet, C. (2003). “Genesis and role of standards: Theoretical foundations and socio-economical model for the construction and use of standards”. International Journal of Project Management (in press).

  • Cabanis, J. (1999). “Standards: The rallying cry of a growing profession”. PM Network, May.

  • Demeulemeester, E. L. and Herroelen, W.S. (2002). “Project scheduling: A research handbook”. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Engwall, M. (2003). “No Project is an island: Linking projects to history and context”. Research Policy vol. 32(5), 789–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, Q. W. and Koppelman, J. M. (2000). “Earned value Project Management”, 2nd Edition. The Project Management Institute, Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaddis, P. O. (1959). “The project manager”. Harvard Business Review May–June, 89–97.

  • Ghosal, S. and Moran, P. (1996). “Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory”. Academy of Management Review 21, 13–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffin, K. (1998). “Operations management teaching on European MBA programmes”. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 18(5), 424–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobday, M. (2000). “The Project-based organisation: An ideal form for managing complex products and systems?”. Research Policy, vol. 29, 871–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jugdev, K., Thomas, J. and Delisle, C. L. (2001). “Rethinking Project Management: Old truths and new insights”. Project Management vol. 7(1), 37–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerzner, H. (1995). “Project Management: A systems approach to planning scheduling and controlling”, 5th Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolisch, R. and Padman, R. (1997). “An integrated survey of project scheduling”. Working Paper. Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Kiel, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroes, P. (2002). “Design methodology and the nature of technical artifacts.” Design Studies 23, 287–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T.S. (1970). “The structure of scientific revolutions”, 2nd Edition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1970). “Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs”, in “Criticism and the growth of knowledge”, Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, R. (eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 91–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundin, R. A. and Söderholm, A. (1995). “A theory of temporary organization”. Scandinavian Journal of Management vol. 11(4), 437–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, P.W.G. (2000). “Researching the unanswered questions of Project Management”. PMI Research Conference, Paris.

  • Morris, P.W.G. (2001). “Updating the Project Management bodies of knowledge”. Project Management Journal vol. 32(3), 21–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Packendorff, J. (1995). “Inquiring into the temporary organization: New directions for Project Management research”. Scandinavian Journal of Management vol. 11(4), 319–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1993). “Barriers to the advance of organizational science paradigm”. The Academy of Management Review vol. 18(4), 599–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinto, J. K. and Slevin, D. P. (1988). “Project success: Definitions and measurement techniques”. Project Management Journal vol. 19(1), 67–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinto, J. K. and Prescott, J. E. (1990). “Planning and tactical factors in the project implementation process”. Journal of Management Studies vol. 27(3), 305–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PMI Standards Committee (2000). A guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, PMBOK® Guide, 2000 Edition. Project Management Institute, Inc. Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1972). “Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach”. Oxford University Press.

  • Runeson, G. (1997). “The role of theory in construction management research: Comment”. Construction Management Economics 15, 299–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, D., Crook, D. and Rooke, J. (1997). “The role of theory in construction management: A call for debate”. Construction Management and Economics 15, 117–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shenhar, A. and Dvir, D. (1996). “Toward a typological theory of Project Management”. Research Policy vol. 25, 607–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shenhar, A. J. and Wideman, R. M. (1996). “Improving PM: Linking success criteria to project type”. Paper presented to the Southern Alberta Chapter, Project Management Institute, Symposium “Creating Canadian Advantage through Project Management”.

  • Shtub, A., Bard, J. F. and Globerson, S. (1994). “Project Management: Engineering, Technology and Implementation”. Prentice Hall Inc., International Editions, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1991). “Organizations and markets”. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5, 25–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H.A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial, 3rd Edition. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Söderlund, J. (2002a). “Conceptualizing Project Management: From optimistic optimization to critical questioning”. Paper for the EURAM Conference, Stockholm.

  • Söderlund, J. (2002b). “On the development of Project Management research: Schools of thought and critique”. Project Management vol. 8(1), 20–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. R. (1999). The handbook of project-based management, 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. R and Keegan, A. (2001). “Mechanisms of governance in the project-based organization: Roles of the broker and steward”. European Management Journal vol. 19(3), 254–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. R. (1999). “Editorial: Project Management: A profession based on knowledge or faith?”. International Journal of Project Management 17(6), 329–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Langenhove, L. (2000). “Rethinking the social sciences? A point of view”. Foundations of Science 5, 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. (1985). “The economic institutions of capitalism”. Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. (1996). “The mechanisms of governance”. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winch, G. (1998). “The construction firm and the construction project: A transaction cost approach”. Paper presented at the ARCOM Research Methodology Conference, UMIST.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Production and Management Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece

    K. P. Anagnostopoulos

Authors
  1. K. P. Anagnostopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. P. Anagnostopoulos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Anagnostopoulos, K.P. Project management: Epistemological issues and standardization of knowledge. Oper Res Int J 4, 249–260 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02944144

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02944144

Keywords

Search

Navigation