This article aims at increasing the understanding of a specific type of stakeholder, namely governmental stakeholders who have significant influence over projects and base their influence on a regulative framework. Various parties in nuclear projects create their own interpretations of the framework. To understand why there are differences in these interpretations, we used three institutional elements: (1) laws and rules, (2) practices, and (3) values for analysis. This article uses interview data from a nuclear industry governmental stakeholder and a project owner. The results show that interpretations are not always coherent, and the incoherencies are clearest in the practice element.
AaltonenK., KujalaJ., LehtonenP., & RuuskaI. (2010). A stakeholder network perspective on unexpected events and their management in international projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 3(4), 564–588.
2.
AaltonenK., KujalaJ., & OijalaT. (2008). Stakeholder salience in global projects. International Journal of Project Management, 26(5), 509–516.
3.
AaltonenK., & SivonenR. (2009). Response strategies to stakeholder pressures in global projects. International Journal of Project Management, 27(2), 131–141.
4.
AbrahamJ. (2002). The pharmaceutical industry as a political player. The Lancet, 360(9344), 1489–1502.
5.
BourneL., & WalkerD. H. T. (2005). Visualizing and mapping stakeholder influence. Project Management Journal, 37(1), 649–660.
6.
BredimasA., & NuttallW. J. (2008). An international comparison of regulatory organizations and licensing procedures for new nuclear power plants. Energy Policy, 36, 1344–1354.
ClarksonM. B. E. (1994). A risk based model of stakeholder theory.Proceedings of the Second Toronto Conference on Stakeholder Theory.
9.
ClelandD. I. (1998). Stakeholder management. In PintoJ. (Ed.), Project management handbook (pp. 55–72). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Project Management Institute.
10.
DonaldsonT., & PrestonL. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.
11.
EisenhardtK. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
12.
FreemanR. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach.Boston: Pitman.
13.
FreemanR. E., HarrisonJ. S., WicksA. C., ParmarB. L., & De ColleS. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
FroomanJ. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191–205.
15.
GlendonA. I., & StantonN. A. (2000). Perspectives on safety culture. Safety Science, 34(1-3), 193–214.
16.
GrünO. (2004). Taming giant projects: Management of multi-organization enterprises.Berlin: Springer.
17.
HodgsonG. M. (2006). What are institutions?Journal of Economic Issues, 40(1), 1–25.
18.
HolmP. (1995). The dynamics of institutionalization: Transformation processes in Norwegian fisheries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 398–422.
19.
Javernick-WillA., & ScottR. E. (2010). Who needs to know what? Institutional knowledge and global projects. In ScottR. J., LevittR. E., & OrrR. J. (Eds.), Global projects: Institutional and political challenges (pp. 247–275). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20.
KharbandaO. P., & StallworthyE. A. (1983). How to learn from project disasters: True-life stories with a moral for management.Aldershot, UK: Gower.
21.
KolltveitB. J., & GrønhaugK. (2004). The importance of the early phase: The case of construction and building projects. International Journal of Project Management, 22(7), 545–551.
22.
KujalaJ. (2002). Total quality management as cultural phenomena—A conceptual model and empirical illustration (Doctoral thesis). Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki, Finland.
23.
LaaksonenJ. (2006, February 28). Regulatory management system for licensing, inspection and enforcement: Regulatory approach, planning, quality manual, feedback, and measurement and improvement of effectiveness.Proceedings of International Conference on Effective Nuclear Regulatory Systems: Facing Safety and Security Challenges (pp. 49–62).
24.
LochC. H., DeMeyerA., & PichM. T. (2006). Managing the unknown: A new approach to managing high uncertainty and risk in projects.Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
25.
MahalingamA., & LevittR. E. (2007, July). Institutional theory as a framework for analyzing conflicts on global projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(7), 517–528.
26.
MahalingamA., LevittR. E., & ScottR. W. (2010). Rules versus results: Sources and resolution of institutional conflicts on Indian metro railway projects. In ScottW. R., LevittR. E., & OrrR. J. (Eds.), Global projects: Institutional and political challenges (pp. 113–134). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27.
MantzavinosC. (2001). Individuals, institutions, and markets: Political economy of institutions and decisions.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28.
MathurV. N., PriceA. D. F., & AustinS. (2008). Conceptualizing stakeholder engagement in the context of sustainability and its assessment. Construction Management and Economics, 26(6), 601–609.
29.
MillerR., & HobbsB. (2006). Managing risks and uncertainty in major projects in the new global environment. In ClelandD. I., & GareisR. (Eds.), Global project management handbook: Planning, organizing, and controlling international projects (2nd ed., Chapter 9). New York: McGraw-Hill.
30.
MillerR., & LessardD. (2000). The strategic management of large engineering projects: Shaping institutions, risks, and governance.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31.
MillerR., & LessardD. (2007). Evolving strategy: Risk management and the shaping of large engineering projects (MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper, 4639-07).
32.
MitchellR. K., AgleB. R., & WoodD. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.
33.
MorrisP.W. G. (1994). The management of projects.London: Thomas Telford.
34.
MorrisP.W. G., & HoughG. H. (1987). The anatomy of major projects—A study of the reality of project management.Chichester, UK: Wiley.
35.
NewcombeR. (2003). From client to project stakeholders: A stakeholder mapping approach. Construction Management and Economics, 21(8), 841–848.
36.
NorthD. C. (1994). Economic performance through time. American Economic Review, 84(3), 359–367.
37.
OrrR. J., & ScottR. W. (2008). Institutional exceptions on global projects: A process model. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4), 562–588.
38.
PhillipsN., LawrenceT. B., & HardyC. (2000). Interorganizational collaboration and the dynamics of institutional fields. Journal of Management Studies, 37(1), 23–45.
39.
QuaziH. A., & PadibjoS. R. (1997). A journey toward total quality management through ISO 9000 certification—A study on small- and medium-sized enterprises in Singapore. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 15(5), 489–508.
40.
Sahlin-AnderssonK., & SöderholmA. (Eds.). (2002). Beyond project management: New perspectives on the temporary-permanent dilemma.Copenhagen: Liber.
41.
SchneibergM., & ClemensE. S. (2006). The typical tools for the job: Research strategies in institutional analysis. Sociological Theory, 24(3), 195–227.
42.
ScottW. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
ScottW. R. (2010). The institutional environment of global projects. In ScottW. R., LevittR. E., & OrrR. J. (Eds.), Global projects: Institutional and political challenges (pp. 52–85). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
44.
ScottW. R., & MeyerJ. W. (1991). The organization of societal sectors. In PowellW. W., & DiMaggioP. J. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 108–140). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45.
SearleJ. R. (2005). What is an institution?Journal of Institutional Economics, 1(1), 1–22.
46.
SmythH. (2008). The credibility gap in stakeholder management: Ethics and evidence of relationship management. Construction Management and Economics, 26(6), 633–643.
47.
SuchmanM. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
48.
SydowJ., & StaberU. (2002). The institutional embeddedness of project networks: The case of content production in German television. Regional Studies, 36(3), 215–227.
49.
TikkanenH., & LindblomJ. (1998). A network approach to international project marketing: A case study of a technology transfer project to the PRC (Working Paper No. 11). Oulu: University of Oulu.
50.
TuomelaR. (1995). The importance of us: A philosophical study of basic social notions.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
51.
WardS., & ChapmanC. (2008). Stakeholders and uncertainty management in projects. Construction Management Economics, 26(6), 563–577.
52.
WeickK. E., & SutcliffeK. M. (2007). Managing the unexpected: Resilient performance in an age of uncertainty.San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
53.
WinchG. (2004). Managing project stakeholders. In MorrisP.W. G., & PintoJ. K. (Eds.), The Wiley guide to managing projects (pp. 321–339). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
54.
YinR. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
55.
ZhiH. (1995). Risk management for overseas construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 13(4), 231–237.
