Following contemporary development in which most temporary, focused, and organized endeavors can be regarded as a project and studied as a temporary organization, here we ask: How can these phenomena be defined without hindering pluralism in understanding, development, and theorizing? Based on the notions of family resemblance—the idea that it is not a specific trait, but a variety of traits that are shared by some, but not all, members of a family—we propose a new dynamic framework we believe is useful in advancing the studies of projects and temporary organizations toward more opportunities for rigorous theorizing.
AlvessonM., & KärremanD. (2007). Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory development. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1265–1281.
2.
BakkerR.M. (2010). Taking stock of temporary organizational forms: A systematic review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4), 466–486.
3.
BakkerR. M., & Janowicz-PanjaitanM. (2009). Time matters: The impact of “temporariness” on the functioning and performance of organizations. In KenisP., Janowicz-PanjaitanM., & CambreB. (Eds.), Temporary organizations: Prevalence, logic and effectiveness (pp. 121–141). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
4.
BaileyK.D. (1994). Typologies and taxonomies: An introduction to classification techniques (Vol. 102). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
BechkyB.A. (2006). Gaffers, gofers, and grips: Role-based coordination in temporary organizations. Organization Science, 17(1), 3–21.
BredilletC.N. (2008). Learning and acting in project situations through a meta-method (MAP) a case study: Contextual and situational approach for project management governance in management education. International Journal of Project Management, 26(3), 238–250.
8.
BrymanA., BresnenM., BeardsworthA., FordJ., & KeilT. (1987). The concept of the temporary system: The case of the construction project. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 5, 253–283.
9.
CunliffeA.L. (2011). Crafting qualitative research: Morgan and Smircich 30 years on. Organizational Research Methods, 14(4), 647–673.
10.
CyertR. M., & MarchJ.G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
11.
DvirD., LipovetskyS., ShenharA., & TishlerA. (1998). In search of project classification: A non-universal approach to project success factors. Research Policy, 27(9), 915–935.
12.
EkstedtE., LundinR. A., SöderholmA., & WirdeniusH. (1999). Neo-industrial organizing: Renewal by action and knowledge formation in a project-intensive economy.London, England: Routledge.
13.
EngwallM. (1995). Jakten på det effektiva projektet (PhD thesis, The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden).
14.
EngwallM. (2003). No project is an island: Linking projects to history and context. Research Policy, 32(5), 789–808.
15.
EngwallM., & SvenssonC. (2004). Cheetah teams in product development: The most extreme form of temporary organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 20(3), 297–317.
16.
GaddisP.O. (1959). The project manager. Harvard Business Review, 37, 89–97.
17.
GersickC. (1988). Time and transitions in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9–41.
18.
GoodmanL. P., & GoodmanR.A. (1972). Theater as a temporary system. California Management Review, 15(2), 103–108.
19.
GoodmanR. A., & GoodmanL.P. (1976). Some management issues in temporary systems: A study of professional development and manpower—the theater case. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(3), 494–501.
20.
GrabherG. (2002). Cool projects, boring institutions: Temporary collaboration in social context. Regional Studies, 36(3), 205–214.
21.
HällgrenM., JacobssonM., & SöderholmA. (2012). Embracing the drifting environment: The legacy and impact of a Scandinavian project literature classic. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(4), 695–713.
22.
JacobssonM., BurströmT., & WilsonT.L. (2013). The role of transition in temporary organizations: Linking the temporary to the permanent. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 6(3), 576–586.
23.
JacobssonM., & SöderholmA. (2011). Breaking out of the straitjacket of project research: In search of contribution. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 4(3), 378–388.
24.
KenisP., Janowicz-PanjaitanM., & CambreB. (2009). Temporary organizations: prevalence, logic and effectiveness.Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
LindgrenM., & PackendorffJ. (2005). Hultsfredsfestivalen: Så osannolik att den inte borde finnas. Social Ekonomi, 4, 12–16.
27.
LundinR. A., & SöderholmA. (1995). A theory of the temporary organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 437–445.
28.
LundinR. A., & SöderholmA. (2013). Temporary organizations and end states: A theory is a child of its time and in need of reconsideration and reconstruction. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 6(3), 587–594.
29.
LundinR. A., & SteinthórssonR.S. (2003). Studying organizations as temporary. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 19(2), 233–250.
30.
McLachlanV.H. (1981). Wittgenstein, family resemblance and the theory of classification. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 1(1), 1–16.
31.
MilesM.B. (1964). On temporary systems. In MilesM. B. (Ed.), Innovation in education (pp. 437–490). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
32.
ModigN. (2007). A continuum of organizations formed to carry out projects: Temporary and stationary organization forms. International Journal of Project Management, 25(8), 807–814.
33.
MorrisP. W. G. (2011). A brief history of project management. In MorrisP. W. G., PintoJ. K., & SöderlundJ. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook on project management (pp. 15–36). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
34.
NyströmJ. (2005). The definition of partnering as a Wittgenstein family–resemblance concept. Construction Management and Economics, 23(5), 473–481.
35.
PackendorffJ. (1993). Projektor-ganisation och projektorganisering: Projekt som plan och temporär organisation, (Project organization and project organizing: The project as a plan and as a temporary organization).Umeå, Sweden: Umeå University.
36.
PackendorffJ. (1995). Inquiring into the temporary organization: New directions for project management research. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 319–333.
37.
PackendorffJ. (2014). Should project management get carried away? On the unfinished business of critical project studies. In LundinR. A., & HällgrenM. (Eds.), Advancing research on projects and temporary organizations (pp. 251–265). Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press.
38.
PinneyB.W. (2001). Projects, management and protean times: Engineering enterprise in the United States, 1870–1960 (PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA).
39.
Project Management Institute. (2013). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide®) – Fifth edition.Newtown Square, PA: Author.
40.
ShenharA. J., & DvirD. (1996). Towards a typology theory of project management. Research Policy, 25(4), 607–632.
41.
SmithK.B. (2002). Typologies, taxonomies, and the benefits of policy classification. Policy Studies Journal, 30(3), 379–395.
42.
SöderlundJ. (2004). On the broadening scope of the research on projects: A review and a model for analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 22(9), 655–667.
43.
SöderlundJ. (2011). Pluralism in project management: Navigating the crossroads of specialization and fragmentation. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(2), 153–176.
44.
SuttonR. I., & StawB.M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371–384.
45.
SydowJ., LindkvistL., & DeFillippiR. (2004). Project-based organizations, embeddedness and repositories of knowledge: Editorial. Organization Studies, 25(9), 1475–1489.
46.
TurnerR., & CochraneR.A. (1993). Goals-and-methods matrix: Coping with projects with ill defined goals and/or methods of achieving them. International Journal of Project Management, 11(2), 93–102.
47.
TurnerR., & MüllerR. (2003). On the nature of the project as a temporary organization. International Journal of Project Management, 21(1), 1–8.
48.
WallaceA. F., & AtkinsJ. (1960). The meaning of kinship terms. American Anthropologist, 62(1), 58–80.
49.
WinchG.M. (2014). Three domains of project organising. International Journal of Project Management, 32(5), 721–731.
