Project management is one of the fastest growing disciplines in organizations today. However, ironically, the statistics of project success suggests that most projects still fail and many projects do not accomplish their business results. This presents possibly a unique opportunity for substantial improvement. In this paper the authors offer their perspective about the challenge that the project management research community is facing today. The authors propose several research directions that may evolve as central in the next few years in order to stimulate the discussion and debate about the future of the discipline. They first look at project management research from a problem-driven perspective and than offer three central views with which project management could be perceived: the strategic/business view, the operational/process view, and the team/leadership view. For each one the governing thought pattern, the theories, and the related disciplines are presented. Although these views are certainly not unique, they may provide an integrated perspective of the discipline and a possible trigger for further discussion that may help attract scholars from other more established academic disciplines and improve the status of project management research.
AndersonP., & TushmanM. (1990). Technical discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 604–633.
2.
ArmstrongD. (2000). Building teams across boarders. Executive Excellence, 17(3), 10.
3.
ArttoK. A., & DietrichP. H. (2004). Strategic business management through multiple pjects. In MorrisP. W. G., & PintoJ. K. (Eds.), The Wiley Guide to Managing Projects (pp. 144–176). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
4.
BarbozaD. (2000, April 11). Iridium, bankrupt, is planning a fiery ending for its 88 satellites. New York Times.
5.
BassB. M. (1999). Two decades of research in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 9–32.
6.
BrownS. L., & EisenhardtK. M. (1995). Product development: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 20, 343–378.
7.
BrownS. L., & EisenhardtK. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 1–34.
8.
BurnsT., & StalkerG. (1961). The Management of Innovation.London: Tavistock.
9.
CairncrossF. (2002). The company of the future.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
10.
CarayannisE. G., AnbariF. T., & KwakY-H. (Eds.). (2003). The story of managing projects: An interdisciplinary approach.Quorum Books.
11.
ChristensenC. (1997). The innovator's dilemma.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
12.
ChristensenC., & RaynorM. E. (2003a). The innovator's solution—Creating and sustaining successful growth.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
13.
ChristensenC., & RaynorM. E. (2003b). Why hard nosed managers should care about management theory?Harvard Business Review, September, 67–74.
14.
ClelandD. I., & IrelandL. (2002). Project management: Strategic design and implementation (4th ed. vol. 1). New York: McGraw-Hill.
15.
CooperR. G. (1994). Third-generation new product processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, 3–14.
16.
CrawfordL. (2001). Profiling the competent project manager in project management research at the turn of the millennium. In SlevinD. P., ClelandD. I., & PintoJ. K. (Eds.), Proceedings of PMI Research Conference 2000.Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
17.
CrawfordL., HobbsJ. B., & TurnerJ. R. (2004). Project Categorization Systems.Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
18.
DempseyP. S., GoetzA. R., & SzyliowiczJ. S. (1997). Denver International Airport: Lessons learned.New York: McGraw Hill.
19.
DvirD., LipovetskyS., ShenharA., & TishlerA. (1998). In search of project classification: A non-universal approach to project success factors. Research Policy, 27, 915–935.
20.
EisenhardtK. M., & TabriziB. N. (1995). Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 84–110.
21.
FabrisP. (1996, April 1). Ground control. CIO Magazine.
22.
GatignonH., TushmanM., SmithW., & AndersonP. (2002). A structural approach to assessing innovation: Construct development of innovation locus, type, and characteristics. Management Science, 48(9), 1103–1122.
23.
GoldrattE. M. (1997). The critical chain.Avebury.
24.
IbbsC. W., & KwakY-H. (1997). The benefits of project management: Financial and organizational rewards to corporations.Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
25.
JugdevK. (2003). Developing and sustaining project management as a strategic asset: A multiple case study using the resource-based view. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Calgary.
26.
KloppenborgT. J., & OpferW. A. (2002). The current state of project management research: Trends, interpretations, and predictions. Project Management Journal, 33(2), 5–18.
27.
KruglianskasI., & ThamhainH. (2000). Managing technology-based projects in multinational environments. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 47(1), 55–64.
28.
LintonJ. D., & ThongpapanlN. (2004). Perspective: Ranking the technology innovation management journals. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21, 123–139.
29.
MacCormackA., VergantiR., & IansitiM. (2001). Developing products on “Internet time: ” The anatomy of a flexible development process. Management Science, 47(1), 133–150.
30.
MorrisP. W. G., & HoughG. H. (1987). The anatomy of major projects.New York: John Wiley.
31.
MorrisP. W. G. (1994). The management of projects.London: Thomas Telford.
32.
MorrisP. W. G. (2001). Updating the project management bodies of knowledge. Project Management Journal, 32(3), 21–30.
33.
MorrisP. W. G. (2002). Science, objective knowledge, and the theory of project management. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Civil Engineering, 150(2), 82–89.
34.
MorrisP. W. G. (2004). Moving from corporate strategy to project strategy: Leadership in project management. In SlevinD. P., ClelandD. I., & PintoJ. K. (Eds.), Innovations: Project management research.Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
35.
MurrayP. (2003). The saga of Sydney Opera House: The dramatic story of the design and construction of the icon of modern Australia.Spon Press.
36.
PichM. T., LochC. H., & De MeyerA. (2002). On uncertainty, ambiguity and complexity in project management. Management Science, 48(8), 1008–1023.
37.
PintoJ. K., & SlevinD. P. (1988). Critical success factors across the project life cycle. Project Management Journal, 19(3), 67–75.
38.
PintoJ. K., & SlevinD. P. (1989). Project success: definitions and measurement techniques. Project Management Journal, 19(1), 67–75.
39.
PMI. (2004). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (3rd edition). Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
40.
ShaneS., & UlrichK. (2004). Technological innovation, product development, and entrepreneurship in management science. Management Science, 50(2), 133–144.
41.
ShenharA. J. (2001). One size does not fit all projects: Exploring classical contingency domains. Management Science, 47(3), 394–414.
42.
ShenharA. J. (2004). Strategic project leadership: Toward a strategic approach to project management. R&D Management, 34(5), 569–578.
43.
ShenharA. J., & DvirD. (1993). Managing R&D defense projects.Tel-Aviv University, Institute for Business Research and Ministry of Defense, Israel.
44.
ShenharA. J., & DvirD. (1996). Toward a typological theory of project management. Research Policy, 25, 607–632.
45.
ShenharA. J., & DvirD. (2004). How projects differ and what to do about it. In PintoJ., & MorrisP. (Eds.), Handbook of managing projects.New York: Wiley.
46.
ShenharA. J., & DvirD. (2007). Reinventing project management: The diamond approach to successful growth and innovation.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
47.
Standish Group. (1994). The chaos report.The Standish Group.
48.
Standish Group. (2001). The chaos report.The Standish Group.
49.
TurnerJ. R., & MullerR. (2003). On the nature of the project as a temporary organization. International Journal of Project Management, 21(1), 1–8.
