Process theory has become an important mechanism for the accumulation of knowledge in a number of disciplines. Process theory focuses on sequences of activities, their durations, and the intervals between them, as they lead to specific outcomes. Thus, process theory is particularly relevant to project management knowledge representation and accumulation. We present a seven-category model that specifies different formulations of process theory, explaining how it can be applied and leveraged to accumulate knowledge, specifically within project management research.
“… You simply don't go out and do a piece of work. No, the first thing you do is determine the lengthy sequence of activities necessary even to begin the job. Then you realize that the sequence of preparatory activities is so long you will never get to the intended task. So you go fishing instead.”
AlinP., MaunulaA. O., TaylorJ. E., & SmedsR. (2013). Aligning misaligned systemic innovations: Probing inter-firm effects development in project networks.Project Management Journal, 44(1), 77–93.
2.
BacharachS. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation.Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496–515.
3.
BaroudiB., & MetcalfeM. (2011). Prequalification: Using systems to problem dissolve.Project Management Journal, 42(2), 51–62.
4.
BenbasatI. (2001). Editorial notes.Information Systems Research, 12(2), iii–iv.
5.
BenbasatI., & ZmudR. W. (2003). The identity crisis within the IS discipline: Defining and communicating the discipline's core properties.MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 183–194.
6.
BizziL., & LangleyA. (2012). Studying processes in and around networks.Industrial Marketing Management, 41(2), 224–234.
7.
BlomquistT., HällgrenM., NilssonA., & SöderholmA. (2010). Project-as-practice: In search of project management research that matters.Project Management Journal, 41(1), 5–16.
8.
BlomquistT., HällgrenM., NilssonA., & SöderholmA. (2010). Project-as-practice: In search of project management research that matters.Project Management Journal, 41(1), 5–16.
9.
Burton-JonesA., McLeanE. R., & MonodE. (2015). Theoretical perspectives in IS research: From variance and process to conceptual latitude and conceptual fit.European Journal of Information Systems, 24(6), 664–679.
10.
CerpaN., & VernerJ. M. (2009). Why did your project fail?Communications of the ACM, 52(12), 130–134. doi: 10.1145/1610252.1610286
11.
ChristensenC. M., & RaynorM. E. (2003). Why hard-nosed executives should care about management theory.Harvard Business Review, 81(9), 66–74.
12.
CrawfordL. (2006). Developing organizational project management capability: Theory and practice.Project Management Journal, 37(3), 74–86.
13.
DiesingP. (1992). How does social science work? Reflections on practice (1st ed.). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
14.
EskerodP., & VaagaasarA. L. (2014). Stakeholder management strategies and practices during a project course.Project Management Journal, 45(5), 71–85.
15.
GallivanM. J., & KeilM. (2003). The user–developer communication process: A critical case study.Information Systems Journal, 13(1), 37–68.
16.
GolesT., & HirschheimR. (2000). The paradigm is dead, the paradigm is dead … long live the paradigm: The legacy of Burrell and Morgan.Omega28, pp. 249–268.
17.
GregorS. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems.MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611–642.
18.
HanischB., & WaldA. (2011). A project management research framework integrating multiple theoretical perspectives and influencing factors.Project Management Journal, 42(3), 4–22.
19.
HevnerA. R., MarchS. T., ParkJ., & RamS. (2004). Design science in information systems research.MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.
20.
HighsmithJ. A. (1999). Adaptive software development: A collaborative approach to managing complex systems, (1st ed.). New York, NY: Dorset House.
21.
JärvinenP. (2007). Action research is similar to design science.Quality and Quantity, 41(1), 37–54.
KeenP. G. W. (1980). Reference disciplines and a cumulative tradition.First International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 1980), Philadelphia, PA.
24.
KehrF., & KowatschT. (2015). Quantitative longitudinal research: A review of IS literature, and a set of methodological guidelines. In 23. European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2015), Muenster, Germany.
25.
KeilM., & MontealegreR. (2000). Cutting your losses: Extricating your organization when a big project goes awry.Sloan Management Review, 41(3), 55–68.
26.
KeilM., & RobeyD. (1999). Turning around troubled software projects: An exploratory study of the deescalation of commitment to failing courses of action.Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(4), 63–87.
27.
KoskinenK. U. (2012). Organizational learning in project-based companies: A process thinking approach.Project Management Journal, 43(3), 40–49.
28.
LakatosI. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs. In Criticism and the growth of knowledge, Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965, Volume 4, Edited by Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, Cambridge University Press, pp. 91–196.
29.
LangleyA. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data.Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710.
30.
LangleyA., SmallmanC., TsoukasH., & Van De VenA. H. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow.Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1–13.
31.
LeeA. S., & BaskervilleR. L. (2003). Generalizing generalizability in information systems research.Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221–243.
32.
LeeA. S., BriggsR. O., & DennisA. R. (2014). Crafting theory to satisfy the requirements of explanation.47th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2014), Kauai, HI, pp. 4599–4608.
33.
LewinK. (1945). The research center for group dynamics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Sociometry, 8(2), 126–136.
34.
MajchrzakA., & BeathC. M. (2000). Beyond user participation: A model of learning and negotiation during systems development. In Conference on Redefining the Organizational Roles of Information Technology in the Information Age, ZmudR.W. (ed.). Norman, OK, USA.
35.
MarchS. T., & SmithG. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology.Decision Support Systems, 15(4), 251–266.
36.
MarkusM. L., & MaoJ.-Y. (2004). Participation in development and implementation-updating an old, tired concept for today's IS contexts.Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(11-12), 514–544.
37.
MarkusM. L., & RobeyD. (1988). Information technology and organizational change: Causal structure in theory and research.Management Science, 34(5), 583–598.
38.
MidlerC., & BeaumeR. (2010). Project-based learning patterns for dominant design renewal: The case of electric vehicle.International Journal of Project Management, 28(2), 142–150.
39.
MohrL. B. (1982). Explaining organizational behavior: The limits and possibilities of theory and research, (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Proquest Info & Learning.
40.
MuellerB., & OlbrichS. (2011). The artifact's theory—A grounded theory perspective on design science research.10th Internationale Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI 2011).Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 1176–1186.
41.
MuellerB., & UrbachN. (2013). The why, what, and how of theories in IS research.34th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2013).Milano, Italy.
42.
PadalkarM., & GopinathS. (2016). Are complexity and uncertainty distinct concepts in project management? A taxonomical examination from literature.International Journal of Project Management, 34(4), 688–700.
43.
ParéG., BourdeauS., MarsanJ., NachH., & ShuraidaS. (2008). Re-examining the causal structure of information technology impact research.European Journal of Information Systems, 17(4), 403–416.
44.
PentlandB. T. (1999). Building process theory with narrative: From description to explanation.Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 711–724.
45.
PettigrewA. M. (1995). Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. In Longitudinal field research methods: Studying processes of organizational change, HuberG. P., and Van de VenA. H. (eds.) (pp. 91–125). Thousand Oaks, CA.
46.
PentlandB. T., & FeldmanM. S. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis.Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 793–815.
47.
PettigrewA. M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice.Organization Science, 1(3), 267–292.
48.
PooleM. S., Van de VenA. H., DooleyK. J., & HolmesM. (2000). Organizational change and innovation processes: Theory and methods for research.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
49.
PopperK. (1980). The logic of scientific discovery.London, England: Unwin Hyman.
50.
PopperK. (1992). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge (Routledge Classics) (Volume 17) 5th edition.London, England: Routledge.
51.
Project Management Institute (PMI). (2013). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide) – Fifth edition.Newtown Square, PA: Author.
52.
RadekeF. (2010). How to rigorously develop process theory using case research. In 18. European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2010).Pretoria, South Africa.
53.
ReckerJ., RosemannM., IndulskaM., & GreenP. (2009). Business process modeling: A comparative analysis.Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(4), 333–363.
54.
ReichB.H., LiuL., SauerC., BannermanP., CicmilS., Cooke-DaviesT., GeminoA., HobbsB., MaylorH., MessikomerC., PasianB., SemeniukM., & ThomasJ. (2013). Developing better theory about project organizations.International Journal of Project Management, 31(7), 938–942.
55.
RitzerG. (2001). Explorations in social theory: From metatheorizing to rationalization.London, England: Sage.
56.
SabherwalR., & RobeyD. (1993). An empirical taxonomy of implementation processes based on sequences of events in information system development.Organization Science, 4(4), 548–576.
57.
SabherwalR., & RobeyD. (1995). Reconciling variance and process strategies for studying information system development.Information Systems Research, 6(4), 303–327.
SohC., & MarkusM. L. (1995). How IT creates business value: A process theory synthesis.16. International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 1995), AriavG., BeathC., DeGrossJ. I., HoyerR., and KemererC. F. (eds.), Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Association of Computing Machinery, pp. 29–41.
62.
Van de VenA. H. (1989). Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory.Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 486–489.
63.
Van de VenA. H., & HuberG. P. (1990). Longitudinal field research methods for studying processes of organizational change.Organization Science, 1(3), 213–219.
64.
Van de VenA. H., & PooleM. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations.Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510–540.
65.
WeberR. (2012). Evaluating and developing theories in the information systems discipline.Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(1), 1–30.
