The purpose of the article is to further develop the processual approach in project management theorizing. The article introduces Gadamer’s (2004) play ontology as a novel perspective used to describe microactivities in a project environment. Play ontology refers to the back-and-forth movements of seemingly mundane microactivities as they unfold during a project. The findings of the study suggest that sensitivity to the microactivities allows considering dissonant or indecisive events as vital and constructive project elements. Play ontology offers new ways for conceptualizing a project as a process: as something that emerges through practical activities as a dynamic and complex phenomenon.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbdallahC.LusianiM.LangleyA. (2018). Performing process research (Sub-theme 07: Doing process research: Performativity in the unfolding actions of organizing) [Unpublished presentation]. EGOS Colloquium, Tallinn, Estonia.
2.
BlomquistT.HällgrenM.NilssonA.SöderholmA. (2010). Project-as-practice: In search of project management research that matters. Project Management Journal, 41(1), 5–16.doi:10.1002/pmj.20141
3.
ChiaR. (1997). Essai: Thirty years on: From organizational structures to the organization of thought. Organization Studies, 18(4), 685–707.doi:10.1177/017084069701800406
4.
ChiaR. (2013). Paradigms and perspectives in organizational project management research: Implications for knowledge-creation. InDrouinN.MüllerR.SankaranS. (Eds.), Novel approaches to organizational project management research (pp.33–55). Copenhagen Business School Press.
5.
CicmilS. (2006). Understanding project management practice through interpretative and critical research perspectives. Project Management Journal, 37(2), 27–37.doi:10.1177/875697280603700204
6.
CicmilS.HodgsonD. (2006). New possibilities for project management theory: A critical engagement. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 111–122.doi:10.1177/875697280603700311
7.
GadamerH. (2004). Truth and method. Continuum.
8.
GeertzC. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books.
9.
HernesT. (2017). Process as the becoming of temporal trajectory. InLangleyA.TsoukasH. (Eds.), Sage handbook of process organization studies (pp.601–607). Sage.
10.
HoltR.HernesT.HernesT.HjorthD. (2014). Process is how process does. InHelinJ.HernesT.HjorthD.HoltR. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of process philosophy and organization studies (pp.1–16). Oxford University Press.
11.
Karrbom GustavssonT.HallinA. (2015). Goal seeking and goal oriented projects—Trajectories of the temporary organisation. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 8(2), 368–378.doi:10.1108/IJMPB-03-2014-0027
12.
LangleyA. (2007). Process thinking in strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 5(3), 271–282.doi:10.1177/1476127007079965
13.
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.doi:10.5465/amj.2013.4001
14.
LangleyA.TsoukasH. (2016). Introduction: Process thinking, process theorizing and process researching. InLangleyA.TsoukasH. (Eds.), Sage handbook of process organization studies (pp.1–28). Sage.
15.
LinehanC.KavanaghD. (2006). From project ontologies to communities of virtue. InHodgsonD.CicmilS. (Eds.), Making projects critical (pp.51–67). Palgrave Macmillan.
16.
MaxwellJ. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach(Third ed.). Sage.
17.
O’LearyT.WilliamsT. (2013). Managing the social trajectory: A practice perspective on project management. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 60(3), 566–580.doi:10.1109/TEM.2012.2228206
18.
OrrJ. E. (1995). Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. Cornell University Press.
19.
PackendorffJ.CrevaniL.LindgrenM. (2014). Project leadership in becoming: A process study of an organizational change project. Project Management Journal, 45(3), 5–20.doi:10.1002/pmj.21418
20.
RescherN. (1996). Process metaphysics: An introduction to process philosophy. SUNY Press.
21.
RiessmanC. (2008). Narrative methods for human sciences. Sage.
22.
RolfeB.SegalS.CicmilS. (2017). The wisdom of conversations: Existential Hermeneutic phenomenology (EHP) for project managers. International Journal of Project Management, 35(5), 739–748.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.03.002
23.
RopoA.SalovaaraP.SauerE.De PaoliD. (2015). Leadership in spaces and places. Edward Elgar Publishing.
24.
SageD.DaintyA.BrookesN. (2012). A ‘Strategy-as-Practice’ exploration of lean construction strategizing. Building Research & Information, 40(2), 221–230.doi:10.1080/09613218.2012.655925
25.
SalovaaraP. (2018). Accounting for the messiness of the research process: The fieldpath approach. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 13(4), 315–332.doi:10.1108/QROM-06-2017-1536
26.
SalovaaraP.RopoA. (2018). Lefebvre and spacing leadership: From power-over to power-with. InDaleK.KingmaS.WassermanV. (Eds.), Organizational space and beyond: The significance of Henri Lefebvre for organization studies (pp.72–103). Routledge.
27.
SandersonJ. (2012). Risk, uncertainty and governance in megaprojects: A critical discussion of alternative explanations. International Journal of Project Management, 30(4), 432–443.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.11.002
28.
SergiV. (2012). Bounded becoming: Insights from understanding projects in situation. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(3), 345–363.doi:10.1108/17538371211235263
SöderlundJ. (2011). Pluralism in project management: Navigating the crossroads of specialization and fragmentation. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(2), 153–176.doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00290.x
31.
SöderlundJ.VaagaasarA. L.AndersenE. S. (2008). Relating, reflecting and routinizing: Developing project competence in cooperation with others. International Journal of Project Management, 26(5), 517–526.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.06.002
32.
StinglV.GeraldiJ. (2017). Errors, lies and misunderstandings: Systematic review on behavioural decision making in projects. International Journal of Project Management, 35(2), 121–135.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.10.009
33.
ToivonenA.ToivonenP. U. (2014). The transformative effect of top management governance choices on project team identity and relationship with the organization —An agency and stewardship approach. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1358–1370.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.07.001
34.
van der HoornB.WhittyS. J. (2015). A Heideggerian paradigm for project management: Breaking free of the disciplinary matrix and its Cartesian ontology. International Journal of Project Management, 33(4), 721–734.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.09.007
35.
van der HoornB.WhittyS. J. (2017). The praxis of ‘alignment seeking’ in project work. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 978–993.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.04.011
36.
WhittingtonR. (2006). Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies, 27(5), 613–634.doi:10.1177/0170840606064101
37.
YanowD. (2010). Giving voice to space: Academic practices and the material world. Invan MarrewijkA.YanowD. (Eds.), Organizational spaces rematerializing the workaday world (pp.139–158). Edward Elgar.
