While the concept of project success remains largely open nowadays, we introduce here the Phoenix phenomenon, namely a project being both a success and a failure. Our analysis of an automotive vanguard project exhibits key characteristics of a Phoenix phenomenon: the very innovative and ambitious nature of the project; a project management approach that hybridizes causal innovative project development and effectual approaches; the strategic and operational capacity of the company to recover and valorize after the initial failure; and the learnings from and the achievements of the project in renewed scenarios. We conclude that project evaluation must now combine retrospective and prospective assessments methods to evaluate both achieved outcomes and potentialities of a project.
AubryM.BoukriS. E.SergiV., (2021). Opening the black box of benefits management in the context of projects. Project Management Journal, 52(2), 434–452. 10.1177/87569728211020606
2.
BradyT.DaviesA. (2004). Building project capabilities: From exploratory to exploitative learning. Organization Studies, 25(9), 1601–1621.
3.
CerneA.JanssonJ. (2019). Projectification of sustainable development: Implications from a critical review. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 12(2), 356–376.
4.
ChenB. (2018). Stratégies et management de l’Innovation de rupture dans les pays emergents: Le cas du véhicule electrique en Chine (Radical innovation strategies and management for emerging markets: The case of the electric vehicle in China). Université Paris-Saclay, Palaiseau.
5.
ClarkK. B.FujimotoT. (1991). Product development performance: Strategy, organization and management in the world auto industry. Harvard Business School Press.
6.
CooperR. G. (2008). Perspective: The stage-gate® idea-to-launch process—Update, what’s new, and nexgen systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(3), 213–232.
7.
DanaL.-P.DumezH. (2015). Qualitative research revisited: Epistemology of a comprehensive approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 26(2), 154–170.
8.
FinneH.LevinM.NilssenT. (1995). Trailing research: A model for useful program evaluation. Evaluation, 1(1), 11–31.
9.
FlyvbjergB. (2014). What you should know about megaprojects and why: An overview. Project Management Journal, 45(2), 6–19.
10.
FregolenteM. V.NetoA. C. S.RibeiroD. R. P.SalernoM. S.NakanoD. N.de CarvalhoM. M. (2022). From the wall of the industry to the soul of society: A review and multi-level analysis on projectification. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 15(2), 241–271.
11.
GaimM.CleggS.CunhaM. P. e (2022). In praise of paradox persistence: Evidence from the Sydney Opera House project. Project Management Journal, 53(4), 397–415.
12.
GarudR.GehmanJ.GiulianiA. P. (2018). Serendipity arrangements for exapting science-based innovations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(1), 125–140.
13.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.
14.
GoldsteinI.BurnettA. L.RosenR. C.ParkP. W.StecherV.J. (2019). The serendipitous story of sildenafil: An unexpected oral therapy for erectile dysfunction. Sexual Medicine Reviews, 7(1), 115–128.
15.
HodgsonD.FredM.BaileyS.HallP. (2019). The projectification of the public sector. Routledge.
16.
HuffA. S. (2016). Project innovation: Evidence-informed, open, effectual, and subjective. Project Management Journal, 47(2), 8–25.
17.
IansitiM.ClarkK. (1994). Integration and dynamic capability: Evidence from product development in automobiles and mainframe computers. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 557–605.
KeilT.McGrathR.TukiainenT. (2009). Gems from the ashes: Capability creation and transformation in internal corporate venturing. Organization Science, 20(3), 601–620.
20.
KockA.GemündenH. G. (2021). How entrepreneurial orientation can leverage innovation project portfolio management. R&D Management, 51(1), 40–56.
21.
LaillierJ.TopalovC. (2022). Gouverner la science: Anatomie d’une réforme (2004-2020) [Governing science: Anatomy of a reform (2004-2020)]. Agone.
22.
Le MassonP.WeilB.HatchuelA. (2010). Strategic management of innovation and design. Cambridge University Press.
23.
LehtonenM.JolyP.-B.AparicioL. (2017). Socioeconomic evaluation of megaprojects: Dealing with uncertainties. Routledge.
24.
LenfleS. (2016). Floating in space: On the strangeness of exploratory projects. Project Management Journal, 47(2), 47–61.
25.
LenfleS. (2012). Exploration, project evaluation and design theory: A rereading of the Manhattan Case. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(3), 486–507.
26.
LenfleS. (2008). Exploration and project management. International Journal of Project Management, 26(5), 469–478.
27.
LochC. H.DeMeyerA.PichM. T. (2006). Managing the unknown: A new approach to managing high uncertainty and risk in projects. John Wiley.
28.
LundinR. A.ArvidssonN.BradyT.EkstedtE.MidlerC. (2015). Managing and working in project society. Cambridge University Press.
29.
ManiakR.MidlerC. (2014). Multiproject lineage management: Bridging project management and design-based innovation strategy. International Journal of Project Management, 32(7), 1146–1156.
30.
MertonR. K.BarberE. (2004). The travels and adventures of serendipity: A study in sociological semantics and the sociology of science. Princeton University Press.
31.
MidlerC. (2019). Crossing the valley of death: Managing the when, what, and how of innovative development projects. Project Management Journal, 50(4), 1–13.
32.
MidlerC. (1995). “Projectification” of the firm: The Renault case. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 363–375.
33.
MidlerC. (1993). L’Auto qui n’existait pas: Management des projets et transformation de l’entreprise (The car that did not exist: Project management and transformation of the firm). InterEditions.
34.
MidlerC.AlochetM.de CharentenayC. (2023). The innovation odyssey: Lessons from an impossible project. Taylor and Francis.
35.
MidlerC.JullienB.LungY. (2013). The Logan epic: New trajectories for innovation. Dunod.
36.
NayakP. R.KetteringhamJ. M. (1986). Breakthroughs!Rawson Associates.
37.
NonakaI.TakeuchiH. (1985). Managing the new product development process: How Japanese companies learn and unlearn. In ClarkeK. B., R. H. H., & LorenzC. (Eds.), The uneasy alliance: Managing the productivity technology dilemma (pp. 337–381). MIT Press.
38.
ObstfeldD. (2012). Creative projects: A less routine approach toward getting new things done. Organization Science, 23(6), 1571–1592.
39.
O’ReillyC. A.IIITushmanM. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338.
40.
PintoJ.DavisK.IkaL.JugdevK.ZwikaelO. (2021). Call for papers for special issue on project success. International Journal of Project Management, 39(2), 213–215.
41.
PintoJ. K.SlevinD. P. (1988). Project success: Definitions and measurement techniques. Project Management Journal, 19(1), 67–72.
42.
RiesE. (2011). The lean startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Books.
43.
RodeA. L. G.SvejvigP.MartinsuoM. (2022). Developing a multidimensional conception of project evaluation to improve projects. Project Management Journal, 53(4), 416–432. 87569728221095470.
44.
SarasvathyS. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263.
45.
ScheepersH.McLoughlinS.WijesingheR. (2022). Aligning stakeholders perceptions of project performance: The contribution of business realisation management. International Journal of Project Management, 40(5), 471–480.
46.
SchönD. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Higher Education Series. Jossey-Bass.
47.
SchoperY. -G.WaldA.IngasonH. T.FridgeirssonT. V. (2018). Projectification in Western economies: A comparative study of Germany, Norway and Iceland. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 71–82.
48.
SergeevaN.WinchG. M. (2021). Project narratives that potentially perform and change the future. Project Management Journal, 52(3), 264–277.
SilberzahnP. (2014). Effectuation: Les principes de l’entrepreneuriat pour tous (Effectuation: Entrepreneurship principles for all). Pearson Education France.
51.
SimonH. (1969). The science of the artificial. MIT Press.
52.
StraussA. L. (1993). Continual permutations of action. Aldine Transaction.
53.
TeeceD. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.
54.
VanderstraetenJ.HermansJ.van WitteloostuijnA.DejardinM. (2020). SME innovativeness in a dynamic environment: Is there any value in combining causation and effectuation?Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 32(11), 1277–1293.
55.
VoldenG. H.WeldeM. (2022). Public project success? Measuring the nuances of success through ex post evaluation. International Journal of Project Management, 40(6), 703–714. 10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.06.006
56.
YaqubO. (2018). Serendipity: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 47(1), 169–179.
57.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series. SAGE.
