Project value creation faces tensions between the project owner and the outsourced project manager, particularly in their cross-organizational and cross-temporal interactions. The interplay between cross-organizational and cross-temporal interactions brings significant challenges to value creation. Therefore, this research aims to explore these cross-boundary tensions between the project owner and project manager in value creation. Q methodology was applied, involving 59 interviews for developing Q statements and 20 Q surveys for analyzing tension dimensions. This research identified four dimensions of cross-boundary tension: (1) structural tension between empowerment and control, (2) priority tension between short-term and long-term, (3) communication tension between convergence and divergence, and (4) involvement tension between assistance and intervention. This research could theoretically contribute to value creation from the owner–manager cross-boundary tension perspective and extend the scope of the temporal boundary. Additionally, it provides practical guidance for professionals to understand the implications of tensions and strike the right balance for optimal value creation.
AddymanS.PrykeS.DaviesA. (2020). Re-creating organizational routines to transition through the project life cycle: A case study of the reconstruction of London’s bank underground station. Project Management Journal, 51(5), 522–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972820943436
2.
AndersenE. S. (2012). Illuminating the role of the project owner. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(1), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371211192900
3.
AndersenL. B.JørgensenT. B.KjeldsenA. M.PedersenL. H.VrangbækK. (2012). Public value dimensions: Developing and testing a multi-dimensional classification. International journal of public administration, 35(11), 715–728. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2012.670843
BradyT.DaviesA. (2010). From hero to hubris—Reconsidering the project management of Heathrow’s Terminal 5. International Journal of Project Management, 28(2), 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.11.011
6.
BresnenM.GoussevskaiaA.SwanJ. (2004). Embedding new management knowledge in project-based organizations. Organization Studies, 25(9), 1535–1555. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840604047999
7.
BrownS. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale University Press.
8.
CantarelliC. C.OglethorpeD.van WeeB. (2022). Perceived risk of lock-in in the front-end phase of major transportation projects. Transportation, 49(2), 703–733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-021-10191-7
9.
ChiM.ChongH.-Y.XuY. (2022). The effects of shared vision on value co-creation in megaprojects: A multigroup analysis between clients and main contractors. International Journal of Project Management, 40(3), 218–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.01.008
10.
ÇıdıkM. S.BowlerV. (2022). Project value as practice: Interactive valuation practices in architectural design projects. International Journal of Project Management, 40(4), 362–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.03.010
11.
CleggS. R.SkyttermoenT.VaagaasarA. L. (2020). Project management: A value creation approach. Sage.
12.
Comeau-ValléeM.LangleyA. (2020). The interplay of inter- and intraprofessional boundary work in multidisciplinary teams. Organization Studies, 41(12), 1649–1672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840619848020
13.
CummingsJ. N.EspinosaJ. A.PickeringC. K. (2009). Crossing spatial and temporal boundaries in globally distributed projects: A relational model of coordination delay. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 420–439. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1090.0239
14.
DaviesA.GannD.DouglasT. (2009). Innovation in megaprojects: Systems integration at London Heathrow Terminal 5. California Management Review, 51(2), 101–125. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166482
DenicolJ.DaviesA. (2022). The megaproject-based firm: Building programme management capability to deliver megaprojects. International Journal of Project Management, 40(5), 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.06.002
17.
DenicolJ.DaviesA.KrystallisI. (2020). What are the causes and cures of poor megaproject performance? A systematic literature review and research agenda. Project Management Journal, 51(3), 328–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819896113
18.
DenicolJ.DaviesA.PrykeS. (2021). The organisational architecture of megaprojects. International Journal of Project Management, 39(4), 339–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2021.02.002
19.
DilleT.SöderlundJ. (2011). Managing inter-institutional projects: The significance of isochronism, timing norms and temporal misfits. International Journal of Project Management, 29(4), 480–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.02.007
20.
DilleT.SöderlundJ.CleggS. (2018). Temporal conditioning and the dynamics of inter-institutional projects. International Journal of Project Management, 36(5), 673–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.03.007
21.
DonnerJ. C. (2001). Using Q-sorts in participatory processes: An introduction to the methodology. In KruegerM. A. C. R.A.DonnerJ.KirschS.MaackJ. N. (Eds.), Social analysis: Selected tools and techniques (Vol. 36, pp. 24–49). The World Bank.
FellowsR.LiuA. M. M. (2012). Managing organizational interfaces in engineering construction projects: Addressing fragmentation and boundary issues across multiple interfaces. Construction Management and Economics, 30(8), 653–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2012.668199
24.
FuentesM.SmythH.DaviesA. (2019). Co-creation of value outcomes: A client perspective on service provision in projects. International Journal of Project Management, 37(5), 696–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.01.003
25.
GeraldiJ.StjerneI.OehmenJ. (2020). Acting in time: Temporal work enacting tensions at the interface between temporary and permanent organisations. In BraunT.LampelJ. (Eds.), Tensions and paradoxes in temporary organizing (Vol. 67, pp. 81–103). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20200000067010
26.
HetemiE.GemündenH. G.MeréJ. O. (2020). Embeddedness and actors’ behaviors in large-scale project life cycle: Lessons learned from a high-speed rail project in Spain. Journal of Management in Engineering, 36(6), 05020014. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000849
27.
HilbollingS.DekenF.BerendsH.TuertscherP. (2022). Process-based temporal coordination in multiparty collaboration for societal challenges. Strategic Organization, 20(1), 135–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127021992705
28.
HsiaoR. L.TsaiD. H.LeeC. F. (2012). Collaborative knowing: the adaptive nature of cross-boundary spanning. Journal of Management Studies, 49(3), 463–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01024.x
29.
HussainS.FangweiZ.SiddiqiA. F.AliZ.ShabbirM. S. (2018). Structural equation model for evaluating factors affecting quality of social infrastructure projects. Sustainability, 10(5), 1415. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051415
30.
IivariJ. (2021). A paradox lens to systems development projects: The case of the agile software development. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 49(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.04901
31.
IkaL. A.PintoJ. K. (2022). The “re-meaning” of project success: Updating and recalibrating for a modern project management. International Journal of Project Management, 40(7), 835–848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.08.001
KraneH. P.OlssonN. O. E.RolstadåsA. (2012). How project manager–project owner interaction can work within and influence project risk management. Project Management Journal, 43(2), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20284
34.
KrystallisI.LocatelliG.PapadonikolakiE. (2024). Captain and conscript or companions in operational reconfiguration?The case of an infrastructure owner with projects and asset management units. Production Planning & Control, 35(16), 2255–2272. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2023.2249438
35.
LakhaniK. R.Lifshitz-AssafH.TushmanM. L. (2013). Open innovation and organizational boundaries: Task decomposition, knowledge distribution and the locus of innovation. In GrandoriA. (Ed.), Handbook of economic organization (pp. 355–382). Edward Elgar Publishing.
36.
LehtinenJ.PeltokorpiA.ArttoK. (2019). Megaprojects as organizational platforms and technology platforms for value creation. International Journal of Project Management, 37(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.10.001
37.
LewisM. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.
38.
LiY.OuyangL.ZhengX.LiuY.ZhuL. (2024a). Value exchanges within stakeholder networks throughout a megaproject's lifecycle. International Journal of Project Management, 42(3), 102585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2024.102585
39.
LiY.XiangP.ChanP. W.ZhangJ. (2024b). Examining owners’ and contractors’ motivations to participate in collaborative risk management of mega infrastructure projects. International Journal of Project Management, 42(5), 102614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2024.102614
40.
LocatelliG.ZerjavV.KleinG. (2020). Project transitions—Navigating across strategy, delivery, use, and decommissioning. Project Management Journal, 51(5), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972820953976
41.
LundbergA.de LeeuwR.AlianiR. (2020). Using Q methodology: Sorting out subjectivity in educational research. Educational Research Review, 31, 100361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100361
42.
MachielsT.CompernolleT.CoppensT. (2023). Stakeholder perceptions of uncertainty matter in megaprojects: The Flemish A102 infrastructure project. International Journal of Project Management, 41(1), 102437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2023.102437
43.
MahdavianA.ShojaeiA. (2020). Hybrid genetic algorithm and constraint-based simulation framework for building construction project planning and control. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(12), 04020140. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001939
44.
MartinsuoM. (2020). The management of values in project business: Adjusting beliefs to transform project practices and outcomes. Project Management Journal, 51(4), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972820927890
45.
MatinheikkiJ.ArttoK.PeltokorpiA.RajalaR. (2016). Managing inter-organizational networks for value creation in the front-end of projects. International Journal of Project Management, 34(7), 1226–1241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.06.003
46.
McKeownB.ThomasD. B. (2013). Q methodology (Vol. 66). Sage Publications.
47.
MeredithJ. R.ZwikaelO. (2020). Achieving strategic benefits from project investments: Appoint a project owner. Business Horizons, 63(1), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.09.007
48.
MitzinneckB. C.BesharovM. L. (2019). Managing value tensions in collective social entrepreneurship: The role of temporal, structural, and collaborative compromise. Journal of Business Ethics, 159, 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4048-2
49.
MüllerR.TurnerJ. R. (2005). The impact of principal–agent relationship and contract type on communication between project owner and manager. International Journal of Project Management, 23(5), 398–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.03.001
50.
NichollsA.HuybrechtsB. (2016). Sustaining inter-organizational relationships across institutional logics and power asymmetries: The case of fair trade. Journal of Business Ethics, 135, 699–714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2495-y
51.
NwajeiU. O. K.BølvikenT.HellströmM. M. (2022). Overcoming the principal-agent problem: The need for alignment of tools and methods in collaborative project delivery. International Journal of Project Management, 40(7), 750–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.08.003
52.
O'MahonyS.BechkyB. A. (2008). Boundary organizations: Enabling collaboration among unexpected allies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3), 422–459. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.53.3.422
53.
OonkC.GulikersJ.den BrokP.MulderM. (2022). Stimulating boundary crossing learning in a multi-stakeholder learning environment for sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 23(8), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-04-2021-0156
54.
PanJ.LeiJ. (2023). Using Q methodology to better understand subjectivity in EMI. In CurleS. M.PunJ. K. H. (Eds.), Qualitative research methods in English medium instruction for emerging researchers (pp. 6–17). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003375531-2
55.
PintoJ. (2019). Key to effective organizational performance management lies at the intersection of paradox theory and stakeholder theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, 21(2), 185–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12199
56.
RezaeeM. J.YousefiS.ValipourM.DehdarM. M. (2018). Risk analysis of sequential processes in food industry integrating multi-stage fuzzy cognitive map and process failure mode and effects analysis. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 123, 325–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.07.012
57.
RodriguesT. d. A.OjiakoU.MarshallA.MotaC. M. d. M.DweiriF. T.ChipuluM.IkaL.AlRaeesiE. J. H. (2024). Risk factor prioritization in infrastructure handover to operations. International Journal of Project Management, 42(1), 102558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2023.102558
58.
SabiniL.AldermanN. (2021). The paradoxical profession: Project management and the contradictory nature of sustainable project objectives. Project Management Journal, 52(4), 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/87569728211007660
59.
SantosF. M.EisenhardtK. M. (2005). Organizational boundaries and theories of organization. Organization Science, 16(5), 491–508. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0152
60.
SchotterA. P.MudambiR.DozY. L.GaurA. (2017). Boundary spanning in global organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 54(4), 403–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12256
61.
SilviusG.KampingaM.PaniaguaS.MooiH. (2017). Considering sustainability in project management decision making; An investigation using Q-methodology. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 1133–1150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.01.011
62.
SmithP. (2016). Boundary emergence in inter-organizational innovation: The influence of strategizing, identification and sensemaking. European Journal of Innovation Management, 19(1), 47–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-04-2015-0024
63.
SöderbergE. (2020). Project initiation as the beginning of the end: Mediating temporal tensions in school’s health projects. International Journal of Project Management, 38(6), 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.08.002
64.
StefanI.Hurmelinna-LaukkanenP.VanhaverbekeW. (2021). Trajectories towards balancing value creation and capture: Resolution paths and tension loops in open innovation projects. International Journal of Project Management, 39(2), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.06.004
65.
StjerneI. S.SöderlundJ.MinbaevaD. (2019). Crossing times: Temporal boundary-spanning practices in interorganizational projects. International Journal of Project Management, 37(2), 347–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.09.004
66.
SzentesH.ErikssonP. E. (2016). Paradoxical organizational tensions between control and flexibility when managing large infrastructure projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(4), 05015017. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001081
67.
ToukolaS.AholaT.StåhleM.HällströmA. a. (2023). The co-creation of value by public and private actors in the front end of urban development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 41(8), 102542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2023.102542
68.
van den EndeL.van MarrewijkA. (2014). The ritualization of transitions in the project life cycle: A study of transition rituals in construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 32(7), 1134–1145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.02.007
69.
VlaarP. W.BoschVan den& VolberdaF. A.WH.. (2007). On the evolution of trust, distrust, and formal coordination and control in interorganizational relationships: Toward an integrative framework. Group & Organization Management, 32(4), 407–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601106294215
70.
WangG.ZhouK.WangD.WuG.XieJ. (2021). Tensions in governing megaprojects: How different types of ties shape project relationship quality?International Journal of Project Management, 39(7), 799–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2021.08.003
WhyteJ.NussbaumT. (2020). Transition and temporalities: Spanning temporal boundaries as projects end and operations begin. Project Management Journal, 51(5), 505–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972820919002
73.
WiewioraA.DesouzaK. C. (2022). Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects. International Journal of Project Management, 40(3), 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.01.009
WinchG.LeiringerR. (2016). Owner project capabilities for infrastructure development: A review and development of the “strong owner” concept. International Journal of Project Management, 34(2), 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.02.002
76.
XuQ.JiaG.WangX.ChenY. (2022). Governing value creation in a major infrastructure project client organization: The case of Beijing Daxing International Airport. Sustainability, 14(5), 3001. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14053001
77.
YakuraE. K. (2002). Charting time: Timelines as temporal boundary objects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 956–970. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069324
78.
ZerjavV. (2021). Why do business organizations participate in projects?Toward a typology of project value domains. Project Management Journal, 52(3), 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/87569728211001663
79.
ZerjavV.EdkinsA.DaviesA. (2018). Project capabilities for operational outcomes in inter-organisational settings: The case of London Heathrow Terminal 2. International Journal of Project Management, 36(3), 444–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.01.004
80.
ZhangX.DenicolJ.ChanP. W.LeY. (2024). Designing the transition to operations in large inter-organizational projects: Strategy, structure, process, and people. Journal of Operations Management, 70(1), 107–136. https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1275
81.
ZhangZ.MinM.CaiX.QiuH. (2022). Mitigating the negative performance effect of project complexity through an informal mechanism: The conditional mediating role of knowledge hiding. International Journal of Project Management, 40(3), 192–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.01.002
82.
ZwikaelO.HuemannM. (2023). Project benefits management: Making an impact on organizations and society through projects and programs. International Journal of Project Management, 41(8), 102538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2023.102538
83.
ZwikaelO.MeredithJ. R. (2018). Who’s who in the project zoo? The ten core project roles. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38(2), 474–492. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-05-2017-0274
84.
ZwikaelO.MeredithJ. R.SmyrkJ. (2019). The responsibilities of the project owner in benefits realization. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 39(4), 503–524. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-02-2018-0086
