Book review: Research handbook on complex project organizing: a conceptual tool for project studies theorizing and societal impact

Citation

Geraldi, J. (2024), "Book review: Research handbook on complex project organizing: a conceptual tool for project studies theorizing and societal impact", International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 395-402. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-03-2024-394

Introduction

In this essay, I will review the recently published “Research Handbook on Complex Project Organizing,” edited by Winch et al. (2023). The title aptly encapsulates the book’s essence, grounded in three concepts that cut across the book and define its scope: project organizing, complexity and research. The book is structured into four parts. Part one delves into the fundamental concepts that underpin project organizing, shedding light on what sets projects apart from other organizational forms. Part two then presents a diverse array of theoretical perspectives for examining projects, while parts three and four bridge readers to both timeless and contemporary challenges in the realm of project organizing. The book presents 38 chapters written by a blend of established academics and emerging stars. Each chapter offers a concise literature review and suggests future research avenues.

The assemblage of chapters spans diverse theories, from contingency to governmentality, and diverse topics, from inter-organizational relationships to blockchain, united by their concern for organizing projects. Due to its diverse content and research-focussed approach, the handbook functions as a valuable springboard for academics venturing into the study of complex project organizing.

The upcoming sections provide summaries of the book’s contents, commentary on a few particularly intriguing chapters and a critical assessment of the book’s structure and cohesion. The following sections will align with the book’s organization: introduction, core concepts, organizational theory perspectives, organizational challenges and project organizing 4.0. I will then delve into the book’s overall strengths and limitations in terms of scope and organization. In conclusion, I will situate and critique the book in light of current concerns in project studies: a quest for impact and theorizing.

Premise: projects project futures, for good or bad

Projects hold undeniable importance for society. While we as project scholars rarely question this, a little reminder never hurts. After all, even the faithful need an occasional reaffirmation of their beliefs. The introductory chapter of the handbook reiterates this point: The green transition is required and urgent. Yet, despite pledges for decarbonization at national levels and burgeoning action on the ground, current initiatives are not bold enough to overcome carbon lock-ins and trigger deep decarbonisation (Bernstein and Hoffmann, 2019). Complex projects have the potential to offer such step-change action and accelerate energy transition (Andreoni et al., 2022; Sovacool and Geels, 2021) because they are a way of organizing the development of the underpinning pre-conditions for green ways of living, including but not limited to the development of new infrastructure, technologies, legal and institutional frameworks.

Yet, the path of complex projects is riddled with challenges. While some succeed, others spiral into financial and temporal abysses. This, in turn, places a hefty financial burden on taxpayers, as exemplified by the €3 billion bill for the Berlin Brandenburg airport, with dubious prospects of ever becoming financially viable. This issue is poised to intensify as the scale, complexity and number of major projects are projected to rise. For example, to meet Net Zero commitments, McKinsey (2022) anticipates a 60% increase in infrastructure investment above existing levels, not to mention the need to ramp up technology development and numerous social projects required for the green transition.

It is therefore imperative to accelerate not only the action but also the building of capabilities in complex projects. From an academic standpoint, it is equally vital to enhance our understanding of how these complex forms of organizing happen and evolve. The handbook aims to help researchers to study projects.

Core concepts

The first part of the book is dedicated to what the editors call the core concepts of complex project organizing: complexity, uncertainty, temporality and projectivity. The first two are often evoked in the context of project organizing, the third has gained increased attention, while the fourth, has a new label for enacting the project purpose. In the introduction to Part 1, the editors argue that complexity and uncertainty are used in heretically diverse ways and that clarity is required. Luckily by clarity, the author does not mean to impose the one correct and best definition of a concept, but instead to offer a cafeteria of options, each piece with its flavour and hence catering to different academic tastes. For example, chapter 2 on uncertainty offers analytic (akin risk) and cognitive (akin uncertainty) perspectives on “what we can know about the future” (Winch, 2023, p. 13), and discusses the strengths and weakness of each in the context of complex project organizing.

Vaagaasar et al. (2023) in chapter 5, explore the concept of temporality in project organizing. Temporality is a crucial concept for project researchers, not least because what distinguishes projects from other forms of organization is their temporal boundaries – projects start with an expectation of ending (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). Exploring the temporal dimension of a project is therefore essential to understanding projects. Yet, temporality encompasses much more. As the authors elucidate, temporality is rooted in a non-linear conception of time, wherein the past, present and future are mutually constitutive (Vaagaasar et al., 2023; see also Hernes, 2022). This ontological understanding of temporality challenges the conventional sequential view of time in projects, thus opening avenues for a richer understanding of the project. Furthermore, projects also offer intriguing subject matter for scholars focussed on temporality (and time). They give rise to unique temporal phenomena that are less evident in other empirical contexts, such as the project’s diminishing temporal horizon (Vaagaasar et al., 2020). The chapter delineates three such phenomena/concepts: temporariness (the predefined project duration), the project life-cycle and entrainment (the adjustment of activity patterns among various systems, e.g. temporal rhythm alignment among project contractors). In conclusion, the chapter advocates the adoption of a situated temporal perspective in the study of projects, an approach gaining traction among organization scholars and offering valuable insights into the examination of projects. This perspective is exemplified in works such as Feddersen’s (In Press) exploration of the temporal dimension of project success.

Winch, in chapter 4, calls our attention to a concept he termed projectivity, which is about the very raison d′être of projects, namely their goal orientation. Projects exist to accomplish an objective and therefore they project futures, and recreate projections collectively as the project progresses. This feature of projects is critical, as it also explains the relevance of projects to society, as discussed in the introduction (and also highlighted in the chapter), after all, it positions projects as a stepping stone between the present and better futures (Feddersen et al., In Press). Schütz and his concept of future-perfect thinking (Schütz, 1967) has been the most used theoretical framing to study projectivity (e.g. Pitsis et al., 2018; Winch and Sergeeva, 2022). Narratives are emerging as another theoretical approach (e.g. Carlsen and Pitsis, 2020; Sergeeva and Winch, 2021; Vaara, 2002; Vaara et al., 2016). This topic is also the focus of chapter 27.

Finally, chapter 3 on complexity reminds us that complexity should be understood in the plural, as a project faces different kinds of “complexities”. Browning discerns complexity from complicatedness, the first referring to the structural characteristics of a system, while the latter, is a subjective perspective relative to a system. He warns researchers that complexity exists within at least five different systems: result, process, organization, tools and goals and that the project literature often fails to discern the complexity within each of those systems, oversimplifying the concept. He is also of the opinion that complexity tends to impede project success, and so project actors are encouraged to make projects as simple as possible. I would extend his critique and suggest that project literature often treats complexity as a form to create project typologies, and so, the different kinds of complexity are not really about complexity but about what makes projects challenging. Developing project typologies is important and henceforth the work on project complexity is relevant, useful and insightful, yet we cannot stop our exploration of complexity in project studies. It would be a pity because complexity and complexity theory (or theories) are interesting angles to explore projects, as demonstrated in chapter 14 of the book, looking into complex adaptative systems.

In summary, the core concepts of complex project organizing are insightful and point to relevant aspects of what makes a project a project, as opposed to other forms of organizing. The introduction to the section gives a first glimpse into the different concepts, yet, taking a critical stance, I need a better explanation of how the four concepts fit together and interact. Here is an attempt to connect the concepts in a sentence defining projects and their complex organising: A project is a temporary form of organizing that hence gives rise to myriad temporal dynamics (temporality) that coordinate diversity (e.g. people, knowledge bases, organizations, contracts, processes, etc.), and is inherently complex (complexity), and creates futures (projectivity), and hence is inherently uncertain, as futures are by definition unknowable (uncertainty). The concepts interact, for example, temporality situates the creation of futures in time by bridging past, present and future (Hernes, 2022), and therefore offers a lens for the study of projectivity. Hence, I completely agree with Winch, that studies of these core concepts have the potential to build theories of projects. I will get back to the need for connecting the dots at a later session.

Parts 2–4: theories, challenges and emerging technologies

In parts two to four, the Handbook engages with theoretical perspectives to study project organizing, challenges intrinsic to project organizing, and finally, emerging technologies that will shape and open opportunities for new forms of project organizing.

As argued by Davies et al. (2018), meta-theories help cross academic divides. The hope with part two of the handbook is therefore that offering scholars options of meta-theories that have been successfully used in project studies, are required for good research and can help develop the theorizing in our field, and from our field to other domains of knowing. Accordingly, the second part of the book offers a bouquet of eleven theoretical lenses to study project organizing, from the classic contingency theory to more nuanced concepts such as Foucault’s governmentality and Schatzis’ practices. Winch introduces this part with a map of the theories according to a modification of Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) famous map of paradigms in sociological research (radical change vs regulation; subjective vs objective), and the chapters fill all four quadrants, offering the reader a rich array of options for any onto-epistemological taste and inclination.

Each chapter provides a good overview of the theoretical lens in general and of its development in project studies. They also provide ideas for future research. For example, Clegg and Ninan in chapter 10 suggest the concept of governmentality that augments the traditional studies on governance. As the authors explain, governmentality connects concepts of government and mentality and refers to forms in which institutions, procedures, reflections and tactics create a collective consciousness that encourages in this case, project participants to voluntarily and willingly agree to be governed, and hence exercise a specific yet complex form of power. The authors distinguish governmentality within the project, through the development of project culture and outside projects through social media, and discuss how they interact to create governmentality and hence smooth the development of projects. The authors chosen for this chapter could not be more qualified, governmentality has been something they have been working on for years, hence, they can offer the readers a solid and accessible account of Foucault’s concept of governmentality and its implications for projects, particularly complex project organizing, that requires governmentality to gain legitimacy and a “license to operate”.

Part three explores the challenges implicated in project organizing, with a focus on organizational structures, inter-organizational relationships, stakeholders and project value creation. Brunet explain that these challenges are examples of complexities as states of nature and states of mind, and discusses these challenges as a spectrum between the two, whereby studies on organizational structures are at the extreme of states of nature, while value creation of states of mind, and explains nicely these challenges concerning complexity. The chapters are quite diverse, some more focussed on the body of research on the specific area, e.g. while chapters 17 and 20 focus on project-based organizational, chapter 23 provides an outstanding overview of challenges specifically related to infrastructure projects. The diversity is expected and positive, so readers can indeed be exposed to the variety of problems involved in complex project organizing. What all chapters tend to have in common, as with part two, is that they offer an overview of the topic and its related research and propose avenues for future research.

Finally, part four is dedicated to the (potential) impact of new digital technologies on project organizing. Cao provides a conceptual overview of this particular area in his introduction. While Whyte et al. provide an insightful overview of how technologies are becoming increasingly intertwined in the management of projects, and potentially transforming how projects will be organized in the future, the other chapters focus on the potential of specific technologies related to data collection, modelling, analytics and storage/sharing. An interesting example is Papadonikolaki et al. blockchain (chapter 35). As an emerging digital technology known for its applications to cryptocurrencies, we rarely consider it in a project context, but as the chapter unfolds, blockchain has far-reaching possibilities for projects, in particular, inter-organizational relationships and tracking of material and process flows, maybe someday in the future.

Connecting the dots

Overall, the different chapters provide a comprehensive account of the most relevant research areas in complex project organizing and together form a good starting point for research in these areas. I will now turn to the contextualization of the handbook within the field of project studies, where I discuss three strengths and three weaknesses of the handbook.

First, the handbook offers a good mix of known and emerging scholars, across several continents, and genders, and with different topic areas and interests, including the editorial team. Second, the handbook has a distinct focus on the organizing of projects and on theories and theorizing, which gives the handbook its unique flavour. The focus on organizing as opposed to organization is also welcomed and in line with recent conversations on organisation theory. I also understand the wish to focus on complex project organizing. As we experience the projectification of society (Jensen et al., 2016), too many things are today called projects, and that dissipates the scholarly community and creates confusion. For example, how would you teach a classroom with the project director of Fehmarn Belt and a regular citizen using project management to organize a family vacation? Thus, I can see the need to tell the reader upfront that the book focusses rather on “complex” projects. The choice of the word complex though can be challenged. As the authors argue themselves, complexity, together with uncertainty, temporality and projectivity, are core concepts discerning project organizing from other forms of organizing, and as such there would be no other thing than complex project organizing. Thus, the Handbook appears to use the term complexity in two different ways, one to specify a type of project and the other to characterize project organizing. While worth noting, I do not think the readers should be discouraged due to these small inconsistencies, as they do not subtract value from this solid piece of work.

Third, the handbook showcases the plurality of our field, both in terms of theoretical stances and areas of study. As Knudsen (2003) argued, a field needs to balance plurality and integration. Söderlund (2011) made this argument visible in the project studies and suggested that our plurality provides fertile soil for research, provided we also have, from time to time, elements that integrate the body of knowledge, connecting the dots and enabling learning between different parts of the field. The handbook provides a good opportunity to sense this plurality.

However, I would have wished for a common structure across the different sections, and more relationship between them. Although not explicitly explained, I can make sense of the different parts of the book: core concepts provide the foundation to discern project organizing from other forms of organizing and as such, give a starting point in the theorization process, which then requires a theoretical angle (part 2), linked to an empirical challenge (part 3 and 4). Yet, as one goes a level down in detail, the different parts are organized in different ways and there is no clear red thread that helps connect concepts, theories and challenges. While such a structure could have been a successful and conscious choice to foster the diversity in perspectives and topics offered in the Handbook, I would have welcomed an integrative chapter connecting the dots.

Finally, as I complete the reading of the handbook, I am left with a nagging feeling: what about people? Would, e.g. human behaviour not be a core concept of projects? All the four core concepts proposed indeed interact with the “human factor” in projects and are in many ways related to what people do, and many of the subsequent chapters clearly discuss people-related uses and even use organizational behaviour literature, yet the human factor acts rather only as background music, particularly as it is not seen as a core concept. One could argue that this is because of the unit of analysis. After all, the book is aimed at the meso level (Geraldi and Söderlund, 2018). Yet, human and project behavioural aspects have an organisational dimension, as argued in project studies, e.g. Ika et al. in the Cambridge Handbook of Project Behaviour (which is yet to appear), and Unterhitzenberger’s recent editorial (Unterhitzenberger, 2021) defining project behaviour, but also organization studies, e.g. Mikkelsen et al. (2020) on the emotional layer of organizing.

One could also argue that the core factors are only about things that discern projects from other types of organizing, and people and organizational behaviour are the same in any organization. Yet, is it really? I do not think so. Studies on governance and contracts identified swift trust, that emerged in a project context, and even contributed to general management. Moreover, it is inaccurate to say that people meet for the first time in the project, having no common history, as the work on project networks and project ecologies demonstrate. However, the very navigation of this network is quite particular to the project context, with consequences to the self (see, e.g. work of Berglund et al., 2020 discussing the implications of the projectified self to our self-image and construction of identity) and to projects. For instance, Bechky (2006), points to how role enactment in projects builds on practices such as polite adjournment because people would like to make sure to maintain a good relationship and thereby be employable in the next projects). It would therefore be a miss to disregard the “human factor”, however, one would like to term it. Maybe the upcoming work of Ika et al. can offer a springboard into that domain of project organizing, complementing the already quite extensive work in this Handbook.

Concluding notes

Linguists teach us that text analysis is not about the analysis of a text but about inter-textual reading, that is, where the reader interprets a text situating it among other texts, in time and society. With such ambition, I would like to conclude the review by adding a short reflection on how this handbook represents two tendencies in project studies and two related pleas for future studies.

First, the handbook has a clear bias towards research and theorizing, and a wish to help other project scholars to use projects to contribute to organization and management studies. Our wish and hard work as a field to be recognised is bearing fruit and we have been able to attract acclaimed organization scholars to the study of projects and are improving our theorising with contributions beyond project studies, e.g. Locatelli et al., (2023) recent manifesto for project research. Such recognition is important for the field, not least because it turns project scholarship into an attractive career path, luring interesting new scholars to the field. However, I feel sometimes that academic work is becoming too oriented towards career and recognition. Of course, we cannot be naïve as these things are important. But they should not be the objective of our sweat, blood and toil, but instead, our curiosity and interest to understand this absolutely beautiful beast we decided to dedicate our careers: projects and project organizing.

Second, it is wonderful to see how we are being pushed out of our ivory towers and encouraged to direct our research toward a wider contribution to society. The word “impact” has become a new trend in management schools. Yet, the current measurements and overall rhetorics of research impact are sometimes reduced to citation count, as opposed to actually making an impact in and for society, as Reinecke et al. (2022) advise. This research handbook does not fall prey to the search for academic impact but instead premises the book on the impact in society, a tendency that is much welcomed. As Peter Morris once said once in an informal exchange of ideas, “prediction is always hard, except perhaps when the future is just about to hit you in the face”. And this is about to happen to mankind. Never before have we known with such confidence that many of the planet’s species and ecosystems face ecological and social collapse unless action is taken immediately. This is the result of climate change, caused by man-made industrialization, rising populations and ongoing resource depletion. Its impact will for many, although not all, be enormous if not catastrophic. Flooding and storm damage, inundation and power outages, loss of biodiversity and changing habitats are inevitable. After a long period of inaction, the human collective is waking up, and bold action is on the way. Projects are essential to drive action; so we as a community of scholars have the chance and maybe even obligation to help construct better, more sustainable futures.