- Please check and comment entries here.
The general consensus is that cost underestimation, also more commonly referred to as cost overrun, is prevalent, e.g.,. While it is acknowledged that cost overruns are a pervasive problem, the solutions presented are limited, and have attracted substantial attention in the media, with stakeholders, including the general public and academic scholars. At this point, it is not certain how cost overrun is defined, why it happens, or how to best circumvent it.
2. Lack of theoretical convergence in PM
Scholarly arguments followed the lines of the two main theoretical traditions concern with cost overruns: the first tradition has intellectual roots in engineering science and applied mathematics, primarily concerned with the planning techniques and conventional mechanism of on time, within budget, and to a fixed schedule. The other tradition has its intellectual roots in the social sciences, such as sociology, organisation theory, and psychology, especially interested in the organisational and behavioural aspects of project organisations . The feud ignited when behavioural scientists concluded that the cost overrun phenomenon is not technically rooted but resides mainly in political and psychological explanations; delusion (optimism) and deception (strategic misrepresentation) are the dominant explanations.
Encapsulation is an unintentional mechanism, but a subtle device that gives the illusion of sharing empirical domains and related vocabulary of mutual interest in the topic; however, it hinders rather than promotes cross-fertilisation. To remove the pseudo-dichotomous stance, encapsulation, and ideological distancing, we propose the cross-fertilisation of ideas through the creation of project ideological space with transitional boundaries.
The entry is from 10.3390/buildings11080321
- Whitley, R. The Fragmented State of Management Studies: Reasons and Consequences. J. Manag. Stud. 1984, 21, 331–348.
- Söderlund, J. Building theories of project management: Past research, questions for the future. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2004, 22, 183–191.
- Flyvbjerg, B. Design by deception: The politics of megaproject approval. Harv. Des. Mag. 2005, 22, 50–59.
- Flyvbjerg, B.; Holm, M.S.; Buhl, S. Underestimating costs in public works projects: Error or lie? J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2002, 68, 279–295.
- Love, P.E.; Ahiaga-Dagbui, D.D. Debunking fake news in a post-truth era: The plausible untruths of cost underestimation in transport infrastructure projects. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2018, 113, 357–368.
- Flyvbjerg, B.; Ansar, A.; Budzier, A.; Buhl, S.; Cantarelli, C.; Garbuio, M.; Glenting, C.; Holm, M.S.; Lovallo, D.; Lunn, D. Five things you should know about cost overrun. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2018, 118, 174–190.
- Gaddis, P.O. The Project Manager; Harvard University: Boston, MA, USA, 1959.
- Middleton, C. How to set up aproject organization. In Harvard Business Review; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1967.
- Lenfle, S.; Loch, C. Has megaproject management lost its way. In The Oxford Handbook of Megaproject Management; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2016; p. 21.
- Braverman, H. Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century; NYU Press: New York, NY, USA, 1998.
- Knights, D.; Willmott, H. Power and identity in theory and practice. Sociol. Rev. 1985, 33, 22–46.
- Engwall, L. Management research: A fragmented adhocracy? Scand. J. Manag. 1995, 11, 225–235.
- Söderlund, J. On the development of project management research: Schools of thought and critique. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2002, 6, 20–31.
- Hoffmann, S.; Pohl, C.; Hering, J.G. Exploring transdisciplinary integration within a large research program: Empirical lessons from four thematic synthesis processes. Res. Policy 2017, 46, 678–692.
- Siedlok, F.; Hibbert, P.; Sillince, J. From practice to collaborative community in interdisciplinary research contexts. Res. Policy 2015, 44, 96–107.
- Davies, A.; Manning, S.; Söderlund, J. When neighboring disciplines fail to learn from each other: The case of innovation and project management research. Res. Policy 2018, 47, 965–979.
- Zald, M.N. More Fragmentation? Unfinished Business in Linking the Social Sciences and the Humanities. Adm. Sci. Q. 1996, 41, 251–261.
- Knudsen, C. Pluralism, scientific progress, and the structure of organization theory. Oxf. Handb. Organ. Theory 2003, 262–288.
- Greenwood, R. OMT, then and now. J. Manag. Inq. 2016, 25, 27–33.
- Adler, N.; Elmquist, M.; Norrgren, F. The challenge of managing boundary-spanning research activities: Experiences from the Swedish context. Res. Policy 2009, 38, 1136–1149.
- Pohl, C. From science to policy through transdisciplinary research. Environ. Sci. Policy 2008, 11, 46–53.
- Pohl, C. What is progress in transdisciplinary research? Futures 2011, 43, 618–626.
- Bammer, G. Integration and implementation sciences: Building a new specialization. Ecol. Soc. 2003, 10, 95–107.
- Haas, P.M. Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. Int. Organ. 1992, 46, 1–35.
- Cetina, K.K. Culture in global knowledge societies: Knowledge cultures and epistemic cultures. Interdiscip. Sci. Rev. 2007, 32, 361–375.
- Rouleau, L.; Séguin, F. Strategy and organization theories: Common forms of discourse. J. Manag. Stud. 1995, 32, 101–117.
- Kanter, R.M. When giants learn to dance by Rosabeth Moss Kanter. Plan. Rev. 1993, 21, 46.
- Siggelkow, N. Persuasion with Case Studies. Acad. Manag. J. 2007, 50, 20–24.
- Zahra, S.A.; Newey, L.R. Maximizing the Impact of Organization Science: Theory-Building at the Intersection of Disciplines and/or Fields. J. Manag. Stud. 2009, 46, 1059–1075.
- Alvesson, M.; Sandberg, J. Habitat and Habitus: Boxed-in versus Box-Breaking Research. Organ. Stud. 2014, 35, 967–987.
- Sullivan, D.; Nerur, S.P.; Balijepally, V. Source or storer? IB’s performance in a knowledge network. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2011, 42, 446–457.
- Shenhar, A. From theory to practice: Toward a typology of project-management styles. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 1998, 45, 33–48.
- Shenhar, A.J.; Dvir, D. Toward a typological theory of project management. Res. Policy 1996, 25, 607–632.
- Brady, T.; Söderlund, J. Projects in innovation, innovation in projects selected papers from the IRNOP VIII conference. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2008, 26, 465–468.
- Locatelli, G.; Zerjav, V.; Klein, G. Project Transitions—Navigating Across Strategy, Delivery, Use, and Decommissioning. Proj. Manag. J. 2020, 51, 467–473.
- Davies, A.; Dodgson, M.; Gann, D.M.; MacAulay, S.C. Five rules for managing large, complex projects. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2017, 59, 73–78.
- Jacobsson, M.; Lundin, R.A.; Söderholm, A. Researching Projects and Theorizing Families of Temporary Organizations. Proj. Manag. J. 2015, 46, 9–18.
- Pollack, J.; Adler, D. Emergent trends and passing fads in project management research: A scientometric analysis of changes in the field. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 236–248.