Evolutionary learning in strategy project systems

Abbreviations APM – Association of Project Management CKO – chief knowledge officer ERM – enterprise risk management ISO – International Organization for Standardization PMI – Project Ma

Evolutionary Learning in Strategy-Project Systems

A PMI Research Monograph

Paul Gardiner Adil Eltigani Terence Williams Richard Kirkham Lixiong Ou Antonio Calabrese Jonas Söderlund Foreword by Ed Hoffman Technical Editor – David Ling

©2018 Project Management Institute, Inc All rights reserved.

Our copyright content is protected by U.S intellectual property law that is recognized by most countries To republish or reproduce our content, you must obtain our permission Please go to http://www.pmi.org/permissions for details.

PMI, the PMI logo, PMBOK, OPM3, PMP, CAPM, PgMP, PfMP, PMI-RMP, PMI-SP, PMI-ACP, PMI-PBA, PROJECT MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, PM NETWORK, PMI TODAY, PULSE OF THE PROFESSION and the slogan MAKING PROJECT MANAGEMENT INDISPENSABLE FOR BUSINESS RESULTS are all marks of Project Management Institute, Inc For a comprehensive list of PMI trademarks, contact the PMI Legal Department All other trademarks, service marks, trade names, trade dress, product names and logos appearing herein are the property of their respective owners Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved.

To inquire about discounts for resale or educational purposes, please contact the PMI Book Service Center.

PMI Book Service Center

P.O Box 932683, Atlanta, GA 31193-2683 USA

Phone: +1 866-276-4764 (within the U.S or Canada) or

The paper used in this book complies with the Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National mation Standards Organization (Z39.48—1984).

Infor-10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Contents

Acknowledgments ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� v Abbreviations ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������vii Foreword ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ix Chapter 1: Introduction ��������������������������������������������������������������������������1 Chapter 2: Literature Review ����������������������������������������������������������������� 5 Chapter 3: Pilot Study �������������������������������������������������������������������������� 39 Chapter 4: Refining the Conceptual Framework �������������������������������� 47 Chapter 5: Research Methodology �������������������������������������������������������55 Chapter 6: Results and Data Analysis �������������������������������������������������� 67 Chapter 7: Discussion ������������������������������������������������������������������������� 101 Chapter 8: Conclusions ���������������������������������������������������������������������� 127 References ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 133 Appendix 1: Interview Protocols����������������������������������������������������������151 Appendix 2: Full Set of Data Analysis Tables �������������������������������������� 155 Appendix 3: Data Analysis Cards ������������������������������������������������������� 263 Glossary ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������275

Acknowledgments

The authors express their sincere gratitude to the Project Management Institute (PMI) for the award of the sponsored research grant to enable them to undertake the research reported here The authors are also grateful to the British University of Dubai and the National Research Foundation of the United Arab Emirates for earlier seed funding, which supported the pilot work conducted as a precursor to the international research project reported in this monograph

As always, a major research project involves many helpers along the way without whom the project may never have finished or may have fallen well short of the aim and objectives established at the start We are particularly grateful to the reviewers of our original research pro-posal submitted to PMI; to our project liaison, V K Narayanan; and for the ongoing help and support from Carla Messikomer, Kristin Dunn, and Jake Williams of PMI who always listened to us when plans were hit

by uncertainty We also acknowledge the many staff at SKEMA Business School who were involved in the administrative and financial manage-ment of the research program, and our friends and families who helped

to keep us going to the end

Abbreviations

APM – Association of Project Management

CKO – chief knowledge officer

ERM – enterprise risk management

ISO – International Organization for Standardization

PMI – Project Management Institute

PPPM – project, program, and portfolio management

RBV – resource-based view

UAE – United Arab Emirates

VRIO – valuable, rare, inimitable, organization support

Foreword

There is a saying at NASA that “the safest launch is no launch.” It is

a cryptic, reality-based acknowledgment that you can never be certain when it comes to the complex factors involved in launching a rocket There is an implicit message for objectivists who search for standards of perfection to align before agreeing about the suitability for action The quote lends recognition that what may be desired in theory will not hold

up in practice

The tension between knowledge management and the learning of organizational lessons provides a similar bind There is a noticeable con-trast between objectivist theoretical epistemology of knowledge and a practice-based perspective (Hislop, 2013; Nicolini, 2011) Specifically, the latter is typically unseemly, with much more uncertainty It is the dif-ference between the project management student and the project pro-fessional who is left to wonder why reality never proceeds like a textbook.There is often skepticism between those who practice and those who research The pressures in both fields are driven by somewhat differ-ent perspectives Thus, the knowledge practitioner is responsible for circumstances that paint knowledge in unique colors As NASA’s chief knowledge officer (CKO), I faced powerful factors that drove my focus and the solutions I wanted to implement The theoretical foundations offer a direction, but putting knowledge into practice is a journey largely determined by existing barriers and the layout of the organizational ter-rain There is certainly a strong connection between knowledge manage-ment research and practice However, with the increasing importance

of knowledge capability for project and organizational success, it is important to be aware of their differences

What Makes Practice-Driven Knowledge Management

Different from Theory and Research?

Organizations are driven by strategy and mission In a mission-based environment like NASA, anything that is not considered mission related has a hard time being noticed For this reason, knowledge in practice

must stay closely focused on critical knowledge as a function of the ness or the mission of the organization In a place such as NASA, project failure can have devastating effects This immediately places concepts, processes, and methods associated with improved learning and lessons learned in a place of importance and emphasis Specifically, the type of lessons learned that are valued will be those that can practically help a current project increase its probability of success The more removed

busi-or generic a method of learning lessons is from the goal of increasing current project success, the less it will typically be supported It is for this reason that there is such a split reaction to lessons learned in an organizational setting It is not simply the learning of lessons that is the important factor; rather, it is the learning that can have value within the context of the mission or project success

This first factor, the power of organizational strategy and mission, can never be ignored in practice if a knowledge program is going to survive Knowledge management separated from mission can survive and perhaps thrive in some grassroots, nongoverned manner, taking an emergent path to knowledge and learning, but it can never survive in a formal and systematic way It will suffocate from a lack of resources and support

When asked to accept the position of NASA’s CKO, I made three “asks”

or requests First, it was important that there would be a knowledge lead

at each of the nine NASA field centers and four mission directorates (The original concept was to have one CKO at the headquarters level.) Second, I requested a quarterly presentation in front of the NASA senior leadership for reviews and to ascertain the status of knowledge activi-ties and accomplishments Third, I requested travel funding to ensure that the distributed team could meet at least two times a year Each of these requests was an attempt to measure the leadership commitment and executive sponsorship toward the knowledge program It was also an attempt to set up a structure that could focus as directly as possible on strategy and mission across the entire system

A second characteristic of practitioner-driven knowledge ment is recognition that the only type of knowledge that is valued is that which contributes to the organization’s business Many theoretical approaches consider knowledge as the end state In a working organi-zation, such boundary-less definitions lead to failed programs There

manage-is only one kind of knowledge that matters within a working context: knowledge that drives business success In my case at NASA, knowledge

management was being focused within the domain of engineering and program and project management This focal point from NASA leader-ship was a vital direction, as it limited the scope from areas that would eat resources and confuse the goal It also defined the target audience and the ultimate recipients of service and support Knowledge efforts that are undefined and poorly focused typically lead to confusion, weak goals, and loss of leadership support Knowledge for the sake of knowl-edge is fine in philosophical circles, but within the economics of work, its boundaries must be defined.

A third reality of knowledge in organizations is the importance of social capital (Cohen & Prusak, 2001; Cross & Parker, 2004) Social capital is all about the relationships and networks within an organiza-tion Consider this from the perspective of risk management Projects are accustomed to considering risk largely from a technical or economic perspective However, the most significant risk to a project is the social risk of project factors that are based on individual competence, team capability, and organizational capacity for learning through recogni-tion of problems and the ability to adapt People, politics, social norms, and relationships determine every aspect of importance within a social structure, and that includes knowledge Reality in an organization is defined by people That can be a good thing—or a nightmare However, too many knowledge programs seem determined to value processes, measures, technologies, and structures over people It is as if there is a fear that too much focus on people will render a program weak and soft

In my experience, the only programs that succeed are those that nize and value the importance of the human element

recog-To this point, I refer back to my requests once appointed NASA’s CKO: that each center and mission organization select a local knowledge officer or lead, and that they have travel funds for periodic meetings

In addition to promoting enterprise-wide integration and alignment

to the NASA mission, these requests also ensured powerful social tal across and around the organization The act of coming together for conversation, ideas, and argument is vital for the design and execution stages of a functional program

capi-The most successful knowledge-sharing strategy at NASA is the use of stories and conversation forums This can create heartburn for those who consider conversation a weak knowledge method, but people exchange knowledge predominantly through talking, arguing, laughing, and socializing Bringing together project practitioners to share their

experiences through narrative stories is a very powerful mechanism for identifying critical knowledge, sharing knowledge across the organiza-tion, and promoting a culture of professional reflection and open com-munication Conversation also impacts on the cultural components of

an organization in ways that maximize performance success

The fourth factor of significance for knowledge practice is the importance of strong integration of culturally embedded dimensions This is a nagging problem, as what works in one work setting or team may very well fail in another Organizations are complex systems and they respond in different ways to the same stimulus For this import-ant reason, a successful knowledge practitioner must value agility and adaptability over prescription and method Work systems, whether they are project teams or larger enterprises, will react in unique ways Unique systems can only be handled through unique solutions Knowl-edge management in an organization is mostly dependent on cultural components such as trust, leadership, communication patterns, social networks, learning tendencies, and technology preferences

What to do about the breadth of cultural factors? This requires an appreciation of political issues and their management, coupled with respect and inclusion Within the first week of my appointment as CKO,

I was making phone calls and setting up meetings with the owners of corporate cultural domains Human capital, legal, acquisition, safety and risk, engineering, information technology, and about a dozen other organization leaders needed to be integrated and engaged in the knowl-edge strategy This is the most overlooked reality in knowledge manage-ment and creating an environment of learning The preference seems

to be working a knowledge initiative as a lone wolf However, cultural factors determine the success and failure of such efforts, and culture is owned widely across an organization structure

What Does a Successful Practitioner Do?

People and politics must determine the path of a knowledge and ing program Ultimate success and failure will have more to do with this reality than any formal methodology or process The methodology must accommodate and adapt to the organizational pressures and social dynamics The practical aspects of knowledge management have signif-icant implications for the type of strategy and tactics that are taken In

learn-my experience, I would pay attention to five factors

Ensure Close Engagement with Executive Sponsors,

Practitioners, and Key Stakeholders

Much has been written about the importance of leadership engagement and this cannot be overstated Knowledge is defined by the nature of the business Leaders and the executive core determine the strategy, mission, and what matters in an organization It is essential to have an active and honest conversation with the executive sponsor about what success looks like and the boundaries that the program will inhabit It

is equally important to listen to workforce practitioners and external stakeholders or audit communities that will voice support or criticism for the effort

In starting up the NASA knowledge program, I first met with senior executives to listen and hear what they specifically expected from the effort At this level, it was communicated that designing a formal, integrated program with low cost (frugal innovation) was paramount

to my leadership In conversation with the NASA advisory panel that was heavily invested in this effort, the goal was for a formal, structured program that was strongly integrated across the entire organization The importance of a sound, improving program and project capability that would be sustainable for the long term was a major emphasis In dis-cussion with engineers and project practitioners, a different variable for success was highlighted This community was more than aware of the importance of learning and knowledge for the success of a mission They wanted assurances that they would drive the specific program (which would, after all, impact them the most) that would focus on “knowledge services” as opposed to “knowledge management.” It was also heavily emphasized that this community was concerned about such a program making projects more difficult as opposed to improved and agile

There were three different communities—senior executives, the NASA advisory panel, and the engineers and project practitioners—all with different goals To help ensure success, the conversations between them must happen early, often, and they must determine the design and method

Build a Powerful Team

A good idea is more a function of a strong supporting team than of a brilliant idea In an age of distributed talent, it is critical to consider the

necessary ingredients for success and strongly cultivate a powerful team During the first week of my appointment, the overwhelming majority

of my time was spent calling, meeting, and asking people to help Any discipline that could build a successful knowledge program would need

to have someone representing it and acting as a leader of that nity These people would spend time courting and encouraging a team that would be diverse and would have a stake in success In the case of

commu-a knowledge progrcommu-am, this would include humcommu-an ccommu-apitcommu-al, informcommu-ation technology, safety and risk management, and a dozen other communi-ties The importance of a powerful team is another reason that commu-nities of practice are a vital aspect of a knowledge program

One signal of success came several months after our kickoff I received

a call from the lead of NASA acquisition Because he was a longtime colleague with whom I had collaborated over the years, I was surprised that he was calling to complain The complaint was that I did not call him to request a knowledge lead from the procurement community I immediately expanded the team to respond to that accurate criticism; at the same time, it was a sign that we were seen as a beneficial and vibrant team At our meetings, the 14 formally appointed knowledge leaders would typically be joined by another 20 or so volunteers representing diverse disciplines

Promote Conversations, Stories, and Forums

There are hundreds of knowledge and learning activities that can be embraced by an organization I will say that one component that should

be a significant aspect of every program are forums that bring together leaders and practitioners to exchange stories and conversations The nature of project managers and engineers is that they typically are involved in complex challenges This may lend to a tendency to be good storytellers, and to enjoy the conversation of a community of their peers Perhaps this is not as meaningful in other disciplines; however,

my experience is that there is nothing so powerful as bringing together people to share their stories At NASA, we would use such methods for learning lessons from 30 years of the Shuttle Program to building proj-ect management capability among science principal investigators from universities Much more consideration should be given to identifying the most effective research to find effective ways to let people talk, inno-vate, learn, and improve performance

Design Knowledge Maps and Visual Representations

In building any program, the early years are the most dangerous That

is when people will question the value and be most aggressive in ing opinions about whether the effort should continue or be killed It

form-is for thform-is reason that it form-is important to have something to show A year one initiative at NASA was the design and development of a “knowledge map.” The map was intended to be a one-place stop to find the categories

of NASA knowledge strategies (we would start with six defined ries and areas of focus) and find out what was being done and who was leading in such efforts The knowledge map immediately required us to develop a common language of knowledge that was soon adopted across NASA It also naturally promoted a sharing and exchange of approaches and movement of practice across the enterprise Simply having such a map led to an exploration of what was being done, and created a desire for people and advocates to promote their activities on it Communi-cation of strategy, services, and activities is best accomplished through easy visual representations that can be conveyed to executives, practi-tioners, and stakeholders

catego-Govern with a Federated Structure

It is possible to have a very successful knowledge effort at a grassroots level In fact, there are major advantages to having time to innovate, iterate, explore, and have fun with an emergent effort At a certain point, such a program will run into weaknesses of poor coordination, inconsis-tency, lack of enterprise integration, and questions of mission alignment.For a formal and systematic program, it is important to consider the nature of governance NASA is a highly decentralized, project-based orga-nization, with deep expertise that is widely distributed One of the great concerns of establishing a formal program was the danger of limiting the distributed and adaptive capabilities of such an organization Predom-inantly for this reason, we designed a federated governance model that ensured autonomy of local knowledge efforts with overall knowledge management responsibility given to NASA The federated model pro-motes the majority of specific activities being designed at the local level

It ensures more of an agile and context-differentiated approach, while retaining agency responsibility through open communications, periodic gatherings, and attention to dominant environmental opportunities and

threats Increasingly, organizations are in environments of rapid change, distributed expertise, and complex challenges These ingredients pro-mote the advantages of a federated governance approach.

A federated model is equally important because of the local nature of practice knowledge This experiential knowledge, so valuable to NASA,

is local, contextual, and rarely documented It can be best transferred and shared by the storytelling forums To form good knowledge policy for the whole organization, you must have eyes and ears on the ground

Final Thoughts

In reflecting upon my time as NASA’s chief knowledge officer, I have noted that there are significant differences between practice and theory This is not new, yet in a field as young and diverse as knowledge man-agement, it is important to focus on research that can benefit the reality

of practice In many cases, a knowledge or learning professional enters the work situation with a different background from the core business This provides an even greater need to understand organizational real-ity and enter the workplace with an in-depth appreciation of the field

of knowledge and learning In an organizational setting, there is an increasing need for understanding the dynamics at play Most knowl-edge and learning programs struggle for success, while research in the field struggles for relevance A closer connection between research and practice would bring advantages to all

The research presented in this monograph is well grounded in theory and at the same time has a strong focus on practice and capability devel-opment As a result, it will become immediately relevant to those orga-nizations seeking to learn and apply their learning for greater excellence

in specific sectors and contexts

—Dr Edward J Hoffman Former NASA Chief Knowledge Officer

August 2017

The origins of this research lie in an event organized by an oil and gas company in the United Arab Emirates, at which one of the authors—Paul Gardiner—was invited to speak about the challenges of project management in the company and how the company could learn to do projects better The event was a part of the company’s strategic focus, which at the time was on knowledge sharing throughout the organiza-tion As an oil and gas company, the company knew very well how to find oil reserves and how to get oil out of the ground What it realized it was less good at was how to manage the internal strategic projects that were becoming more frequent, more complex, and more important to remaining competitive in the market The company in question was not alone in this regard Companies across the world continue to recognize the possibilities of project management as a core capability to extend their market grasp and consolidate their competitive position in a global marketplace

Although project management is a relatively young discipline in ademia and has only recently been recognized by the Privy Council in the United Kingdom as a profession, with the Association of Project Management (APM) receiving its Royal Charter in 2017, the need to manage projects—and hence, the practice of project management—has been an ongoing activity since antiquity Societies have undertaken proj-ects from time immemorial across different continents, from the Great Wall of China to the Great Pyramids of Giza to Chand Baori in India, to mention just a few

ac-In all of these great projects, the takeaway message is that projects make the impossible possible; they get the job done, particularly when there is challenging and non-routine work, although often with these ancient projects, the cost in terms of human life was high Nevertheless, the consistent pattern throughout history is that projects—and project

Introduction

management—have contributed to the great achievements and vival of societies So, projects were an important innovation long before project management arose as a science and industry This research is grounded in the philosophical tradition and historical recognition of the value and relevance of project management to the development of sustainable social structures and societies.

sur-In the modern world, all organizations seek to use and develop their project management resource assets effectively (Crawford, Hobbs, & Turner, 2006) The role and function of project management in success-ful organizations has evolved from simply “doing” projects to “how” to

do projects—the birth of project management as a discipline—to doing projects “better,” then to selecting “which” projects to do, optimizing

“business value” from multiple-project portfolios, and finally to mizing “customer value,” which is a moderating variable for business value Congruent with this evolution has been a parallel evolution of the organizational landscape and the position of the project organization within that landscape, e.g., from functional to project to matrix struc-tures; from ad hoc occasional projects to semi-projectized organizations

opti-to fully projectized organizations; from U-form, to H-form, to M-form;

and more recently, to P-form organizations (Holian, 2010; Söderlund &

Tell, 2009) Alongside these developments, another area of evolution has been the relentless march toward recognizing complexity in projects and their environments and all the implications that brings, including advances in complex adaptive systems, enterprise risk manage- ment (ERM), and organizational resilience.

One of the challenges for project management researchers is that there is still no single theory of project management As recently as the International Research Network on Organizing by Projects (IRNOP)

2017 conference plenary in Boston, on theory development in project management, there was a lack of unity from the participants on where

we are and where we are going We continue to explain and develop ect management theory (Söderlund, 2011) However, there seems to be little doubt when looking at the project management literature that we are at a turning point in project management research Many old as-sumptions have had to be questioned and discarded and new thinking has been created to take project management and its practice into the future: a future focused not just on project management but on the rela-tionship between project management and other domains, such as strat-egy, organization learning, knowledge management, and value creation

proj-(Bredillet, 2013, 2015; Bredillet, Thiry, & Deguire, 2005; Canonico, Söderland, De Nito, & Mangia, 2013).

This research draws on several theories explained in Chapter 2 to connect project management to the wider strategy-project system and

establish a basis for more holistic and systemic thinking than project management research has traditionally adopted The overarching aim

of this research is to explore and understand the mechanism by which evolutionary learning takes place in the strategy-project system and to

examine how this relates to sustainable competitive advantage The proach used was to study, at a micro-level, multiple “learning episodes”

ap-in time, withap-in a unit of analysis called activity configuration, found

in the strategy-project system of organizations in several countries.

With this in mind, the specific objectives of the research were to do the following:

1 Study the patterns and mechanisms that characterize the

strategy-project system in organizations of various sizes

from different countries This would include identifying learning and dynamic capabilities and processes that shape and implement strategy and help deliver customer value (Easterby-Smith & Prieto, 2008; Nielsen, 2006; Petit & Hobbs, 2012)

2 Investigate at a micro-level the nature of these patterns of influence by studying the results chains that are found in activity configurations in the strategy-project system

This objective acknowledges the temporary-permanent ity of the strategy-project system in which the permanent

dual-organization finds sustainable competitive advantage though learning mechanisms that facilitate flexibility and adaptabil-ity (Eltigani, Lawlor-Wright, Gardiner, & Gale, 2014; Regnér, 2008; Sage, Dainty, & Brookes, 2010; Scarbrough et al., 2003)

3 Showcase examples of evolutionary learning episodes and look for patterns in the strategy-project system that can

help direct further research to investigate important tionships more fully and to evaluate more extensively the practical implications for industry of systemic evolution-ary learning in different sectors and contexts (Crawford & Cooke-Davies, 2012)

rela-The literature review, which is presented in Chapter 2, begins by sidering project management as a strategic resource within a systemic

con-strategy-project system, capable of adding value to the business and

to customers, both internal and external The linkages of this research study to the resource-based view from the strategy domain are dis-cussed, leading to a fuller consideration of the nature of projects within

a landscape characterized by increasing complexity At this point, the literature review presents a discourse on theories of learning in organi-zations and introduces the construct of evolutionary learning, which is

at the heart of this research study Knowledge management is explained

as part of the formal structure of the organization and as a tor to learning processes Chapter 2 concludes with a consideration of project-related dynamic capabilities and capability building, which is a value-based outcome of effective evolutionary learning in organizations.The details of a pilot study are presented in Chapter 3 In this chapter,

contribu-we begin to test the purpose and rationale of the research, drawing up

an initial conceptual framework and conducting a mini-empirical study

to test the structuring of the interview protocol used in the main phase

of the research The results of the pilot study played a significant role

in the validation and further refinement of the conceptual framework, which is delineated in Chapter 4 The full methodology is developed

in Chapter 5, which also draws significantly from the pilot study The presentation and analysis of the results are given in Chapter 6; this in-cludes a cross-case analysis, although the bulk of the data analysis tables and their immediate derivatives are found in the Appendices, as they were deemed too voluminous to incorporate in the main body of this monograph Chapter 7 contains a discussion of the key findings inte-grated with the relevant literature from Chapter 2 and a few additional sources considered important in light of the discussion In addition to the main discussion sections, a small number of emerging themes that

we considered to be of interest to the project management community

of practice are also located here Finally, the conclusions of the research and their theoretical and practical implications and some limitations are considered in Chapter 8

of the research by qualifying project management as a strategic asset One of the goals of this research was to take a more systemic worldview than is typical in project management research The next section pushes out the boundaries of interest of the research to what we have termed

project management with other disciplines—in this case, strategic agement The wider implication of this has been identified later from the data analysis as an emerging theme from the research

man-Next, we move into the realm of complexity, which has been a key driver in the movement to rethink project management in recent years

An increasing awareness of complexity and its influence in business and management propels practitioners and researchers to explore new paradigms and avenues of practice This is also true for our research as

we seek a new understanding of how organizations can use project agement systemically to foster learning and capability development,

man-in order to address the growman-ing challenges of greater operational ciency while delivering organizational benefits and increased customer satisfaction

effi-The final sections delve into evolutionary learning and the basis of organizational capabilities as a key for tackling the challenges presented

in the earlier sections These final sections open up the gaps and ities from the literature that the current research is designed to help fill

possibil-Literature Review

Qualifying Project Management as a Strategic Asset

One of the features of this new thinking referred to in Chapter 1 has been the recognition of the critical relationship between project man-agement and strategic management and the notion of dynamic capabili-ties combined with practice-driven research approaches Organizations seek to survive and become better than their rivals, to gain competitive advantage This, then, begs the question: Does project management sat-isfy the conditions of being a strategic resource as set down by Barney (1991, 2002) in his so-called VRIO checklist? The argument is that if project management is a strategic resource, then we can usefully go to the strategy literature to learn from it and discover insights into how to improve project management theory and practice In the discussion that follows, we will develop an understanding of the importance of context, culture, and specific industry requirements for project management and its interpretations The starting point, however, is Barney’s checklist of four (VRIO) questions: Does project management add Value to organiza-

tions? Is project management Rare? Is project management Inimitable?

Does project management have Organizational support? These

ques-tions are answered below and the outcomes support the rationale for this research study

Almost 10 years ago, a survey conducted by the Economist gence Unit (2009) showed that 90% of global senior executives and project management experts say good project management is key to the delivery of successful results and gaining a competitive edge However, there is still a lack of consensus on how project management contributes

Intelli-to competitive advantage, and there have been few empirical studies on project management as a strategic asset (Bredillet et al., 2005; DeFillippi

& Arthur, 1998; Jugdev, 2004; Jugdev & Mathur, 2006), although new studies are now starting to emerge (Kim, Lee, & Shinm, 2015; Mathur, Jugdev, & Tak, 2013; Young & Grant, 2015) Our research set out to con-tribute to the growing understanding of the strategic function of project management and how project management can systematically combine with other parts of the organization to achieve learning, change, and long-term survival in a global society

Does project management add value? In 2004, Söderlund published

on adding value through project management; this was followed in 2006

by research that recognized value creation as the prime focus of projects, programs, and portfolios (Winter & Smith, 2006) The concept of project

management as a means to add value was extensively explored in the PMI value project (Thomas & Mullaly, 2008) and also demonstrated by Mir and Pinnington (2014) in a study based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Other key studies on the competitive value of project manage-ment include those of Killen, Jugdev, Drouin, and Petit (2012); Mathur, Jugdev, and Fung (2007); and Söderlund (2005).

Value can be expressed and defined in many ways—for example, nomic value, ethical value, market value, personal value, reputational value, and functional value in mathematics This research draws on the concept of business value, shaped by the works of Drucker (man-agement by objectives) and Porter (value chain analysis) in which a resource-based view of the firm is used to provide a balance between the internal and external processes in which a business operates (Tywoniak, 2007) These effects are typically moderated by structuration (Giddens, 1984) in which dynamic tensions influence the ability of resource assets

eco-to reach their full potential because of the restraining effect of tural mechanisms such as an organization’s culture, design, norms, and various levels of governance These influences are explored later in the development of the conceptual framework in Chapter 4

struc-In Barney’s (1991, 2002) checklist, the concept of appropriating ness value is a necessary condition for achieving competitive advantage

busi-In this sense, value creation is seen as part of a team process in which

a configuration of activities works together, drawing from the tion’s resources, and influence one another, creating opportunities for synergy rather than a purely mechanistic process We explore the concept and role of activity configurations later when discussing the conceptual framework, drawing from the pioneering work of Patrick Regnér (2008).The concept of business value as described above is linked to business strategy (e.g., Kaplan & Norton, 1992; Wongrassamee, Gardiner, & Sim-mons, 2003) and includes stakeholders in the firm’s value chain as well

organiza-as the resources directly employed in the organization More recently, the role of absorptive capacity has been studied, in which a firm can rec-ognize the value of new information, assimilate it, and apply it to com-mercial ends (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Scarbrough et al., 2003) In the contemporary strategy literature, value is often discussed alongside dy-namic capabilities, which many consider prerequisites to achieving sus-tained competitive advantage in turbulent environments (Teece, 2014)

Is project management rare and inimitable? In Barney’s (1991, 2002) analysis, the basis of competitive advantage lies in the resources that are

nonheterogeneous and not perfectly distributed among competitors though project management is a relatively young discipline, it has become widely disseminated through the efforts of its professional associations and

Al-a grAl-aduAl-al reAl-alizAl-ation hAl-as Al-arisen Al-among industry leAl-aders thAl-at project mAl-an-agement is necessary to deliver strategic imperatives One could easily argue that project management—expressed as conforming to the PMI standard

Fifth Edition (PMI, 2013) or a published methodology such as PRINCE2®1 or more recently AgilePM®2, or indeed, aligned to ISO 21500:2012—is largely homogeneous and almost perfectly distributed, all of which would mitigate against it contributing sustained competitive advantage to companies.The requirement to have project management resources, and by implication, project management capabilities has become a necessity merely to compete in the marketplace However, the ability to do project management well remains elusive, with difficulties encountered in almost every area Given the challenges of consistently doing project management well, this can be seen as a source of temporary competitive advantage for those companies that achieve it However, the longer-term challenge remains to find sustainable competitive advantage This is a question that has been posed by Jugdev, Mathur, and Fung (2007) They show that companies need to identify and cultivate their intangible project management assets over and above their tangible project man-agement assets to render this capability rare and inimitable

If one limits our understanding of project management to what is promulgated by the various bodies of knowledge, maturity models, and

so forth, then it can never be truly rare or inimitable, as these artifacts are freely available for all organizations to copy Perhaps a more useful way to consider the rarity of project management is first to consider what project management is, and by association, what a project is Although definitions of project management abound and have strong similarity, the debate about what is a project has been firmly reopened with the rethinking project management literature (Cicmil, Williams, Thomas, & Hodgson, 2006; Svejvig & Andersen, 2015)

1 PRINCE2® is a registered trademark of AXELOS Limited, used under permission of AXELOS Limited All rights reserved

2 AgilePM® is a registered trademark of Dynamic Systems Development Method Ltd All rights reserved

Van der Hoorn and Whitty (2016) introduce the notion of tyness Drawing on a variety of theories (Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty,

projec-& Dawkins), van der Hoorn and Whitty argue that no activity is innately

a project; rather, a project is an experience with “spikiness, roughness, and emotional ups and downs” (p 970) They suggest that there is no point of clear distinction between operational and project work Instead, there is a projectyness spectrum and project management is about

managing a “lack of inherent capability and managing multiple people’s experience (not a single detached activity)” (p 970) This multiplicity when it comes to what projects and project management are allows for multiple interpretations about what project management is and, follow-ing this line of reasoning, allows us to regard project management as infinitely variable So, any single interpretation is, by the same token, rare Bredillet (2013, 2015) also challenges traditional views of inter-preting projects and project management in deterministic and mech-anistic ways, moving away from the “hegemonic rationalist paradigm” (Bredillet, 2013, p 56)

Van der Hoorn (2016) emphasizes the primacy of project pants’ unique, subjective perception of experience—both logical and emotional—without the need for such findings to be universalized She argues that project management is grounded in the perceptions of in-dividuals and that it draws on contextualized experiences in concrete situations rather than on objective and traditional project management topics such as instrumentation (Gantt charts, etc.) and success factors The importance of this practice focus is fundamental to our research and intrinsic to our research methodology

partici-Mathur et al (2013) found that although tangible project ment assets are valuable, it is the intangible project management assets that result in the process being rare, contributing to competitive advan-tage The complementary research of Kim et al (2015) also confirms that the intangible project management assets play a mediating role enabling the tangible project management assets to achieve the VRIO character-istics of the project management process Kim et al (2015) show that tangible project management assets result in having organizational support, but are not able to generate value for project management processes The mediating role of intangible assets was found to be statistically significant, which implies that they play an important role

manage-in turnmanage-ing tangible project management assets manage-into an actual source of competitiveness

The Strategy-Project System

In this section, we develop an organizational construct—that of an tegrated system combining the strategy side and the project side of a business The point is that organization systems and processes are often compartmentalized, as either part of the strategy side or the project side

in-of the business, with little effective integration in-of the two taking place

We have already considered the argument that project management is

a strategic resource Additionally, many authors discuss the value and use of project management as a tool to implement and execute strategy (Kaiser, El Arbi, & Ahlemann, 2015; Leybourne, 2006; Young & Young, 2012), and others question the efficacy of this proposition (Cabrey & Haughey, 2014; Dal Maso, da Silva, de Mello, & de Paula Arruda Filho, 2015; Meskendahl, 2010; PMI, 2016, 2017; Thiry, 2008; Young, Young, Jordan, & O’Connor, 2012; Zolfaghari, Aliahmadi, & Mazdeh, 2017).However, increasingly, there is recognition from practitioners and researchers of the role that projects and project management play as a precursor to strategy, particularly in fast-moving and complex environ-ments The discrete nature of projects gives them a special status and functionality in experimentation For example, in Deming’s well-known plan-do-check-act cycle, projects can be used as a means of experimen-tation to test and check innovative ideas before full and potentially risky organizational commitment is given In this way, project management contributes to strategy formation and enterprise risk management (Artto, Kujala, Dietrich, & Martinsuo, 2008; Cooke-Davies, Crawford, & Lechler, 2009; Thiry & Deguire, 2007)

The concept of emergent strategy was popularized by Mintzberg and

Waters (1985) and remains relevant today The idea that an organization often needs to respond more dynamically to new threats and opportuni-ties than the strategic management cycle allows has gained acceptance in the strategy literature and is another avenue where project management has an important yet undervalued role to play An emergent strategy is

essentially a new direction, previously unplanned, leading to

organiza-tional change, and change is the raison d’être of projects So, projects are

not only tools to execute intended strategy, but also the means by which changes to that intended strategy are explored and finally enacted

In capital investment, a well-researched business case is expected by top executives The undertaking of feasibility studies and pilot studies are examples of how project management contributes to corporate decision

making These practices have been commonplace for decades, although they have largely escaped mainstream project management research.

In this section, we propose that project management has evolved and progressed from a typically tool-driven operational activity to one grounded in behavioral and contextual peculiarities that make it unique and difficult to imitate The end result is that project management can help an organization to achieve a dynamic strategy rather than merely implement an unchanging one For example, the changing operational and distribution strategy of Coloplast (Nielsen-Englyst, 2003) was de-pendent on numerous evidences provided over several years by projects before its final acceptance by senior executives and institutionalization across the business The project epochs described by Söderlund and

Tell (2009) in their research on Asea/ABB have enabled the organization

to consistently add new project and organization capabilities surate with an emerging strategic management approach, albeit over a longer time scale And the concept of vanguard projects put forward

commen-by Brady and Davies (2004), Davies and Brady (2016), and Frederiksen and Davies (2008) is a third example of how project management can connect with strategy in an emergent and exploratory sense

We envisage that reconceptualizing project management as part of a wider, holistic organization system will open the door to a new understand-ing of its strategic relevance and reveal new ways—for example, through dynamic capabilities such as ERM and resilience—in which organizations

can create unique advantages over competitors to successfully engage with their stakeholders and achieve greater value for their customers and thereby greater business value (Klein, 2016; Klein, Biesenthal, & Dehlin, 2015)

In the project management literature, the linkage between project management and other parts of the organization is often described as

“organizational project management.” Nevertheless, we prefer not to use this terminology, as it is used to mean different things by scholars, practi-tioners, and professional bodies (Aubry, Hobbs, & Thuillier, 2008; Aubry, Sicotte, Drouin, Vidot-Delerue, & Besner, 2012) and is almost exclusively referenced in the project management literature and not the strategy lit-erature Until now, this term has failed to find agreement among those in the project management community of practice In this research, we use the more neutral terminology strategy-project system as a construct.

Leybourne (2007) cogently argues that project management has tered mainstream organization and management research This is in part because of the increasing projectification of work as a unit of productivity

en-and resource (Aubry et al., 2012) Even parts of the business traditionally referred to as business as usual (BAU) are finding that to remain competi-tive they are more frequently having to improve and adapt though the use

of projects The construct of a “project” is well adapted to dynamic and fluid environments, which are now an imperative in global business and man-agement This gives project management a new and higher utility in busi-ness and one that can adapt to complex landscapes while retaining a focus

on customer value Leybourne (2007) proposes that the increasing interest

in project management by management researchers has led to a shift in the focus of project management research away from tools and techniques and toward social and behavioral aspects These tendencies underpin our re-search and extend our zone of interest beyond the traditional project man-agement organization boundary to a broader one that we refer to as the

strategy-project system, which includes other parts of the business such

as the C-suite, human resource management, and business development

in which the permanent organization finds sustainable competitive advantage through the temporary processes of projects, linked to learn-ing, structure, and change The notion of a strategy-project system is

fundamental to how organizations can benefit from dynamic ties because change and learning has to happen within and between the market, the strategy, and the project sides of business activities

capabili-This research focuses on evolutionary learning processes between the strategic management system, which identifies an opportunity/threat (the trigger for change), and the reconfiguration of resources in the organization, including the project system, which operationalizes the learning (capturing and appropriating value from the learning) The relationship between these two systems is the strategy-project

system—a systemic weltanschauung (Shagiakhmetov, 2013) that has

not been thoroughly or deeply explored in project management or stream management literature to date

main-Resource-Based View

A look at strategy leads into a consideration of the resource-based view (RBV) of strategy and its various spin-offs, including dynamic capabil-ities The RBV is a strategic management theory that is widely used in project management (Almarri & Gardiner, 2014; Govan & Damnjanovic,

2016, Jugdev, 2004); it examines how resources can drive competitive

advantage The RBV is built on the concept that resources and capabilities are not homogeneous across other organizations, and through the utili-zation of this concept, the success rate variations between organizations can be explained Kraaijenbrink, Spender, and Aard (2010, p 349) quoted Barney’s (1991, 2002) argument that “if a firm is to achieve a state of sus-tained competitive advantage, it must acquire and control valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable (VRIN) resources and capabilities.”

As we have already discussed, project management resources and capabilities that have been customized to a specific environment and developed over time are not easily imitated Such capabilities are con-stantly associated with better performance, leading to the view that project management embraces strategic organizational capabilities that can provide enduring benefits Examples of tangible project man-agement resources include methodologies and practices (know-what), while intangible resources include tacit knowledge sharing process and facilitation (know-how) It follows from the resource-based view of the firm concept that intangible resources are more likely to satisfy the requirement of being rare and inimitable (Killen et al., 2012)

The RBV has become one of the most influential strategic ment theories cited in strategic management literature because of its im-mediate face validity, appealing core message, and the ease with which

manage-it can be grasped and taught (Kraaijenbrink et al., 2010) However, these advantages do not come without criticism Those who oppose the appli-cation of the RBV are critical of areas that are mainly related to the state

of the definitions on which RBV is based, the conceptual and empirical methodology used in the research that underpins the RBV concepts, and so-called deficiencies of the concept (Almarri & Gardiner, 2014) These opponents want to temper what they refer to as overenthusiasm for the RBV, while its supporters feel the advantages of the RBV outweigh its disadvantages and that, with minor modifications to the RBV theory, it will uphold its historical advantage over other theories and continue to contribute to the advancement of research in other disciplines, such as project management (Truijens, 2003)

The authors of this research monograph take a position alongside ers who firmly support the RBV theory in relation to research carried out

oth-in project management contexts For example, Killen et al (2012), oth-in their study of four diverse organizations, reported that project management and project portfolio management research outcomes can be supported

by the application of strategic management theories such as the RBV

The Nature of Projects and Complex Project Environments

Much of the development of project management has recognized the evolution of the new project landscapes, the growing dominance of com-plexity as a factor in projects, and the new challenges that organizations face in light of this complexity Initially, there were some moves to take simple project management and introduce some complexity ideas Hass’s (2009) popular book uses a traditional approach for complex projects Remington and Pollack’s (2008) book seeking tools for complex projects takes a more open view and recognizes more issues involved in complex projects than does Hass, and goes on to prescribe some simple tools to address these issues However, the idea of complexity is multifaceted and—despite being well researched—is still poorly understood

This means that scholars and practitioners are having to rethink what it means to manage projects in such environments (Cicmil et al., 2006; Winter, Smith, Morris, & Cicmil, 2006) by trying to understand and deal more effectively with the actuality of project work, which is coming to be recognized as more complex than allowed for by the com-mon discourse of standards and guidelines (Bresner & Hobbs, 2008) Cooke-Davies (2011) gives a useful view of the current view of complexity

in projects, with a research agenda for the future

Geraldi, Maylor, and Williams (2011) try to capture the various aspects

of the complexity of projects by characterizing these aspects using five dimensions: structural, uncertainty, dynamics, pace, and sociopolitical

In public projects in particular, the stakeholder and political ment increases the complexity associated with the last of these dimen-sions (Klakegg, Williams, & Shiferaw, 2016) Interestingly, in a recent report on UK public projects, “eight projects were rated as red, which indicated the highest risk to successful delivery Problems occurred because departments initially underestimated the projects’ complexity” (National Audit Office, 2014, p 6)

environ-In particular, complex projects can be seen to be similar to the idea of self-organizing or complex adaptive systems as described in

Cooke-Davies, Cicmil, Crawford, and Richardson (2007), and this gests new ways of thinking about how to manage complex projects and complex project environments, such as AgilePM® Resilience is an im-portant aspect of complex projects; it is also important to understand and strengthen resilience when managing such projects This is considered

sug-in more detail later sug-in a specific subsection withsug-in this chapter

One implication for our study is that by moving away from nal models and taking up other alternatives, we operate nearer the edge

ratio-of chaos, and this can open up hitherto missed opportunities for more learning and capability development

Söderlund and Tell (2011) consider the P-form organization from the

resource-based view of the firm They conclude that this form of nization has particular qualities that make it able to work in this new environment Söderlund and Tell (2011, p 257) point to “adaptive and generative” properties, particularly as they decentralize and recentralize into temporary project organizations Looking at organizations as adap-tive systems, they say, “organizational design then becomes very much

orga-a morga-atter of structuring the interdependencies involved, where orga-a fundorga-a-mental problem is how to exploit past experience and at the same time explore new opportunities” (Söderlund & Tell, 2011, p 256)

funda-Learning and Evolutionary funda-Learning

The overarching aim of this research is to explore and understand the mechanism by which evolutionary learning takes place in the strategy- project system and to examine how this relates to sustainable compet-

itive advantage The research is underpinned by the notion of learning, particularly the concept of systemic evolutionary learning, which is used

to position learning across the different interfaces and organizations in the strategy-project system Although learning can take place at every level in the system—strategic, organizational, project, and individual—

we suggest that it is useful to consider learning at the system level to derstand more deeply how learning and business value are interrelated The focus in this research is not on learning per se but on learning for business and, even more broadly, learning for society

un-Literature on evolutionary learning has developed in two main streams: one in IT and machine learning in complex systems and the other looking at the application of evolutionary learning in complex social systems In the IT domain, evolutionary learning has been de-veloping rapidly over the past 30 years or so, particularly in the study and optimization of artificial neural networks and machine learning contexts Yao, Liu, and Darwen (1996) showed that evolutionary learn-ing works best when applied to a population rather than an individual system Their work is based on the argument that learning is different

from optimization and that a population contains more useful tion than even the best individual in the population.

informa-The goal of machine learning is to create a system that can improve itself by continuously capturing and exploiting new knowledge (Juille & Pollack, 1998) An important factor in the performance of learning systems in machine learning is a training environment designed and constructed by the human designer When there is little knowledge available about the problem or the learning is difficult to introduce into the training environment, learning can become intractable Juille and Pollack (1998) propose a coevolutionary learning model in which co-

evolution occurs between the training environment and a population of learners Starting with simple problems that gradually get more com-plex, the population trains and learns simultaneously, i.e., coevolves in such a way that continuous progress results from the interaction: “The central idea of this co-evolutionary learning approach consists in ex-posing learners to problems that are just beyond those they know how

to solve By maintaining this constant pressure towards slightly more difficult problems, an arms race among learners is induced such that learners that adapt better have an evolutionary advantage The under-lying heuristic implemented by this arms race is that adaptability is the driving force for improvement” (Juille & Pollack, 1998, p 256)

Evolutionary learning has also been applied to natural social systems (Lindström, Selbing, & Olsson, 2016) and more recently to organizational social systems (Breslin, 2015) In each case, it is the complexity of the sub-ject that lends itself to evolutionary and coevolutionary learning processes Scholars have explored the possibility of using evolutionary “principles” to study socioeconomic change, both at the macro-level of populations of organizations and increasingly at the micro-level of organizational change (Breslin, 2015) The growing importance of context in organization studies has placed greater importance on practice-based research (Breslin, 2015)

We can consider knowledge as a process of organizing (Weick, 1979) that

is grounded in practical consciousness (Giddens, 1984; Pentland & Reuter, 1994) This practice perspective results in a focus on three different aspects:

1 An empirical focus—how people act in organizational contexts;

2 A theoretical focus—understanding relations between actions and structures (Giddens, 1984); and

3 A philosophical focus—the constitutive role of practices (Feldman & Orlikowski, 2011)

Applications of evolutionary learning in a social context emphasize

a systemic approach to solving complex problems These applications tend to involve multiple stakeholders, each holding his or her own per-ception about a complex problem These complex landscapes are more suited to a systems thinking approach than linear thinking For exam-ple, Kiura, Bosch, Nguyen, Shirasaka, and Maeno (2014) have used a systems-based process called evolutionary learning laboratory to

create a new business model in which a systemic view and structure of the issue under consideration assisted entrepreneurs in developing a shared understanding of the mental models of the multiple stakehold-ers, including the target customers (see also Bosch, Nguyen, Maeno, & Yasui, 2013) Other studies of evolutionary learning are found in social and behavioral contexts both at the organization level and in a biological context

Laszlo and Laszlo (2007) have positioned learning in the context of evolutionary development, emphasizing the interrelationship between economic prosperity and human development, extended by McGrath (2010), who focuses on the role of experimentation and evolutionary learning in highly uncertain, complex, and fast-moving environments Evolutionary learning is a form of creative, innovative learning that is essential to overcome the predicament of human organizations when dealing with complexity and uncertainty “Evolutionary learning allows actors not only to deal with change but also to shape it It helps us sus-pend old assumptions, and create new perspectives This is consistent with the rethinking project management literature Evolutionary learn-ing allows coevolution with the environment and increases competence

in managing change” (Yeo & Ren, 2009, p 284) In the research reported

in this monograph, the methodology exploits the notion of duality posed by Giddens (1984) in which the practices of actors and the struc-ture within which they exist and operate coexist and coevolve together This is explained further in Chapters 3 and 4, in which the development

pro-of the conceptual framework for this monograph’s research is reported

in detail

A golden thread in all studies looking at evolutionary learning is complexity and acceptance of the notion that complexity character-izes all human endeavors today The use of systems thinking applied to complexity is regarded as a new application of systems thinking (Bosch

et al., 2013) This reasoning easily extends to the realm of project tems and is now supported by a body of literature on complexity and

sys-complex adaptive systems In addition, the rethinking project agement literature has also embraced the increasing dominance of

man-complexity in project landscapes and the need for reconceptualization

of projects and their management within this brave new world

The nature of projects continues to be debated, spurred on by the work streams on rethinking and reevaluating project management The need to consider projects from a wider perspective than traditional linear conceptualizations is now well acknowledged One clear example

of this need is the continuing failure of organizations to achieve effective learning from project to project and to transfer learning from projects throughout the organization; see the section on lessons learned later in this chapter

The notion of learning has also been studied as a part of the duality between the permanent parent organization and the temporary proj-ect organization To fully understand how learning takes place and can add business value, we need to consider the various representations of the parent organization, e.g., U-form, M-form, and P-form, as well as

the nature of the project organization itself, the approach adopted to manage projects, and the characteristics of the projects themselves—for example, whether they are strategic projects, vanguard projects,

regulatory projects, capability building projects, etc

Brady and Davies (2004) distinguish between what they call project- led learning (e.g., vanguard projects, exploration) and business-led

learning (exploitation) These authors draw from the literature about ambidextrous organizations that have capabilities in both exploitative and explorative learning

Prencipe and Tell (2001) describe three learning landscapes—explorer, navigator, and exploiter—although perhaps confusingly, these terms are not related to the exploitative and explorative learning terms used to describe ambidextrous organizations Prencipe and Tell focus on three learning processes: experience accumulation, knowledge articula-tion, and knowledge codification These processes are closely related to knowledge management and have been borrowed from Zollo and Winter (2002) The focus of Prencipe and Tell (2001) is on project-based firms and the projects within them Their research brings empirical evidence of interproject learning from two dimensions: the project-to-project learn-ing mechanisms that predominate (explorer, navigator, or exploiter) and the dominant learning processes used to achieve that interproject learn-ing (experience accumulation, knowledge articulation, or knowledge

codification) “Firms that rely primarily on people-embedded edge are characterized by the explorer landscape These firms empha-size experience accumulation processes and knowledge transfer through people-to-people communication The knowledge is tacit and unstruc-tured The navigator landscape characterizes firms that started im-plementing mechanisms for project-to-project learning based on the knowledge articulation process Firms already involved in the advanced development of ICT-based tools to support their project-to-project learning are characterized by the exploiter learning landscape This is codified and explicit knowledge” (Prencipe & Tell, 2001, pp 1390–1391).Learning can be applied to find new capabilities and/or to lever-age existing capabilities This distinction gives rise to the notion of the ambidextrous organization (explorative and exploitative) Ambidex-trous organizations have capabilities for simultaneous exploration and exploitation—for example, internal strategic projects and projects for external clients (exploitation) and those that become joint ventures or alliances, etc., including public–private partnerships Generally, the bal-ance of exploration or exploitation is dependent on other factors such as macro-economy, industry dynamics, and/or the extent of competitive ri-valry In practice, most firms are neither pure explorers nor pure exploit-ers, but lie somewhere on a continuum between these two extremes.From a longitudinal case study in which the role of learning capabilities

knowl-in a project-based, P-form organization, ABB, was studied by Söderlund

(2008), three types of learning were identified, each based around a cific learning capability: shifting, adapting, and leveraging, with each one drawing from a different set of learning capabilities, emphasizing a differ-ent learning objective, and based in a different part of the strategy-project system So, “shifting” learning capabilities are symptomatic of strategic

spe-learning based on macro-level factors such as new technology, new kets or clients, or a major threat or risk “Adapting” learning capabilities are similar to the learning proposed by Brady and Davies (2004) in their so-called vanguard projects, which develop and refine new capabilities

mar-through an iterative process between projects Lessons learned would fall into this category of learning capability as well Finally, “leveraging” capa-bilities are those learning capabilities that facilitate the transfer of learn-ing to other projects and to other parts of the business; this represents the institutionalization of the learning achieved

Söderlund (2008) proposes a three-level model of competence namics to help understand the variety of learning and competence

dy-development in project-based organizations The three levels are major changes to project operations, continuous development in similar proj-ects, and the transfer of learning between projects particularly those with high dissimilarity He suggests that this model, which is based on empirical observations, can help inform theory building.

At the organizational level, it becomes necessary to consider the influence of knowledge management on learning capabilities and also the notion of organizational learning and the learning organization The question can be asked: Do projects succeed more often if the par-ent organization has the characteristics of a learning organization, a well-developed knowledge management system, or some other learning related characteristic, e.g., institutionalized lean thinking or organiza-tional agility or organizational resilience?

Projects have become the de facto means to implement strategy More recently, practitioners and scholars are contemplating and study-ing the contribution that projects and project management are making

at the front end of strategy management, i.e., the formation of strategy The Coloplast case study (Nielsen-Englyst, 2003) is an excellent exam-ple of how an organization can use projects as a device to experiment with local practices and showcase local excellence in new practices, be-fore seeking broader institutional support for strategic change

The research reported in this monograph aimed to identify at a micro-practice level examples of learning that resulted in change, and to develop a deep understanding of how these processes worked These ideas are explored further in Chapter 4, which reports on the development of the conceptual framework

The next section of this literature review develops a deeper understanding of capabilities, including the higher-order capabilities that are often called learning and dynamic capabilities The link to knowledge management from a learning perspective is also explored further here

Another stream of research has considered the increasing learning potential of more complex landscapes that have greater uncertainty The need to learn and absorb that learning increases as the landscape be-comes more complex The research reported in this monograph is also related to the concept of uncertainty (Besner & Hobbs, 2012); higher levels of uncertainty lead to greater opportunities for learning This is

a fundamental idea in complex adaptive environments and complex

projects (Cooke-Davies et al., 2007) and reflects what Lechler, Gao,

and Edington (2013) mean by the title of their book, The Silver Lining

of Project Uncertainties, in which uncertainty is seen as a continuous

source of opportunities for new learning Uncertain environments offer more scope for learning in complex projects So, we could expect evo-lutionary learning to be more frequent or noticeable in complex proj-ects If an organization can tap into the rich possibilities afforded by complexity, then it can use this to enact more responsive change and transformation practices, and this in turn could be nurtured into a com-petitive advantage by ensuring that the learning achieved is channeled into business value Davies, Dodgson, and Gann (2016) link uncertainty

to the exploration side of the exploitation-exploration continuum.The learning episodes in a major complex UK airport project are reported in Davies, Dodgson, and Gann (2016) In this project, the organization used its learning capability to recognize a shortfall in its es-tablished project practices for dealing with high uncertainty This then triggered a series of actions to increase the capability of the organization

at the front end of the project

Davies and Brady (2016) have posited: “Although studies of terity in the project management literature do not explicitly engage with the concept of dynamics capabilities (Pellegrinelli, Murray-Webster, & Turner, 2015; Turner, Swart, & Maylor, 2013), undertaking research on exploration and exploitation promises to enhance our understanding of how dynamic capabilities support more flexible forms of project-based organizing In particular, research on both dynamic and project capabil-ities may be helpful in providing a theoretical lens to improve our under-standing of how firms implement strategies and learn through projects” (p 319) They consider and distinguish between “project capabilities at the operational and dynamic capabilities at the strategic levels, arguing that firms depend on identifiable dynamic capabilities (e.g., portfolio management techniques) to know when and how to maintain current project capabilities and when to modify or replace them depending on the conditions encountered” (p 315)

ambidex-Easterby-Smith and Prieto (2008) argue that the process of ing may be a central element in the creation and renewal of dynamic capabilities Therefore, the examination of the processes by which firms learn is critical to understanding dynamic capabilities (Mahoney, 1995; Zollo & Winter, 2002)

learn-Project-Related Dynamic Capabilities and Capability BuildingIntroduction

The literature review and the data and findings reported in the published literature support the concept of dynamic capabilities in which organizations have crafted and honed capabilities to match their contextual landscape and competitive challenges What is found is that in each case there is a shift from standardized solutions to unique solutions The solutions, therefore, become rarer and, because of the integration of contextual circumstances, which vary from company to company, they are also difficult to copy Nevertheless, the data and liter-ature review suggest that certain classes of dynamic capability seem to offer advantages The number and type of these classes appear to vary from organization to organization, so again, there is no one set that rep-resents the best one Identifying the different dynamic capabilities is central to the aim and objectives of this research and the development

of its methodology, which is grounded in the concept of dynamic bilities and the construct of an activity configuration, as explained in Chapters 3 and 4

capa-This section of the literature review draws together the different dynamic capabilities discovered during the review of published litera-ture undertaken for the research reported in this monograph Because the search for dynamic capabilities formed only one part of the literature review, we do not suggest that the examples here represent an exhaustive list, but they are certainly indicative of the types of dynamic capabil-ity that do exist and about which this research will be seeking further evidence

Because dynamic capabilities must adapt and change in keeping with the landscape in which organizations are operating, e.g., within

complex adaptive systems, it is necessary that new ones continue to

emerge A combination of effective learning capabilities and dynamic capabilities provides organizations with a means to operate at the right

balance between exploration and exploitation, or at the edge of chaos The construct of evolutionary learning is consistent with the develop-ment of new ways to interpret competitive advantage and organizational learning, taking into account advances in the understanding of domains

as diverse as organizational resilience, ERM, globalization, supply

chain integration, coevolution of value, and so on This section of the literature explores four areas of capability that are particularly pertinent,

moving through the project life cycle: front-end processes, risk analysis, resilience, and lessons learned We then set these in a firm theoreti-cal framework by considering them in the context of the P-form, and

discuss the implications

system In other words, it is in this phase that the strategic intent to achieve some value is considered and turned into the underlying basis

of a project to pursue that value

Despite the importance of this phase, it has been studied and formalized far less than the execution phase (Morris, 2011) Williams and Samset (2010)—summarizing their previous book—consider the alignment between organizational strategy and the project concept; they describe how strategic aims are expressed and a concept chosen

to achieve those aims that make the best use of the capabilities of the organization and making use of the lessons learned from previous projects, while recognizing the difficulties of making judgments about a turbulent future

Subsequent work by Samset and Volden (2016) suggests that many of these lessons about how to work at the front end of projects have not been learned This work suggests that the emphasis of management is focused more on measuring and improving tactical performance—obtaining project outputs efficiently, on time, and on cost—than on the strategic performance of the project—obtaining the value that the project set out

to achieve This might be because the former is easier to understand and measure Certainly, the emphasis of project management training and

in published literature is much more on the former, so it is likely that the capabilities of organizations are focused more on tactical project management than strategic capabilities Samset and Volden (2016) show that “predict and provide” solutions are chosen without sufficient scrutiny of opportunities, and that decision making—often with excess information presented to the decision maker—and cost estimation are poor, suggesting failures in strategic management rather than in project execution capabilities