Project and processes: a convenient but simplistic

International Journal of Operations & Production Management Project and processes: a convenient but simplistic dichotomy Jean Harvey, Monique Aubry,

Downloaded by Universite du Quebec a Montreal At 17:02 05 June 2018 (PT)

Article information: To cite this document: Jean Harvey, Monique Aubry, (2018) "Project and processes: a convenient but simplistic dichotomy", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 38 Issue: 6, pp.1289-1311, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-01-2017-0010 Permanent link to this document: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-01-2017-0010 Downloaded on: 05 June 2018, At: 17:02 (PT) References: this document contains references to 100 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 126 times since 2018*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2018),"Old theories, new contexts: extending operations management theories to projects", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 38 Iss 6 pp. 1274-1288 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-06-2018-781 (2018),"It takes two to tango: Product-organization interdependence in managing major projects", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 38 Iss 6 pp. 1312-1339 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-12-2016-0767

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emeraldsrm:211301 []

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.


*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm

Project and processes: a convenient but simplistic dichotomy Jean Harvey and Monique Aubry

Project and processes

1289

School of Management, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, Canada


Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore commonalities and differences between projects and processes, and between project management (PjM) and process management (PcM), with a view to challenge this dichotomic typology, clarify the gray areas in between and propose better ways to classify and manage different endeavors. Design/methodology/approach – The research compares different tools and techniques used in both fields, explores the respective literatures and uses various examples to bring out similarities and differences. Findings – The current paradigms engender a number of organizational endeavors, which are actually complex processes being managed as projects, using the PjM body of knowledge. Because each instantiation takes a somewhat different form, it is treated as a one-of-a-kind undertaking; whereby many of the opportunities for learning and continuous improvement associated with PcM are lost. A reframing and typology is proposed to clarify the central notions involved. Research limitations/implications – The proposed model has not been tested empirically and the authors could not agree on all aspects of the paper, though existing differences are more about degrees, nuances and wording than about the basic findings of the paper. Practical implications – The research makes the case that two research and practice communities that are evolving independently have much to gain by adopting a unified model and integrating their respective bodies of knowledge. Practitioners would thus access resources that are better adapted to the management challenges they are facing and gain a sustainable source of strategic advantage. Originality/value – The paper challenges long-established paradigms between two distinct research streams. A new typology and classification criteria are proposed. Keywords Complexity, Learning, Flexibility, Project management, Process design, Operations management, Process management, Complex processes Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction A process can be most simply defined as a system (Pall, 1999) for transforming inputs into outputs in order to produce an outcome for a client. A project, on the other hand, is a temporary and complex endeavor in which one engages to produce a specified outcome. That said, the key differences between the two appear to be the temporary vs ongoing nature of the undertaking, the complexity and the unique nature of a project’s outcome. We can easily think of personal activities that can be categorized as either a process or a project; for example, learning to ride a bicycle is a unique endeavor (a project) while brushing one’s teeth is a repetitive activity (a process). However, what about organizing Jenny’s birthday party? Planning next year’s vacation? Repainting the balcony? Buying a new house? Labeling these activities correctly requires considering the frequency with which they are likely to occur, and the degree of commonality between successive instantiations. In their classic papers on matching the process to market requirements, Hayes and Wheelwright (1979a, b) state that we should match the process to the volume-variety production requirements. For instance, a “project approach” is best suited for one-a-kind endeavors, where each unit is unique, while an assembly line is the appropriate process to use for a high-volume production of a standard product. Their papers, however, do not go far enough in clarifying the notions of “one-of-a-kind” products and “project-based” production processes, thus leaving important gray areas. The way in which these concepts

Received 2 January 2017 Revised 31 August 2017 20 November 2017 18 December 2017 8 February 2018 Accepted 22 February 2018

International Journal of Operations & Production Management Vol. 38 No. 6, 2018 pp. 1289-1311 © Emerald Publishing Limited 0144-3577 DOI 10.1108/IJOPM-01-2017-0010

IJOPM 38,6


1290

are currently used to classify and manage organizational and societal endeavors is problematic given their imprecise and ambiguous nature. Indeed, this challenge comprises the main topic of this paper. We begin by examining whether it matters if an endeavor is classified as a project or a process, and then posit that it does since classification is a necessary first step toward understanding. When we frame an undertaking as a project and search for information on project management (PjM) on the internet, we will be referred to the Project Management Institute – which appears right after Wikipedia on the list of Google search results. From this, we conclude that those pursuing their research on that basis refer mainly to the PMBOK® Guide (PMBOK) (PMI, 2017a, b) and the IPMA Competence Baseline (IPMA, 2015) as their main sources for standards, and that they, beyond that, consult the top journals in the field, being the International Journal of Project Management (IJPM) and the Project Management Journal. However, when framing the endeavor as a process, we may end up searching the Journal of Operations Management ( JOM) or using the Business Process Management Body (PcM) Body of Knowledge (Ko et al., 2009). Expectedly, the choice of the source of information is of great importance, with each source having a different impact on the way an organization understands and manages its various initiatives, and thus on its performance. The purpose of this paper is to explore the current state of affairs, in theory and practice, regarding projects and processes and to clarify what may be considered a gray area between these two central management concepts. For this, we first (section 2) draw a concise comparative portrait of PjM and PcM as seen through the lenses of their respective bodies of literature. This portrait is not meant to be exhaustive but merely to present the necessary background for the convenient metaphor we then use, which isolates and clarifies the underlying issues. We then formalize these issues as research questions. In Section 3, we proceed with a systematic comparison of PcM and PjM, addressing their respective typologies, capabilities, scope and tools, as well as with a cursory look at the subject matters of interest to each community. In Section 4, we explore the implication of these results, addressing the fundamental issue of organizational learning and improvement, the alternative framing of the field as a continuum rather than a dichotomy and the place of complex processes along that continuum. This sets the stage for (Section 5) the formulation of tentative answers to our research questions, a proposal to use a unique terminology to discuss the various types of endeavors, new ways to define projects and processes along a continuum, and an associated classification scheme. We conclude by stating the need for a rapprochement between the two communities and the integration of the two bodies of knowledge into a single cohesive theory. 2. What are the issues? To clarify the underlying management issues, we begin by presenting a brief summary of PcM and PjM. This sets the stage for a metaphor that brings out what is at stake using a practical, well-known historical setting. 2.1 Processes and PcM, in a nutshell A system is basically a set of entities interacting in various ways (Backlund, 2000; Boulding, 1956; Von Bertalanffy, 1972). A process, for its part, is an active system that transforms inputs into outputs to generate a greater value for a customer (Pall, 1999). It involves feedback loops that can be used to take corrective action as well as organizational learning (Senge, 1990). In PcM, the focus is on how things are done (processes) rather than on results (Anderson et al., 1994). It is based on “a view of an organization as a system of interlinked processes, involves concerted efforts to map, improve, and adhere to organizational processes” (Benner and Tushman, 2003). PcM is based on the original work of Deming (1986) and other quality management gurus.


Sociologists and behavioral theorists have also devoted considerable research attention to “organizational routines” (Feldman and Pentland, 2003), a notion closely related to that of process in operations management. At each instantiation of a process, variation occurs. The ability to separate special causes from common causes (Deming, 1986) is critical to learning and continuous improvement (CI). Analyzing this variation with statistically oriented tools is thus key to characterizing these processes (Feigenbaum, 1956; Shewhart, 1931) and to assessing their capacity to meet customer demands ( Juran and Riley, 1999). PcM focuses on the reduction of these variations, and thus on improvements in efficiency and effectiveness, by mobilizing improvement teams and deploying rigorous methodologies (Benner and Tushman, 2003; Ishikawa and Lu, 1985; Van der Merwe, 2002). This is central to organizational learning and the development of dynamic capabilities (Benner and Tushman, 2003; Garvin, 1995; Repenning and Sterman, 2001). Process improvement initiatives such as Six Sigma (Schroeder et al., 2008), lean management (Schonberger, 1986) and, more recently, Lean Sigma (Arnheiter and Maleyeff, 2005) are popular, practical approaches. Radical process change, for its part, also referred to as business process reengineering, was advocated by Michael Hammer (1990) as early as the 1990s and proposed as a necessary complement to CI by Thomas Davenport (1993). 2.2 Project and PjM, in a nutshell In broader terms, a project is a temporary action undertaken with the aim of producing outcomes within a specified set of constraints. The main characteristics of projects include singularity, task complexity and time-limitedness (Söderlund, 2004), three features that have essentially been recognized as early as the 1970s (Oisen, 1971). Anderson and Merna (2003) also specify that the “project mode is a form of management that should be used to address situations where there is a business requirement that cannot be satisfied by normal routines” (p. 388), albeit it is unclear whether a unique combination of normal routines constitutes a “normal routine.” However, according to these researchers, the uniqueness of a project is defined precisely by its opposition to routine activities. After all, PjM emerged from the premise that projects are different from “normal” operations and require different management approaches. Modern-day PjM emerged in the 1950s from the US aerospace and defense sector (Morris, 2011). Morris (2011) identified three periods in the historical development of PjM. The first period, comprising the 1950s and 1960s, was consumed with the development of systems and the technical foundations of PjM, among them program evaluation and review technique (PERT), critical path method (CPM) and life-cycle costing. The matrix organization along with the integrative role of project manager emerged during this time as well. The second period, spanning from the 1970s to the 1990s, saw the widespread application of PjM and the publication of seminal papers, such as those by Clark and Fujimoto (1991) on product development and by Wheelwright and Clark (1992) on concurrent engineering. During the third historical period of PjM, lasting from the 1990s to the early 2000s, enterprise-wide PjM emerged, emphasizing agility, program and portfolio management as well as the connection with strategy and governance. As posited by Morris (2011), PjM is a social construct, meaning that there is no one single definition of the term and that it evolves over time. At the same time, PjM is highly standardized, as illustrated by the well-known bodies of knowledge and the ISO standard (Stellingwerf and Zandhuis, 2013). At present, the field of PjM appears to be expanding given the growing importance of project work in the global economy. For example, in Germany, 34.7 percent of the total hours worked in 2013 in all economic sectors were project work (Wald et al., 2015).


1291

IJOPM 38,6


1292

This proliferation of project work has spurred the need to clarify the gray area between process and project. The following metaphor will serve to illustrate what is at stake and why it is worth pursuing. 2.3 A metaphor Metaphors are useful for depicting a way of thinking and for adopting a more intuitive, if partial, way to understand complex issues (Morgan and Smircich, 1980). In this section, we will use the Siege of Boston (1775-1776), set in the context of the American War of Independence, to illustrate the issues we wish to address. As a well-known historical event, it lends itself well to our purpose as the context and purpose of both sides are clear. After the initial barrage of the war in Lexington and Concord, the colonial militia pursued the retreating British Regulars all the way to their base station in Boston. The colonists blocked the access routes to the (then) peninsula and set up a siege, while the British set up a defensive perimeter, supported by the British fleet. Now, let us imagine a current-day PjM-cum-PcM expert miraculously transported in time to serve as a staff assistant – henceforth “our expert” – at General Washington’s headquarters. In the situation outlined above, then, our expert might recommend setting up the siege in such a way that the British forces are contained, and eventually forced to leave, as this would fit the general definition of a project. Conversely, if hired to serve the British side, the expert would probably recommend setting up a defensive perimeter around Boston. From the colonists’ perspective, a structured list of deliverables, which would break down “the project” into logically organized deliverables or work elements ( Jung and Woo, 2004; PMI, 2017a, b), might possibly look something like Figure 1. Producing “a deadly response to incursion,” for example, would require activating a process along the lines of “respond to incursions.” This is roughly the extent to which the prevailing approach in PjM intervenes with or questions the process as such. That is, it assumes that a process exists and that it is effective, and if it is not, that developing an appropriate process does not fall within the purview of PjM. By and large, this is the commonly accepted frontier between PjM and PcM. While Figure 1 decomposes the project into a hierarchical list of mutually exclusive deliverables, the functional analysis system technique (FAST) spells out in hierarchical detail what a process must do, that is, what functionalities (or sub-processes) are required (Cariaga et al., 2007). A FAST diagram for a “set siege and harass enemy” process would be very similar to the list shown in Figure 1, except that it would spell out the process, namely by using action verbs rather than listing the output of that action. So, instead of “pressure on navy” it would say “put pressure on navy;” instead of “strategy” it might say “formulate strategy;” and “deadly response to incursion” may be referred to as “respond to incursion”.

Siege of Boston

Effective response to incursions

Pressure on navy

Shelling

Figure 1. Structured list of deliverables for the Siege of Boston

Strategy

Command and control system

Effective artillery

Able artilleryrnen

Cannons

Cannonballs

Troop location and assignment

Pressure on army

Siege

Infrastructures

Construction and installation

Shelling

Engineering capability

Raw material

Tools

Training

Incursions

Tactics

Recruits


This latter process must include, among others, a sub-process to “withdraw in good order” in the face of superior power, in order to break the enemy’s momentum, stabilize the perimeter and organize a counter-attack. This process can and must be further decomposed since processes are about execution, which requires attention to details (see Figure 2 for a FAST diagram). The focus on activities is predicated on the principles of CI. Every instantiation of a process has two goals: produce the desired output and generate knowledge through analysis of the variation or experimentation. In this way, it ensures that future instantiations continuously produce better results. In PjM, the focus is on the first goal, with the second goal not being, in general, pursued in any systemic way. Indeed, PjM essentially excludes, by the very definition of a project as unique, any need or opportunity for improvement. Imagine now that our expert, after extensive discussions with General Washington about the overall military strategy, is made to understand that the British can be expected to attack other coastal towns such as New York, Philadelphia and Yorktown. This threat is all the more overpowering since England, as an island nation and dominant sea power, has extensive experience in attacking and defending coastal towns. Thus, seen through British eyes, attacking Boston is more akin to a process, to be reiterated as they move further south, than to a unique project. Admittedly, these towns and their environments and circumstances differ vastly from one another. Nonetheless, the attacks are bound to share similar patterns, and a focus on learning could improve the process from one instantiation to the next. Our expert will come to realize that Washington has a choice about how to frame his ongoing Boston endeavor. He could view it as a single project or as the first instantiation of a new process, albeit one that would require substantial adaptation for dealing with different situations. Choosing the “process route” means producing an initial design for the process and formulating an implementation strategy that will maximize learning opportunities while at the same time offering a high probability of success in Boston. This approach means diverting a calculated amount of energy and resources away from the immediate goal of winning the battle towards the long-term goal of winning the war, and thus involves more short-term risks, incurred in the pursuit of increasing strategic advantages over the medium and long term. This may involve designing experiments (to test different strategies and tactics, and to determine what works best) or exercising sufficient operational control and statistical thinking to allow detecting significant positive and negative variations, and to trace them to their root causes, thus contributing to better process characterization and opening new avenues for process improvement. Clearly, a single-minded focus on results is not conducive to learning, just as a lack of attention paid to the success in the immediate venture may lead to a dramatic and early defeat, thus making the pursuit of learning futile and counterproductive. Given the foreseeable path of the war between a land-based colony and a distant island nation and maritime power, our expert would most likely recommend a focus on process, with a balanced allocation of resources to the effort of achieving the desired immediate outcome (getting the British to withdraw) on the one hand and process improvement, for achieving better performance at each forthcoming instantiation, on the other. From a management


1293

Withdraw in good order

Prepare new line of defense

Man positions

Build positions

Slow down the enemy

Load and carry

Carry the wounded

Decide on new line of defense

Get stretchers

Decide who is transportable

Assign roles

Carry equipment and supply

Start withdrawal of rearguard

Transport

Decide what to carry

Gather and load

Support retreat of front line

Figure 2. FAST diagram for the “withdraw in good order” process

IJOPM 38,6

standpoint, the choice between these two options is a highly important one and thus needs to be better understood. If a PjM mindset prevailed, no learning would take place, thus depriving the colonist of a unique and sustainable source of strategic advantage (Oliver, 1997). A focus on process on the other hand would bring to bear PcM’s body of knowledge to ensure CI. Since this a matter of choice, our expert would no doubt recommend the latter course of action.

1294


2.4 Issues and questions The preceding discussion and metaphor raise an important research question: RQ6. Is there an integrative approach, embracing the full spectrum of organizational endeavors, that could provide managers with the required conceptual framework and tools to find the right balance between a focus on results and a focus on CI as required by the situation? The relevance of this question depends on the answers to five prior questions: RQ1. To what extent is this treatment of projects and processes as a dichotomy rather than a continuum commonplace? RQ2. What are its theoretical underpinnings? RQ3. How do the actions and approaches engendered by these two bodies of knowledge differ? RQ4. What are the practical consequences of this situation? RQ5. If the current situation is problematic or suboptimal, how can we improve it? In the following sections, we seek to answer these questions. 3. Comparing process and project In this section, we present the typologies, capabilities, structure and tools used and prescribed by PcM and PjM, respectively. This is followed by a summary comparison of what gets published in the flagship journals of each discipline. On that basis, we then discuss the parallel evolution of PcM and PjM and propose a clarification and reframing of the concepts under discussion as well as a simple classification scheme. 3.1 Typologies, capabilities, structure and tools We first look at commonly used classification schemes for processes and projects. Subsequently, we examine the capabilities required for each management approach and the approaches used to delimit the scope, and compare some of the major tools used by the two communities. 3.1.1 Classifying projects and processes. Armistead and Rowland (1996) identified four categories of processes: operational, support, managerial and direction setting. Van der Merwe (2002), for her part, distinguishes between customer processes, which deliver a product or service to the customer; administrative processes, which produce an outcome required by an internal process; and management processes. In addition, there are other much more detailed frameworks, such as the APQC’s process classification framework (www.apqc.org/process-classification-framework), which breaks down operating processes and management support services into 12 generic processes, each of which are in turn broken down into four levels. Several authors have attempted to develop project classification frameworks (Dvir et al., 1998; Müller and Turner, 2007; Payne and Turner, 1999). Turner and Cochrane (1993) proposed a


simple and useful classification based on two determining questions: are the goals well defined? Is the method well defined? For engineering projects, the answers to both questions are generally positive, and for research projects and organizational change projects, the answers to both questions tend to be negative. In systems development, the goal is often unclear while the methodology is clear. And in product development, finally, the goal is clear but not the methodology. Thus, classification schemes for processes and projects have little in common, which is indicative of different mindsets (Hobbs et al., 2008). 3.1.2 Capabilities required to manage projects and processes. Considerable efforts have been devoted to identifying the capabilities required to excel at PcM and the stages through which an organization must progress in order to reach maturity. Röglinger et al. (2012), for instance, analyzed and compared ten schemes developed for said purpose. Some models have also been developed for specific types of processes, such as supply chains (Lockamy and McCormack, 2004) and software development (Staples et al., 2007). While less effort has been invested in developing PjM capability models (Kwak and Ibbs, 2002), the results are quite similar. Capabilities such as proactivity, measurement and control identified by Carnegie Mellon’s Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) program (Software Engineering Institute, 2002), for example, seem to apply equally well to both PjM and PcM, while other features of this model, such as the repeatability requirement and the focus on CI, are relevant only to processes (including PjM processes). CMMI starts at Stage 1, where “heroic efforts” are required to meet the goals, and progresses through basic process definition, standardization and the introduction of quantitative management to CI and innovation at Stage 5. Capabilities such as cross-functional management, leadership, culture, expertise and governance formulated in Hammer’s (2007) process and enterprise maturity model apply equally well to projects. While PjM maturity models exist (Mullaly, 2006), most PjM scholars have used the CMMI scale to assess the perception of maturity in PjM (e.g. Hobbs et al., 2008). Moreover, although project and process typologies differ, PjM and PcM maturity levels appear relatively similar except with regard to the notions of learning and CI. 3.1.3 Scope and structure. We use the Siege of Boston, again, to illustrate commonalities and differences among the tools discussed. In the following discussion, we frame the siege as a project. Defining the scope of a project requires specifying the stakeholders, desired outcome, starting and ending conditions, and required inputs. The “Supplier, Input, Process, Output, Customer” (SIPOC) tool, ubiquitous in the process world (see, e.g. Montano et al., 2005), is illustrated in Panel A of Table I for the “withdraw A. Process: withdraw in good order Starts when Suppliers Inputs Order to Continental Troops, withdraw is army task equipment, given force ordnance

Process Outputs Withdraw and Stable new build new line defensive line of defense


1295

Ends when Old line evacuated and new line fully operational Process mission: evacuate the front line and move resources back to a new line, quickly, without losses, while making the enemy pay dearly for the progress thus made B. Project: make the British leave Boston The British set Continental Recruits, Set siege and Boston back out to keep congress, money, harass enemy under the full Boston under Continental materials control of the British control army colonists Project mission: regain control of Boston and expel the British

Customer Continental army task force

Continental The British congress leave

Table I. The SIPOC tool used to scope the Siege of Boston and a process therein

IJOPM 38,6


1296

in good order” process discussed above. It is equally effective in defining the scope of a project, as illustrated in Panel B of Table I. As previously discussed, the project scope is further clarified by the structured list of deliverables, which decomposes the project into logically organized deliverables or work elements ( Jung and Woo, 2004; PMI, 2017a, b). The FAST spells out in hierarchical detail what a process must do, that is, what functionalities are required (Cariaga et al., 2007). As discussed above, this reflects the contrast between the focus on results, evident in the project outlook and the action-oriented focus that characterizes the process improvement approach. The mission of a project, and of a process for that matter, is its raison d’être. For example, this project’s mission could be formulated as: “Ensure that the British stay bottled up in the Boston enclave, while using every available means to force them to leave Boston altogether.” The mission of the tactical withdrawal process could be formulated as: “When faced with overwhelming force, allow troops to move back in an orderly fashion to a more defensible position, namely without allowing the enemy to break through, with minimum losses of soldiers and materials and while inflicting maximum damage to the enemy.” The project’s mission can be broken down or deployed into missions for each of its deliverables. For instance, the mission of “pressure on navy” could be: “Disrupt naval operations and maintain a constant credible threat on the safety of ships and crews.” The mission of a process can be deployed in a similar way, for example, the raison d’être of “Prepare a new line of defense” can be formulated as “Ensure that the effective new ramparts, trenches and foxholes are ready in time to receive retreating troops, equipment and ordnance.” Similarities in practice between PjM and PcM also include cross-functional roles such as project manager (Anderson and Merna, 2003) and “process owner” (Hammer, 2007, p. 113). Apparent differences exist, on the other hand, between the organizational structures advocated, as the process community is a proponent of structuring by processes, while the project community promotes project-based organizations, when warranted by circumstances. These differences tend to dissolve, however, as one moves away from the current dichotomy paradigm. 3.1.4 Project and process tools. This is also true for other tools and techniques used in planning and risk management, such as the PERT and the CPM used in PjM. Both are essential tools for time management, priority setting and early problem detection. Though quite different, more detailed and broader in scope, process mapping techniques, including value-added analysis and value stream mapping, serve similar purposes in PcM. Several techniques used to plan, identify, analyze and manage risks are also proposed in the PjM literature (Besner and Hobbs, 2012). These include various forms of risk scoring, stakeholder risk profiles and statistical analysis, such as the probability-impact matrix and the Monte Carlo simulation. On the process side, failure mode and effect analysis, developed for the aerospace industry (Department of Defense, 1984) is a time-tested technique used to assess and prioritize process risks on the basis of their severity, probability of occurrence and probability of being detected on time. Alternative techniques include fault tree analysis (Fischhoff et al., 1978) and hazard and operability analysis (Venkatasubramanian et al., 2000). The PcM toolbox includes many other process analysis and improvement tools, among them pull-systems, lean management, Six Sigma, theory of constraint as well as improvement methodologies such as the Deming wheel and GE’s DMAIC. PcM stands out for the omnipresence of statistical thinking and statistical tools (e.g. Juran and Riley, 1999; Wheeler, 2000) for control, assurance and improvement. This includes control charts and multivariate analyses of process variations or Taguchi (1986) methods to test the designs of experiments. Indeed, this is possibly the main difference between the two management approaches, one viewing management as a deliverable-focused endeavor (PjM) and the other viewing it as a continuously improving recurrent activity (PcM).


Nonetheless, the techniques used in PjM and PcM also have similarities. Among other things, both involve the need to produce a desired outcome with resources as input; a transformation involving activities and potential waste; activities to be planned, sequenced and controlled; risks to be addressed; change to be managed; players to be synchronized; and leadership to be exercised. In short, both involve activities that must be managed effectively and efficiently. In summary (see Table II), processes and projects are classified very differently, reflecting the fact that they are approached with different frames of mind. The capabilities required for excellence in each field of management are similar, except for the ability to repeat without variation and the focus on CI associated with PcM. Even though these fields have evolved along different paths and often differ in scope and application, the tools of both trades have much in common. Overall, we are left with the concepts of repeatability, flexibility, CI, focus on actions vs deliverables and learning as the key differentiators between the two fields.


1297

3.2 A tale of two communities In this section, we examine the research foci of both fields as a means to shed light on our research questions. We compared the level of interest in the areas of PjM and PcM, namely through the analysis of selected publications from both fields using the Scopus database (www.scopus.com/scopus/home.url). We looked at the average number of citations in the top five most-quoted articles. We used Pudovkin and Garfield’s (2002) algorithm to determine how closely the journals were related. To see how PjM is treated differently in IJPM and JOM, we compared the 20 most frequently cited articles as of 2016 and compared keywords. We also used Google Trends™ data to gauge the differential general interest. The results are strictly indicative and meant as a complement to the previous comparison.

Classification Projects

2 × 2 matrix: Are the goals well defined? Is the method well defined? For research projects and organizational change projects, it tends to be negative. In systems development, the goal is often unclear while the methodology is clear. And in product development, the goal is clear but not the methodology

Capabilities

Capabilities such as cross-functional management, leadership, culture, proactivity, measurement and control, expertise and governance process, and enterprise maturity model apply equally well to projects and processes Processes Several schemes. Operational, Capabilities related support, administrative, to repeatability direction setting. APQC requirement and the process classification focus on CI apply to framework – detailed generic processes only list organized as a FAST diagram

Scope and structure

Tools

The SIPOC scoping approach and the notion of mission applies equally well to projects and processes. WBS serves to clarify the scope for projects

WBS, PERT, CPM, project risk analysis

FAST diagram and process mapping allows for further clarification of the scope of processes

A rich toolbox including statistical tools (multivariate statistical analysis, process control, Table II. design of Comparing projects experiment), and processes with problem diagnosis regard to classification tools, improvement schemes, capabilities, approaches and scope and structure methodologies and tools

IJOPM 38,6


1298

PjM research is very popular. It is more popular than PcM among academics (by a factor of 4). For example, it is about as popular as research on supply chain. Among the general public, a similar gap exists, even though it has decreased considerably since 2004, as the interest in PjM has waned considerably. In general, PjM research is closely related to general management, engineering management (covering construction, among other topics), R&D, innovation and information, organizational change and knowledge management. The most frequently cited articles in PjM journals deal with the project success factors, organizational issues, decision-making, tools and techniques as well as the nature of projects. JOM’s areas of interest with respect to PjM, on the other hand, largely deal not with projects per se, but rather with sub-project issues such as supply chain, quality, scheduling, logistics and purchasing and methodology (statistical analysis and theory of constraints). According to a critical review conducted by Payne and Turner (1999), PcM is hardly identified as a research topic in PjM journals. 4. Discussion We begin this discussion section by examining the link between how an activity is framed and an organization’s ability to learn. We then revisit the initial discussion of typology, exploring the idea of a continuum rather than a dichotomy and conclude with a brief discussion of flexibility and complex processes. 4.1 Framing endeavors for learning Managing a series of projects is a process, and one that organizations would like to improve over time. PjM standards (e.g. PMI, 2017a, b) in fact spell out this process (the PjM process). However, learning mechanisms that take place through feedback loops and CI are still a crucial challenge in PjM (Berggren et al., 2011). In that context, processes appear to be rather linear and afford little opportunity for learning. On the other hand, learning mechanisms in PjM are associated with maturity. What is unclear is how maturity is achieved. A plethora of maturity models are currently in use among organizations, but it is questionable whether any of these had an actual effect on the project success (Mullaly, 2006). The distinction between projects and processes is anchored in a fundamental assumption associated with the emergence of the field of PjM (Morris, 2011). Overall, since projects call for specific management competencies, PjM differs from general management. The normative literature is instructive in this regard, stating that: “Operations are ongoing endeavors that produce repetitive outputs, with resources assigned to do basically the same set of tasks according to the standards institutionalized in a product life cycle” (PMI, 2017a, b). Unfortunately, the apparently clear contrast between “ongoing operations” and “temporary endeavors” (PMI, 2017a, b, p.16) does not withstand rigorous analysis. The treatment of a brain tumor or the prosecution of a serial killer are certainly temporary and complex endeavors, and their outcomes are undoubtedly unique since no two cancers or killers are the same. In this sense, they fall within the purview of projects. However, they can be framed as successive instantiations of complex processes rather than distinct projects, and thus lead to a focus on learning and improvement rather than strictly on results. As the PjM paradigm currently stands, the very notion of variation in projects appears to be meaningless. However, when framed as successive instantiations of a high-level process, the notion of variation and CI becomes directly applicable to many endeavors currently managed with a PjM frame of mind. Thus, seen through the lens of the project paradigm, a company whose business it is to implement enterprise resource planning (ERP) could improve certain repetitive processes within such projects if a CI approach were in place at that level. However, it could not continuously improve the way in which it implements ERP, as each implementation is viewed as unique rather than as the core process of the business.


If it were viewed as such, management would focus on its core business process, the ERP implementation process, and on its CI from one implementation to the next, thus making learning a source of sustainable competitive advantage (Anderson et al., 1994). Van der Merwe (2002) considers the primary role of management to be the coordination, by project managers, of the human and technical dimensions of process changes. As she puts it: “Business processes are continuously incrementally improved in order to remain in use. Employees using real processes all day long, realize improvements to these processes, and request improvements as projects” (p. 410). However, this approach fails to understand or recognize two key elements of process change. First, process change is itself a process or, more precisely, several processes. Process design, process improvement and process redesign are indeed “habitual” endeavors in good organizations. Through focusing on process rather than outcome alone, an organization can become better at designing new processes (Crowston, 1997; Duray et al., 2000; Sokovic et al., 2005) and improving existing processes (e.g. Adesola and Baines, 2005). This constitutes double-loop learning (Romme and Dillen, 1997) and ambidexterity, as dynamic capabilities, in the exploitation of habitual process and exploration of improvements (O’Reilly and Tushman, 2008). Second, this approach undermines role of experts. Though they are not managers, experts have considerable decision-making power, sometimes even exceeding that of managers. Indeed, there is no forcing an engineer who will not sign a drawing or a doctor who will not prescribe a given treatment. Without their consent and motivation to make a process better, improvement is impossible. Gawande (2007), for example, makes a compelling case that the development and use by medical doctors of a quick and accurate process feedback mechanism can have a dramatic impact on performance.


1299

4.2 Dichotomy or continuum? Table III shows examples of various processes along a five-point scale ranging from unique to standard. Illustrative operational processes, that is, processes that directly create value for clients in three service industries, are shown in the top half of the table and

Repetitive

Rather repetitive Rather varied

Operational processes Health Flu shot

Emergency triage Engineering/ Routine design Tailoring a design change standard design Legal/ Traffic Studying police judicial violation files defense Administrative processes Finance Pay invoice Human resources

Hire clerk

IS/IT

System backup Place an ad

Marketing

Prepare monthly financial statements Evaluate employee Server maintenance

Highly varied

Unique

Office visit

Road accident with Medical first multiple trauma Office redesign Urban tower design Olympic stadium Preparing witness Formulating murder Enron defense for interrogation defense strategy

Investigate Negotiate major financial deviation refinancing Investigate harassment complaint Minor system change Develop TV commercial

Set up leveraged buyout Departmental Introduce restructuring competencebased system Major system change Introduce ERP Review pricing tactic Create new Develop major distribution campaign network

Table III. A spectrum of processes, examples

IJOPM 38,6


1300

administrative processes in the bottom half. From left to right, processes need to be increasingly flexible as the circumstances they face at each instantiation become more varied. Let us consider, for instance, the health sector examples. While trauma resulting from road accidents differ in many ways, they still present sufficient similarities (such as vital signs to be assessed, bleeding to be stopped, patients to be stabilized, bones to be fixed, use of medical imagery to investigate). For this reason, they call for considerable flexibility in dealing with them (such as different clinical paths, cross-trained personnel, multi-purpose resources, and bottleneck management tactics). Even so-called medical firsts, such as heart transplants, are generally followed by “medical seconds” and are therefore technically not projects, because they are not unique. Yet no one doubts that they must be managed differently from giving flu shots, situated at the other end of the spectrum. 4.3 Flexibility and complex processes Understanding flexibility is critical to determining whether a given activity is indeed unique, the first instantiation of a new process, or simply a variant of a familiar one. Upton (1994) defined flexibility as “the ability to change or react [to different situations] with little penalty in time, effort, cost, or performance” (p. 73). He identified various categories of flexibility in manufacturing, such as routing flexibility and design-change flexibility. Harvey et al. (1997) then adapted these concepts to services. Treating a patient with multiple traumas (see Table III) requires flexible processes involving professional judgment and initiative. Even though each case is unique and complex, and treatment is definitely time-bound, this situation must clearly be viewed as a flexible process where the key actor (the orthopedist) will decide on the specific sequence of events and processes to be activated at various points in the course of the service episode. Flexible processes thus require more information than standard processes in order to be performed adequately, since key players have to assess the situation in order to decide which processing path to follow (Panella et al., 2003). Available paths may be tightly scripted (“tight spec”) or totally open (“total customization”) (Chase and Tansyk, 1983). In sum, in many situations, the decision to frame an endeavor as a project or a process is a choice, bearing in mind that projects and processes are social constructs (Morris, 2013). The consequences of this choice have not been studied given that its existence has not been recognized. Moreover, the criteria for making this choice are not defined. To address these shortcomings, we must compare, contrast and clarify the two paradigms. 5. Revisiting the social construct of projects and processes In this section, we address our research questions and propose different definitions that do away with, or at least reduce, the existing confusion and lay the groundwork for the elaboration of an integrated theory of “endeavor management,” for lack of a more neutral term. We then propose a set of operational classification criteria to serve as a typology for the field. 5.1 Research questions: partial answers Based on our comparative review of the two fields, we can provide partial answers to our initial questions: RQ1. To what extent is this treatment of projects and processes as a dichotomy rather than a continuum commonplace? The two communities, both in research and in the field, have evolved in parallel without much interaction or cross-fertilization of ideas and practice. The very words “project” and “process” have crystalized into complementary and non-overlapping notions, conveniently defined to fit the respective paradigms of each community. The parallel evolution


of the two communities around these notions ensures the perpetuation of their treatment as a dichotomy rather than a continuum. RQ2. What are its theoretical underpinnings? PjM and PcM are both rooted in the systems theory (Mulej et al., 2004; Von Bertalanffy, 1972). Originally considered as a part of the intellectual domain of operations management, PjM broke away to build on its basic characteristics and establish itself as a “specific ‘scientific field’ ” (Söderlund, 2004). The field of PjM is characterized by a diversity of perspectives and pluralism, as shown in the coexistence of several schools of thought in PjM research. Most PjM research is concerned with the organizational phenomena that are somewhat removed from pure “operational” problems. However, some PjM scholars questioned the limitation of the current definition of a project as a temporary organization (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995) in order to adopt a broader view of projects as families (Wittgenstein, 1953/2009). This theoretical approach may be a promising avenue for situating process and project in a continuum of change. Moreover, there has been a renewed interest in exploring reconciliation between the two fields (Maylor et al., 2015, 2016). RQ3. How do the actions and approaches engendered by these two bodies of knowledge differ? While the scoping, planning and sequencing approaches applied by the two communities reflect their differences, they are also similar in function. For example, executive ownership and cross-functional management are advocated in both fields. The major differences stem from the “once in lifetime” vs “better the next time” outlook. As this is directly related to learning as a source of sustainable strategic advantage, the approaches do, indeed, present a stark contrast. RQ4. What are the practical consequences of this situation? Managing as a project an activity that is going to be repeated in some form results in a loss of opportunities for improvement. It manifests, for example, in the same mistakes being repeated, a lack of cohesion and standardization from one project to the next, and a lack of understanding as to why a project was successful (if it was), whereby a given success is unlikely to reoccur. On the other hand, managing as a process an activity that is not going to be repeated means diverting energy needed for the pursuit of immediate results toward useless experimentation, analysis and setup for repeatability and improvement. RQ5. If the current situation is problematic or suboptimal, how can we improve it? We could start by clarifying and refining our taxonomy and associated terminology, which would move us away from the dichotomy. Subsequent steps for improvement could involve specifying classification criteria and developing contingent management approaches aimed at integrating practices across the two fields. 5.2 Rethinking the very notions of project and process We propose to define a process as a shared way of transforming inputs into an outcome habitually required by internal or external customers. Processes that are under control and whose capability is constantly improving contribute to an organization’s performance and competitiveness. The notion of process control implies the continual effort to make outcomes predictable, while process capability relates to the process’ ability to meet customer requirements (Ittner and Larcker, 1997). As discussed above, projects cannot be defined by complexity, or by time-boundedness, as those are also features of complex service delivery processes (Harvey, 2010). Neither does the fact that an endeavor is unprecedented suffice to label it a project, as it could in fact be the first iteration of a new process. Thus, we propose to define a project as a major (i.e., important) organizational endeavor that has never taken place before and is unlikely to be repeated in any way in the future at a given organization. In other words, it is a truly unique undertaking insofar as it is unprecedented and unlikely to reoccur at a given


1301

IJOPM 38,6


1302

organization – meaning that it could very well be implemented at other organizations and still be considered to be a project. Accordingly, an organization has no template or past experience that it could draw on to carry out the project. Further, since it is unlikely to be repeated, there is no point in learning how to do it better the next time: only time, cost and quality matter. In a book entitled The Car That Didn’t Exist, Christophe Midler discusses this very project situation (Aubry and Lenfle, 2012). Under these definitions, an undertaking is either unique or habitual, whereby a broad spectrum of activities are invariably lumped together as habitual. For example, building prototypes for a new aircraft engine (which the manufacturer has probably done for other engines in the past and is likely to do again) and preparing an invoice can both be characterized as habitual, in a very broad sense. However, they clearly pose different management challenges and thus require different organizational arrangements. It is therefore essential to consider complexity and flexibility when discussing processes (Harvey, 2016; Ng and Andreu, 2012). We propose to define a simple process as one that can be precisely scripted, leaving little if any leeway to process workers. We then define a complicated process as one that combines simple processes and which can, by definition, be broken down and reduced to simple processes. The major source of variation in complicated processes stems from the often turbulent junctures between different parts of the process. However, when irreducible uncertainty is introduced within a process by complex mental tasks (Abbott, 1988), we are dealing with a complex process. The behavior of complex processes is, thus, largely determined by the opinions and decisions made by experts in the form of problem diagnoses and prescribed actions. Experts generally operate on the basis of capabilities rooted in abstract models which an organization does not own or control. Often, experts from different specialty areas must interact with one another in order to bring about the desired outcome. As a result, the dynamics within such processes is strongly affected by knowledge gaps between the different actors. Experts are critical sources of divergence in what Quinn et al. (2005) refer to as intellectual processes. Professional services, for example, are notoriously difficult to manage (Von Nordenflycht, 2010). Yet teaching graduate students, treating psychiatric problems, testing new drugs and designing industrial buildings, for example, are not projects but rather complex processes in which continuous learning is not only possible but highly desirable. They must be designed, controlled, improved and redesigned as required. Organizations that do this, best and fastest, are better learners and gain a sustainable competitive advantage over competitors (Garvin, 1993). It is for this reason that complex processes deserve to be in a category of their own. Indeed, this comprises a major stepping stone in our quest to reframe the current paradigms. We propose the following definition, adapted from the work of Harvey (2016), of complex processes: Flexible processes that can address a variety of related important situations where expert judgment is critical to the action and the outcome. Complex processes rely on the involvement of experts, whose competence, motivation and ability to interface with one another and to activate and harness technical sub-processes effectively are key performance factors. While the organization has some influence over the outcome, the experts’ knowledge, know-how and behavior largely exceed the organization’s reach. The variables that determine process complexity include: the number of experts involved; the different fields of knowledge; the relationships between those fields; the experts’ degree of autonomy; the degree of organization of the field (e.g. compare social work with accounting); and the number and organization of the technical sub-processes that feed data to the expert and execute the prescribed actions (Harvey, 2016). We thus propose to separate processes into two categories: complex processes and routine processes, the latter of which include both simple and complicated processes. While Table III shows how this classification leaves a


considerable gray area, it nevertheless constitutes a major step toward removing some of the confusion surrounding these important management notions. Using this classification, Figure 3 illustrates the emerging paradigm. The zone of choice is an overlapping zone where the organization can choose to frame the endeavor either as a project or a process. The only learning possible when one adopts a project view, as just defined, is that of learning how to improve the PjM process itself, in other words, of getting better at managing projects (Anderson and Merna, 2003; Schindler and Eppler, 2003; Sydow et al., 2004). This is, in fact, one of the objectives of PjM offices (PMOs), who seek to draw management lessons from each project in order to avoid repeating the same mistakes and to ensure that good practices are incorporated into the management of future projects (Dai and Wells, 2004). Nonetheless, learning between projects remains very difficult (Williams, 2008) and is in no way guaranteed by the existence of PMOs (Müller et al., 2013). However, even if obstacles to learning were circumvented, a lot of the potential learning would be lost if it was not accompanied by improvements through successive instantiations of a complex process. Thus, viewing an endeavor as a process in its own right, with unique and common components, competitive priorities, strategic impact and technical and social challenges, is essential to CI (Gann, 1996). As previously discussed, much of what goes on when a new process is designed and implemented is similar to what goes on in PjM, except that decisions are made with two goals in mind rather than one: one, of course, to produce the desired outcome, and, two, to ensure that the process will improve over time. The latter goal generally engenders design and implementation decisions that are different from those that might result from a project mindset, as it involves trading off the goals against one another. Adopting the long-term view often entails accepting immediate sacrifices in the form of lower short-term yield in order to secure the benefits made possible by CI. Designing experiments in order to identify the best way to do something requires investing time, money and human resources. So does measuring and interpreting variation, as well as teaching statistical thinking to employees and documenting processes (you cannot improve a process that you do not know). The effort and cost to be expended on such activities are immediate. However, with time and perseverance, the desired gains materialize and grow, and they are cumulative (Repenning and Sterman, 2001). Unfortunately, the PjM literature is essentially silent about these critical trade-offs, constrained as it is by a paradigm that negates their very existence.


1303

Routine processes

Simple process

Zone of choice Complicated process

Complex process

Project

No expert judgment involved Repetitive

Some variety

Expert judgment involved Much variety

Growing degree of differences between successive instantiations

Unique

Figure 3. Proposed reconfiguration of the project and process dichotomy along a continuum

IJOPM 38,6


1304

5.3 Project and process: a classification system Most routine processes can be readily identified as such. Paying suppliers, evaluating employees, assembling an order or preparing financial statements, for instance, clearly fall in that category. Doubts arise when an important and complex task presents itself. To decide whether an initiative should be framed as a project or a process, three questions are relevant: Has the organization ever done something similar in the past? If so, did the organization capture and retain the knowledge and know-how required to do it? And is the organization likely to do something similar in the foreseeable future? Figure 4 presents the various options resulting from different combinations of answers to these questions. The simplest case, of course, is a truly unique endeavor (1). The latter is to be managed primarily for results and with a view to improving the organization’s PjM capabilities, that is, to generate economies of scope. The PMBOK (or another PjM knowledge base) is the appropriate knowledge base to draw on in this case. The situation would be the same if the organization had previously performed this activity but had lost the required knowledge and know-how (5). Something that has never been done before but is likely to be repeated in some way (2) requires a new process design, just as it would if past experience had been lost (4). Much of the existing bodies of knowledge in PjM, PcM and operations management can be brought to bear on this task. If the organization has captured its past experience and plans to repeat the endeavor in the future (3), it should consider the option of improving what it did before or redesigning the process (Rohleder and Silver, 1997). If the endeavor will not be repeated (6), the organization should simply adapt and draw on past experience, if that proved effective. Further, insofar as the endeavor qualifies as a process (i.e. Situations 2, 3, 4 and 6 in Figure 4), a further question needs to be addressed: will the endeavor involve using the professional judgment and creativity of experts in order to adjust to changing circumstances, resulting in major differences between successive instantiations? If yes, then the process is a complex process, confirming that PcM approaches cannot be used

No

No

Are we likely to do anything like this ever again?

Yes

A major endeavor arises

Have we ever done anything like this before?

Yes

Yes

Figure 4. Project or process? Suggested classification tree

This is a project. Manage for results and general project management learning

This is a new process. Design and manage for continuous improvement

Have we captured the Knowledge and the know-how?

2

Yes

No

Are we likely to do anything like this ever again?

No

Have we captured the knowledge and the know-how?

1

No

Yes

This is a process. Consider whether to adapt and improve what you have or redesign it This is a new process. Design and manage for continuous improvement

This is a project Manage for results and general project management learning

Adapt and apply existing process

3

4

5

6


wholesale and that careful consideration must be given to their use and adaptation to ensure that learning takes place and that the process improves over time (Harvey, 2016; Harvey et al. 2016). Overall, this categorization considerably narrows the well-codified field of PjM while broadening the relatively unchartered realm of complex PcM. Of course, questions about the extent to which past knowledge can be reused or the similarities between expected future endeavors rarely lend themselves to the convenient simplifications of a dichotomous yes-no tree structure. Classification decisions in Figure 4 involve risk management and should be informed by the respective probabilities and costs or the two previously discussed errors: the time and money wasted on improving what turns out to be a one-time initiative, and the lost opportunity of learning and benefiting from the experience curve for the benefit of future instantiations of similar undertakings. 6. Conclusion The PjM community is fluent in processes, that is, above projects, in the realms of the PjM process, and below it, as it aims to activate and manage routine processes. All too often, however, it is blind to the notion that what it conceives of and manages as unique events with a strict focus on deliverables could itself be reframed as processes and thus managed with a CI frame of mind. Given the current expansion of PjM and the lack of research on complex processes, we presume that many endeavors that should be categorized as processes are in fact managed as projects. Therein lies an opportunity to make up for the many lessons lost, mistakes repeated and paths to improvement left unexplored (Williams, 2008). New product introductions, for example, have long been treated as a series of projects, until some scholars reframed that as a key strategic process (e.g. Clark and Wheelright, 1993). Similarly, software development and later systems development moved from the realm of isolated projects to that of complex processes, namely when Carnegie Mellon’s software engineering institute undertook to reframe those processes (Paulk et al., 1995; Team). The current parallel evolution of research streams does not favor enlightened decisionmaking on this issue based on a non-dogmatic and comprehensive understanding of the field. In academia, PjM has historically been considered to fall within the purview of operations management or remained defined within the construct of organizational PjM (Aubry et al., 2007), whereby the research orientation in this field is increasingly shifting towards enterprise-wide and even institutional-level PjM (Morris, 2011). Yet at the same time, professional associations consider operations management to be another field altogether. Few scholars have recognized the need to explore the gray area between projects and processes or to engage in the search for a unified theory (e.g. Maylor et al., 2015). The body of normative PjM literature could potentially be adapted and expanded to include the design of complex processes and be reframed with a CI mindset. In many ways, designing a process and planning a project are functionally similar tasks. However, existing process design knowledge is limited as well as impractical. This is particularly true for complex processes, which are currently stuck between research streams and prove difficult to apply in mainstream operations management (Harvey, 2016; Harvey et al., 2016; Lewis and Brown, 2012). Yet, if the body of normative PjM literature was adapted and expanded in this way, it would have to be referred to as the “project and PcM body of knowledge[1].” This paper makes two major contributions. First, it demonstrates that numerous endeavors can be framed as either projects or processes, and that this choice matters. At stake are CI and organizational learning and, hence, sustainable CIs. Because material on the design and management of complex, divergent processes is extremely scarce compared to the amount of material available on PjM, the latter is generally the preferred option. Indeed, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. However, this paucity of


1305

IJOPM 38,6


1306

knowledge comes at a price. By failing to adopt a long-term view, valuable lessons are lost, failures are repeated and dynamic capabilities (the bases for future successes) stagnate or regress (Teece, 2007). Second, the paper proposes a framework for guiding managers in making these important classification decisions. If applied systematically, this framework could induce major changes in how projects and processes are managed and in the understanding which managers have of their own work. It could also trigger a much-needed conversation and engagement between the two communities. More research is required on the complex processes, a category of business endeavors hitherto misunderstood and lumped together indiscriminately with projects or processes. The available body of PcM knowledge focuses exclusively on waste reduction, such as lean and just-in-time operations – at the expense of addressing some of the unique issues faced by complex processes (Harvey, 2016; Harvey et al., 2016; Lewis and Brown, 2012; Ng and Andreu, 2012). As long as conceptual and practical material on process design and the characterization and management of complex processes are lacking, the normative PjM literature will continue to be the dominant source of reference when exploring ways to improve complex PcM. 7. Implications for teaching When teaching undergraduate students, instructors should beware that taking a simplistic or dogmatic position, such as the ones discussed in the introductory paragraph of this paper, will deprive the students of some important management lessons. The existence of an important gray area (cf. “zone of choice” in Figure 3) in which one may choose to characterize an endeavor either as a project or a process, together with the consequences of this choice, needs to be brought out. Figure 4 is quite accessible to the students of this level and offers a good starting point for class discussion of the underlying issues. We found that using personal examples, metaphors and illustrations drawn from the public domain are engaging and an effective way to lead into business applications. Table III might well provide a natural transition toward this end. Professionals in PjM programs would certainly benefit from a better understanding of how projects relate to business processes and operations. At the graduate level, the instructor should not hold her punches, so to speak. It is important for MBA and EMBA students to fully engage into this discussion, as they are confronted daily with decision-making involving projects and processes. Helping them reach their own conclusions, as to how to best operationalize these notions in their company, is an important contribution to their effectiveness as managers. Finally, the paper opens up promising opportunities for students engaged in a research program, contributing to the search for an integrated body of knowledge. Note 1. We acknowledge the Practice Standard for Project Configuration Management (PMI, 2017a, b). This practice book emphasizes the product of a project without addressing the process view. References Abbott, A.D. (1988), The System of Professions. An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor, Chicago University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Adesola, S. and Baines, T. (2005), “Developing and evaluating a methodology for business process improvement”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 37-46. Anderson, D.K. and Merna, T. (2003), “Project management strategy – project management represented as a process based set of management domains and the consequences for project management strategy”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 387-393.


Anderson, J.C., Rungtusanatham, M. and Schroeder, R.G. (1994), “A theory of quality management underlying the Deming management method”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 472-472. Armistead, C. and Rowland, P. (Eds) (1996), Managing Business Processes, Wiley, Chichester. Arnheiter, E.D. and Maleyeff, J. (2005), “The integration of lean management and six sigma”, TQM Magazine, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 5-18.


Aubry, M. and Lenfle, S. (2012), “Projectification: Midler’s footprint in the project management field”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 680-694. Aubry, M., Hobbs, B. and Thuillier, D. (2007), “A new framework for understanding organisational project management through the PMO”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 328-336.

1307

Backlund, A. (2000), “The definition of system”, Kybernetes, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 444-451. Benner, M.J. and Tushman, M.L. (2003), “Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 238-256. Berggren, C., Bergek, A., Bengtsson, L., Hobday, M. and Söderlund, J. (Eds) (2011), Knowledge Integration & Innovation: Critical Challenges Facing International Technology-Based Firms, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Besner, C. and Hobbs, B. (2012), “An empirical identification of project management toolsets and a comparison among project types”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 24-46, doi: 10.1002/pmj.21292. Boulding, K.E. (1956), “General systems theory – the skeleton of science”, Management Science, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 197-209. Cariaga, I., El-Diraby, T. and Osman, H. (2007), “Integrating value analysis and quality function deployment for evaluating design alternatives”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 133 No. 10, pp. 761-770. Chase, R.B. and Tansyk, D.A. (1983), “The customer contact model of organizational design”, Management Science, Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 1037-1050. Clark, K.B. and Fujimoto, T. (1991), Product Development Performance, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Clark, K.B. and Wheelright, S.C. (1993), Managing New Product and Process Development, Free Press, New York, NY. Crowston, K. (1997), “A coordination theory approach to organizational process design”, Organization Science, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 157-175. Dai, C.X. and Wells, W.G. (2004), “An exploration of project management office features and their relationship to project performance”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 523-532. Davenport, T.H. (1993), “Need radical innovation and continuous improvement? Integrate process reengineering and TQM”, Planning Review, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 6-12. Deming, W. (1986), Out of the Crisis, MIT Center for Advanced Engineering, Cambridge, MA. Department of Defense (1984), Procedures for Performing a Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis, Department of Defense, Washington, DC. Duray, R., Ward, P.T., Milligan, G.W. and Berry, W.L. (2000), “Approaches to mass customization: configurations and empirical validation”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 605-625. Dvir, D., Lipovetsky, S., Shenhar, A. and Tishler, A. (1998), “In search of project classification: a nonuniversal approach to project success factors”, Research Policy, Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 915-935. Feigenbaum, A.V. (1956), “Total quality control”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 93-101. Feldman, M.S. and Pentland, B.T. (2003), “Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 94-118.

IJOPM 38,6


1308

Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P. and Lichtenstein, S. (1978), “Fault trees: sensitivity of estimated failure probabilities to problem representation”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 330-344. Gann, D.M. (1996), “Construction as a manufacturing process? Similarities and differences between industrialized housing and car production in Japan”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 437-450. Garvin, D.A. (1993), “Building a learning organization”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71 No. 4, pp. 78-91. Garvin, D.A. (1995), “Leveraging processes for strategic advantage”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 76-90. Gawande, A. (2007), Better, Henry Holt and Company, New York, NY. Hammer, M. (1990), “Reengineering work: don’t automate, obliterate”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 104-112. Hammer, M. (2007), “The Process audit”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 85 No. 4, pp. 111-123. Harvey, J. (2010), Complex Service Delivery Processes: Strategy to Operations, ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI. Harvey, J. (2016), “Professional service supply chains”, Journal of Operations Management, Vols 42/43, pp. 52-61. Harvey, J., Heineke, J. and Lewis, M. (Eds) (2016), “Special issue on professional service operations management (PSOM)”, Journal of Operations Management, Vols 42/43, pp. 4-8. Harvey, J., Lefebvre, L. and Lefebvre, E. (1997), “Flexibility and technology in services: a conceptual model”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 29-45. Hayes, R.H. and Wheelwright, S.C. (1979a), “Link manufacturing process and product life cycles”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 133-140. Hayes, R.H. and Wheelwright, S.C. (1979b), “The dynamics of process-products life cycles”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 127-136. Hobbs, B., Aubry, M. and Thuillier, D. (2008), “The project management office as an organisational innovation”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 547-555. IPMA (2015), Individual Competence for Project, Programme & Portfolio Management, International Project Management Association, Zurich. Ishikawa, K. and Lu, D.J. (1985), What Is Total Quality Control?: The Japanese Way, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Ittner, C.D. and Larcker, D.F. (1997), “The performance effects of process management techniques”, Management Science, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 522-534. Jung, Y. and Woo, S. (2004), “Flexible work breakdown structure for integrated cost and schedule control”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 130 No. 5, pp. 616-625. Juran, J.M. and Riley, J.F. (1999), The Quality Improvement Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Ko, R.K.L., Lee, S.S.G. and Lee, E.W. (2009), “Business process management (BPM) standards: a survey”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 744-791. Kwak, Y.H. and Ibbs, C.W. (2002), “Project management process maturity (PM) 2 model”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 150-155. Lewis, M.A. and Brown, A.D. (2012), “How different is professional service operations management?”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 30 Nos 1-2, pp. 1-11. Lockamy, A. and McCormack, K. (2004), “The development of a supply chain management process maturity model using the concepts of business process orientation”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 272-278. Lundin, R.A. and Söderholm, A. (1995), “A theory of the temporary organization”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 437-455.

Maylor, H., Turner, N. and Murray-Webster, R. (2015), “It worked for manufacturing…!: operations strategy in project-based operations”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 103-115.


Maylor, H., Meredith, J.R., Söderlund, J. and Browning, T.R. (2016), “Old theories, new contexts: extending operations management theories to projects”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Special Issue. Montano, C.B., Hunt, M.D. and Boudreaux, L. (2005), “Improving the quality of student advising in higher education – a case study”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 16 No. 10, pp. 1103-1125.


Morgan, G. and Smircich, L. (1980), “The case for qualitative research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 491-500. Morris, P. (2011), “A brief history of project management”, in Morris, P.W.G., Pinto, J.K. and Söderlund, J. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Project Management, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 15-36. Morris, P.W. (2013), Reconstructing Project Management, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester. Mulej, M., Potocan, V., Zenko, Z., Kajzer, S., Ursic, D., Knez-Riedl, J., Lynn, M. and Ovsenik, J. (2004), “How to restore Bertalanffian systems thinking”, Kybernetes, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 48-61. Mullaly, M. (2006), “Longitudinal analysis of project management maturity”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 62-73. Müller, R. and Turner, J.R. (2007), “Matching the project manager’s leadership style to project type”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 21-32. Müller, R., Glückler, J., Aubry, M. and Shao, J. (2013), “Project management knowledge flows in networks of project managers and project management offices: a case study in the pharmaceutical industry”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 4-19. Ng, I. and Andreu, L. (2012) (Eds), “Special issue: research perspectives in the management of complex service systems”, European Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 405-409. O’Reilly, C.A. and Tushman, M.L. (2008), “Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28, pp. 185-206. Oisen, R. (1971), “Can project management be defined?”, Project Management Quarterly, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 12-14. Oliver, C. (1997), “Sustainable competitive advantage: combining institutional and resource-based views”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 9, pp. 697-713. Pall, G.A. (1999), The Process-Centered Enterprise, St Lucie Press, Boca Raton, FL. Panella, M., Marchisio, S. and Di Stanislao, F. (2003), “Reducing clinical variations with clinical pathways: do pathways work?”, International Journal for Quality in Health Care, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 509-521. Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B. and Chrissis, M.B. (1995), The Capability Maturity Model, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Payne, J.H. and Turner, J. R. (1999), “Company-wide project management: the planning and control of programmes of projects of different type”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 55-59. PMI (2007a), Practice Standard for Project Configuration Management, Project Management Institute, Inc, Newtown Square (PA). PMI (2017b), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), 6th ed., Project Management Institute, Inc., Newtown Square, PA. Pudovkin, A.I. and Garfield, E. (2002), “Algorithmic procedure for finding semantically related journals”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 53 No. 13, pp. 1113-1119. Quinn, J.B., Anderson, P. and Finkelstein, S. (2005), “Leveraging intellect”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 78-94.

1309

IJOPM 38,6

Repenning, N.P. and Sterman, J.D. (2001), “Nobody ever gets credit for fixing problems that never happened: creating and sustaining process improvement”, California Management Review, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 64-88. Röglinger, M., Pöppelbuss, J. and Becker, J. (2012), “Maturity models in business process management”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 328-346.

1310

Rohleder, T.R. and Silver, E.A. (1997), “A tutorial on business process improvement”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 139-154. Romme, G. and Dillen, R. (1997), “Mapping the landscape of organizational learning”, European Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 68-78.


Schindler, M. and Eppler, M.J. (2003), “Harvesting project knowledge: a review of project learning methods and success factors”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 219-228. Schonberger, R.J. (1986), World Class Manufacturing: The Lessons of Simplicity Applied, The Free Press, New York, NY. Schroeder, R.G., Linderman, K., Liedtke, C. and Choo, A.S. (2008), “Six sigma: definition and underlying theory”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 536-554. Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday, New York, NY. Shewhart, W.A. (1931), Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product, Van Nostrand Company, Princeton, NJ. Söderlund, J. (2004), “Building theories of project management: past research, questions for the future”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 183-191. Software Engineering Institute (2002), “Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), Version 1.1: CMMI for systems engineering/software engineering/integrated product and process”, CMU/ SEI-(2002)-TR-011, Development/Supplier Sourcing, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh. Sokovic, M., Pavletic, D. and Fakin, S. (2005), “Application of Six Sigma methodology for process design”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vols 162/163, pp. 777-783. Staples, M., Niazi, M., Jeffery, R., Abrahams, A., Byatt, P. and Murphy, R. (2007), “An exploratory study of why organizations do not adopt CMMI”, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 80 No. 6, pp. 883-895. Stellingwerf, R. and Zandhuis, A. (2013), ISO 21500 Guidance on Project Management: A Pocket Guide, Van Haren Publishing, Zaltbommel. Sydow, J., Lindkvist, L. and DeFillippi, R. (2004), “Project-based organizations, embeddedness and repositories of knowledge”, Organization Studies, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 1475-1489. Taguchi, G. (1986), Introduction to Quality Engineering: Designing Quality into Products and Processes, Asian Productivity Organization, White Plains, NY. Teece, D.J. (2007), “Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 13, pp. 1319-1350. Turner, J.R. and Cochrane, R.A. (1993), “Goals-and-methods matrix: coping with projects with ill defined goals and/or methods of achieving them”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 93-102. Upton, D.M. (1994), “The management of manufacturing flexibility”, California Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 72-89. Van der Merwe and A.P. (2002), “Project management and business development: integrating strategy, structure, processes and projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 401-411. Venkatasubramanian, V., Zhao, J. and Viswanathan, S. (2000), “Intelligent systems for HAZOP analysis of complex process plants”, Computers and Chemical Engineering, Vol. 24 Nos 9/10, pp. 2291-2302.


Von Bertalanffy, L. (1972), “The history and status of general systems theory”, Academy of Management Journal (pre 1986), Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 407-426. Von Nordenflycht, A. (2010), “What is a professional service firm? Toward a theory and taxonomy of knowledge-intensive firms”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 155-174. Wald, A., Wagner, R., Schneider, C. and Schoper, Y. (2015), “Towards a measurement of ‘projectification’: a study on the share of project work in the German economy”, in Wald, A., Wagner, R., Schneider, C. and Gschwendtner, M. (Eds), Advanced Project Management: Flexibility and Innovative Capacity, Vol. 4, GPM Deutsche Gesellschaft für Projektmanagement, Nürnberg, pp. 252-264. Wheeler, D.J. (2000), Understanding Variation, SPC Press, Knowvillle, TN. Wheelwright, S.C. and Clark, K.B. (1992), Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency, and Quality, Free Press, New York, NY. Williams, T. (2008), “How do organizations learn lessons from projects – and do they?”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 248-266. Wittgenstein, L. (1953), 2009. Philosophical Investigations, 3rd ed., (Trans. by G.E.M. Anscombe), MacMillan, New York, NY. About the authors Jean Harvey is a Professor of Operations at the School of Management, Université du Québec à Montréal. He is the Co-chairperson of the RBC Royal Bank of Canada Chair for research in financial services management. He has a PhD Degree from the Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario and a MBA Degree from HEC Montreal. His major research interest deal with operational excellence in complex services. Jean Harvey is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Monique Aubry, PhD, is a Professor of Project Management at the School of Management, Université du Québec à Montréal. She is a Member of the Scientific Committee of the Research Chair in Project Management and a Member of the Institute for Health and Society. Her major research interest deals with organizational design for projects.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]


1311

BETA-STACY PROCESSES AND A ... - Project Euclid

A Convenient OximeCarbapalladacycleCatalyzed Suzuki ...

PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCESSES

Project Management Processes

Pseudo-Class III: Diagnosis and Simplistic Treatment

A vector of Dirichlet processes - Project Euclid

Convenient Syntheses and Structural

A convenient category of supermanifolds

[PDF Download] Project Management: Processes, Methodologies, and ...

GARCH processes: structure and estimation - Project Euclid

A convenient route to symmetrically and

A Convenient Approach for Rapid and Efficient

Download PDF Project Management: Processes, Methodologies, and ...

TRANSFORMED EMPIRICAL PROCESSES AND ... - Project Euclid

Modelling and Analysing Cargo Screening Processes: A Project Outline

balancing curriculum processes and content in a project ... - CiteSeerX

Personality Processes - The Personality Project

Simplistic construction of cadmium sulfoselenide thin films via a hybrid

A simplistic pedagogical formulation of a thermal speed distribution

A less simplistic metaphysics: Peirce's layered ... - Semantic Scholar

A world locked in simplistic oppositions. The ...

invited essay a simple (or simplistic?) cognitive model ... - Science Direct

D4.1 Catalogue of RWE relevant AD models and simplistic disease

Pseudo-Class III: Diagnosis and Simplistic Treatment - Jaypee Journals

Project and processes: a convenient but simplistic

Project and processes: a convenient but simplistic

Suggest Documents