Search

This process article reports on the use of Gioia data structures as a visual boundary object in project management research. Gioia data structures work as effective boundary objects that span a research team’s geographical distance in a virtual setting as an artifact for promoting visual collaboration in project management research. We demonstrate the use of boundary objects as generative tools for cross-disciplinary teams to share a common design method. While boundary objects have been used in project management studies, we extend their use to support collaborative research in project management.

© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This paper illustrates one researcher's experience of applying design science research (DSR) to the nexus between systems thinking and project scheduling. Project management has become increasingly popular in the decades since its advent but has changed little in that time. This is especially true because of its signature technique, project scheduling. Scheduling research however is vibrant and modern and even includes dynamic concepts such as learning curves in schedule construction. However, justifications for acquiring this level of systems literacy have not yet convinced the practice community. A similar gap is identified in management science, and a literature review yields two potential solutions: dissolving the subjective-objective divide by adopting Critical Realism and using DSR as a framework for producing artefacts. This paper outlines how these concepts were applied to project scheduling, resulting in a new method for schedule construction that allows an expanded range of concepts to be included.

© Copyright 2019 Jeff Scales. All rights reserved. Scheduling is central to the practice of project management and a topic of significant interest for the operations research and management science academic communities. However, a rigour-relevance gap has developed between the research and practice of scheduling that mirrors similar concerns current in management science. Closing this gap requires a more accommodative philosophy that can integrate both hard and soft factors in the construction of project schedules. This paper outlines one interpretation of how this can be achieved through the combination of discrete event simulation for schedule construction and system dynamics for variable resource productivity. An implementation was built in a readily available modelling environment and its scheduling capabilities tested. They compare well with published results for commercial project scheduling packages. The use of system dynamics in schedule construction allows for the inclusion of generative mechanisms, models that describe the process by which some observed phenomenon is produced. They are powerful tools for answering questions about why things happen the way they do, a type of question very relevant to practice.

Scheduling is central to the practice of project management and a topic of significant interest for the operations research and management science academic communities. However, a rigour-relevance gap has developed between the research and practice of scheduling that mirrors similar concerns current in management science. Closing this gap requires a more accommodative philosophy that can integrate both hard and soft factors in the construction of project schedules. This paper outlines one interpretation of how this can be achieved through the combination of discrete event simulation for schedule construction and system dynamics for variable resource productivity. An implementation was built in a readily available modelling environment and its scheduling capabilities tested. They compare well with published results for commercial project scheduling packages. The use of system dynamics in schedule construction allows for the inclusion of generative mechanisms, models that describe the process by which some observed phenomenon is produced. They are powerful tools for answering questions about why things happen the way they do, a type of question very relevant to practice

© 2015 by the Project Management Institute. Mixed methods research is increasingly being used in business and management disciplines, in spite of positivist traditions. The aim of the study is twofold: (1) to examine the types of mixed methods approaches being used, and (2) to determine the quality of the reporting of mixed methods studies published in the field of project management. A retrospective content analysis of articles from three ranked project management journals was undertaken for a sample period of 2004 to 2010. Our findings suggest the field of project management is in need of capacity building in relation to the good reporting of mixed methods studies.

Project management (PM) researchers have traditionally used quantitative methods in their research due to the origins of this practice-based discipline in defence and engineering. Although qualitative methods are starting to be used in PM research, most of the qualitative research reported tends to use case studies. Recently, there has been a call for PM researchers to use more novel methods to increase the variety of methods used by the researcher in the field contributing to its further development (Drouin, Muller and Sankaran 2013; Cameron, Sankaran and Scales 2015). A review of papers presented at the International Research Network on Organizing by Projects (IRNOP) conference in Berlin in 2009 showed a surprising trend that papers presented at these conferences used more qualitative methods in comparison with articles published in key PM journals. This paper analyses articles published over the past six years in a comparatively new PM journal, since its inception, to explore whether the new journal has motivated PM researchers to overcome their methodological inertia and broaden the variety of research methods they use. A mixed methods prevalence study was undertaken on articles published in the International Journal of Managing Projects in Business (IJMPiB) from 2008 to 2014 (n=265). The findings point to methodological inertia in the majority of research but also an unusually high proportion of the use of mixed methods. Future research is needed to add finer granularity to the analysis.

Project management (PM) researchers have traditionally used quantitative methods in their research due to the origins of this practice-based discipline in defence and engineering. Although qualitative methods are starting to be used in PM research, most of the qualitative research reported tends to use case studies. Recently, there has been a call for PM researchers to use more novel methods to increase the variety of methods used by the researcher in the field contributing to its further development (Drouin, Muller and Sankaran 2013; Cameron, Sankaran and Scales 2015). A review of papers presented at the International Research Network on Organizing by Projects (IRNOP) conference in Berlin in 2009 showed a surprising trend that papers presented at these conferences used more qualitative methods in comparison with articles published in key PM journals. This paper analyses articles published over the past six years in a comparatively new PM journal, since its inception, to explore whether the new journal has motivated PM researchers to overcome their methodological inertia and broaden the variety of research methods they use. A mixed methods prevalence study was undertaken on articles published in the International Journal of Managing Projects in Business (IJMPiB) from 2008 to 2014 (n=265). The findings point to methodological inertia in the majority of research but also an unusually high proportion of the use of mixed methods. Future research is needed to add finer granularity to the analysis.

Mixed methods research is being touted as the third methodological movement which is characterised by a growing body of theoretical and methodological frameworks and a body of cross disciplinary literature. Prominent mixed methodologists/authorities have championed the movement, which has strong footholds in the fields of education, health and nursing, and the social and behavioural sciences. The establishment of mixed method specific journals, research texts and courses and a growth in popularity among research funding bodies all indicate the growing trend in the adoption of mixed methods. Mixed methods research is being used and reported within business and management fields, despite the positivist traditions attached to certain business and management disciplines. This paper has used a retrospective content analysis of journal articles from three ranked journals from the field of project management: International Journal of Project Management (IJPM), the Project Management Journal (PMJ) and the IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management (IEEE_TEM). The aim of the study is to determine the prevalence rates of mixed methods in project management and to investigate the quality of mixed methods research within this field. Implications for further research are discussed, along with some guidelines to justify and describe how mixed methods have been used in project management research papers.