Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 324

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Rethinking project management: A structured literature review with a critical look at the brave new world

Svejvig, Per, Andersen, Peter·2015·International Journal of Project Management
DOI 10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.06.004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.06.004

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 72

  1. *Alderman, 2010, Service‐led projects: understanding the meta‐project context, Constr. Manag. Econ., 28, 1131, 10.1080/01446193.2010.506644 · DOI
  2. *Aritua, 2009, Construction client multi-projects — a complex adaptive systems perspective, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 27, 72, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.02.005 · DOI
  3. *Atkinson, 2006, Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the scope of project management, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 24, 687, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.09.011 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bakker, 2010, Taking stock of temporary organizational forms: a systematic review and research agenda, Int. J. Manag. Rev., 12, 466, 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00281.x · DOI · Paper page
  5. *Berggren, 2008, Rethinking project management education: social twists and knowledge co-production, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 26, 286, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.01.004 · DOI
  6. *Blomquist, 2010, Project-as-practice: in search of project management research that matters, Proj. Manag. J., 41, 5, 10.1002/pmj.20141 · DOI
  7. Bredillet, 2007, Exploring research in project management: nine schools of project management research (part 1), Proj. Manag. J., 38, 3, 10.1002/pmj.20001 · DOI
  8. Breese, 2012, Benefits realisation management: panacea or false dawn?, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 30, 341, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.08.007 · DOI
  9. Chen, 2004, A paradigmatic and methodological examination of information systems research from 1991 to 2001, Inf. Syst. J., 14, 197, 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2004.00173.x · DOI · Paper page
  10. *Cicmil, 2006, Rethinking project management: researching the actuality of projects, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 24, 675, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.08.006 · DOI · Paper page
  11. *Clarke, 2010, Projects are emotional: how project managers' emotional awareness can influence decisions and behaviours in projects, Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus., 3, 604, 10.1108/17538371011076073 · DOI
  12. *Cooke-Davies, 2007, We're not in Kansas anymore, toto: mapping the strange landscape of complexity theory, and its relationship to project management, Proj. Manag. J., 38, 50, 10.1177/875697280703800206 · DOI
  13. *Crawford, 2006, Practitioner development: from trained technicians to reflective practitioners, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 24, 722, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.09.010 · DOI
  14. *Dille, 2011, Managing inter-institutional projects: the significance of isochronism, timing norms and temporal misfits, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 29, 480, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.02.007 · DOI
  15. *Jugdev, 2001, Rethinking project management: old truths and new insights, Proj. Manag., 7, 36
  16. *Kolltveit, 2007, Perspectives on project management, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 25, 3, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.12.002 · DOI
  17. *Koppenjan, 2011, Competing management approaches in large engineering projects: the Dutch RandstadRail project, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 29, 740, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.07.003 · DOI
  18. *Kreiner, 1995, In search of relevance: project management in drifting environments, Scand. J. Manag., 11, 335, 10.1016/0956-5221(95)00029-U · DOI · Paper page
  19. *Kreiner, 2012, Comments on challenging the rational project environment: the legacy and impact of Christensen and Kreiner's Projektledning i en ofulständig värld, Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus., 5, 714, 10.1108/17538371211269013 · DOI
  20. *Leybourne, 2007, The changing bias of project management research: a consideration of the literatures and an application of extant theory, Proj. Manag. J., 38, 61, 10.1177/875697280703800107 · DOI
  21. *Leybourne, 2010, Project management and high-value superyacht projects: an improvisational and temporal perspective, Proj. Manag. J., 41, 17, 10.1002/pmj.20140 · DOI
  22. *Lichtenberg, 1983, Alternatives to conventional project management, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 1, 101, 10.1016/0263-7863(83)90007-8 · DOI
  23. *Louw, 2012, Project management training curricula at South African public universities: is the balanced demand of the profession sufficiently accommodated?, Proj. Manag. J., 43, 70, 10.1002/pmj.21276 · DOI
  24. *Lundin, 1995, A theory of the temporary organization, Scand. J. Manag., 11, 437, 10.1016/0956-5221(95)00036-U · DOI
  25. Maylor, 2006, Special Issue on rethinking project management (EPSRC network 2004–2006), Int. J. Proj. Manag., 24, 635, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.09.013 · DOI
  26. *Maylor, 2006, From projectification to programmification, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 24, 663, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.09.014 · DOI
  27. *McLeod, 2012, A perspective-based understanding of project success, Proj. Manag. J., 43, 68, 10.1002/pmj.21290 · DOI
  28. Meyer, 2006, Changing institutional logics and executive identities, Am. Behav. Sci., 49, 1000, 10.1177/0002764205285182 · DOI
  29. Meyer, 1977, Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony, Am. J. Sociol., 83, 340, 10.1086/226550 · DOI · Paper page
  30. *Morris, 2006, Exploring the role of formal bodies of knowledge in defining a profession — the case of project management, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 24, 710, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.09.012 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Müller, 2014, Organizational enablers for governance and governmentality of projects: a literature review, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.007 · DOI
  32. *Packendorff, 1995, Inquiring into the temporary organization: new directions for project management research, Scand. J. Manag., 11, 319, 10.1016/0956-5221(95)00018-Q · DOI · Paper page
  33. *Pollack, 2007, The changing paradigms of project management, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 25, 266, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.08.002 · DOI · Paper page
  34. *Saynisch, 2010, Beyond frontiers of traditional project management: an approach to evolutionary, self-organizational principles and the complexity theory—results of the research program, Proj. Manag. J., 41, 21, 10.1002/pmj.20159 · DOI
  35. *Saynisch, 2010, Mastering complexity and changes in projects, economy, and society via Project Management Second Order (PM-2), Proj. Manag. J., 41, 4, 10.1002/pmj.20167 · DOI
  36. *Sense, 2009, The social learning character of projects and project teams, Int. J. Knowl. Manag. Stud., 3, 195, 10.1504/IJKMS.2009.028836 · DOI
  37. *Sewchurran, 2008, Toward an approach to create self-organizing and reflexive information systems project practitioners, Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus., 1, 316, 10.1108/17538370810883792 · DOI
  38. *Sheffield, 2012, Systems thinking: taming complexity in project management, Horizon, 20, 126, 10.1108/10748121211235787 · DOI
  39. *Small, 2010, The emergent realities of project praxis in socially complex project environments, Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus., 3, 147, 10.1108/17538371011014071 · DOI
  40. *Smith, 2011, Understanding project manager identities: a framework for research, Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus., 4, 680, 10.1108/17538371111164074 · DOI
  41. *Söderlund, 2011, Pluralism in project management: navigating the crossroads of specialization and fragmentation, Int. J. Manag. Rev., 13, 153, 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00290.x · DOI
  42. *Thomas, 2008, Preparing project managers to deal with complexity — advanced project management education, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 26, 304, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.01.001 · DOI
  43. Tranfield, 2003, Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review, Br. J. Manag., 14, 207, 10.1111/1467-8551.00375 · DOI · Paper page
  44. *Winter, 2006, The importance of ‘process’ in rethinking project management: the story of a UK government-funded research network, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 24, 650, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.08.008 · DOI
  45. *Winter, 2006, Directions for future research in project management: the main findings of a UK government-funded research network, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 24, 638, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.08.009 · DOI
  46. *Alderman, 2011, Translation and convergence in projects: an organizational perspective on project success, Proj. Manag. J., 42, 17, 10.1002/pmj.20261 · DOI
  47. *Andersen, 2006, Toward a project management theory for renewal projects, Proj. Manag. J., 37, 15, 10.1177/875697280603700403 · DOI
  48. *Berggren, 2008, Lagomizing, organic integration, and systems emergency wards: innovative practices in managing complex systems development projects, Proj. Manag. J., 39, S111, 10.1002/pmj.20065 · DOI
  49. *Bredillet, 2010, Blowing hot and cold on project management, Proj. Manag. J., 41, 4, 10.1002/pmj.20179 · DOI
  50. *Davis, 2010, Problem-structuring methods and project management: an example of stakeholder involvement using Hierarchical Process Modelling methodology, J. Oper. Res. Soc., 61, 893, 10.1057/jors.2010.12 · DOI
  51. *Engwall, 2003, No project is an island: linking projects to history and context, Res. Policy, 32, 789, 10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00088-4 · DOI · Paper page
  52. *Engwall, 2004, Peripety in an R&D drama: capturing a turnaround in project dynamics, Organ. Stud., 25, 1557, 10.1177/0170840604048000 · DOI
  53. *Geraldi, 2008, Innovation in project management: voices of researchers, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 26, 586, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.05.011 · DOI
  54. *Hällgren, 2012, Relevance lost! a critical review of project management standardisation, Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus., 5, 457, 10.1108/17538371211235326 · DOI
  55. *Hanisch, 2011, A project management research framework integrating multiple theoretical perspectives and influencing factors, Proj. Manag. J., 42, 4, 10.1002/pmj.20241 · DOI
  56. *Kapsali, 2011, Systems thinking in innovation project management: a match that works, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 29, 396, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.01.003 · DOI
  57. *Lalonde, 2010, Building pragmatist theories of PM practice: theorizing the act of project management, Proj. Manag. J., 41, 21, 10.1002/pmj.20163 · DOI
  58. *Lalonde, 2012, An empirical investigation of the project situation: PM practice as an inquiry process, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 30, 418, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.09.005 · DOI
  59. *Lehner, 2009, The staging model: the contribution of classical theatre directors to project management in development contexts, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 27, 195, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.02.010 · DOI
  60. *Leybourne, 2006, Managing change by abandoning planning and embracing improvisation, J. Gen. Manag., 31, 11
  61. *Lichtenberg, 1989, New project management principles for the conception stage: outline of a new ‘generation’, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 7, 46, 10.1016/0263-7863(89)90054-9 · DOI
  62. *Pundir, 2007, Towards a complexity framework for managing projects, Emergence Complex. Organ., 9, 17
  63. *Sauer, 2009, Rethinking IT project management: evidence of a new mindset and its implications, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 27, 182, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.08.003 · DOI
  64. *Saynisch, 2005, “Beyond Frontiers of Traditional Project Management”: The concept of “Project Management Second Order (PM-2)” as an approach of evolutionary management, World Futur., 61, 555, 10.1080/02604020500288109 · DOI
  65. *Shenhar, 2001, One size does not fit all projects: exploring classical contingency domains, Manag. Sci., 47, 394, 10.1287/mnsc.47.3.394.9772 · DOI
  66. *Söderlund, 2004, Building theories of project management: past research, questions for the future, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 22, 183, 10.1016/S0263-7863(03)00070-X · DOI · Paper page
  67. *Taxén, 2008, Images as action instruments in complex projects, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 26, 527, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.05.009 · DOI
  68. *Turner, 2003, On the nature of the project as a temporary organization, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 21, 1, 10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00020-0 · DOI · Paper page
  69. *van Donk, 2008, From organising as projects to projects as organisations, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 26, 129, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.05.006 · DOI
  70. *Winter, 2003, Soft systems: a fresh perspective for project management, Proc. ICE Civ. Eng., 156, 187, 10.1680/cien.2003.156.4.187 · DOI
  71. *Winter, 2008, Projects and programmes as value creation processes: a new perspective and some practical implications, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 26, 95, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.08.015 · DOI
  72. *Winter, 2006, Focusing on business projects as an area for future research: an exploratory discussion of four different perspectives, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 24, 699, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.08.005 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Svejvig, P., & Andersen, P.
Venue
International Journal of Project Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-02
Volume
33
Issue
2
Pages
278-290
ISSN
0263-7863 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.06.004
OpenAlex
W2016632831
Cited by
324
References
4
FWCI
26.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.