CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 148

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Project benefits co-creation: Shaping sustainable development benefits

Keeys, Lynn A., Huemann, Martina·2017·International Journal of Project Management
DOI 10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.008
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.008

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Ackoff, 1979, The future of operational research is past, J. Oper. Res. Soc., 30, 93, 10.1057/jors.1979.22 · DOI
  2. Andersen, 2004, Integrating decentralized strategy making and strategic planning processes in dynamic environments, J. Manag. Stud., 41, 1271, 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00475.x · DOI
  3. Artto, 2008, “What is project strategy?”. International Journal of Project Management, 26: 4–12, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 34, 258, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.003 · DOI
  4. Badewi, 2016, The impact of project management (PM) and benefits management (BM) practices on project success: towards developing a project benefits governance framework, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 34, 761, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.005 · DOI
  5. Bagheri, 2007, Planning for sustainable development: a paradigm shift towards a process-based approach, Sustain. Dev., 15, 83, 10.1002/sd.310 · DOI
  6. Bansal, 2011, The coming of age for qualitative research: Embracing the diversity of qualitative methods, Editorial, Acad. Manag. J., 233, 10.5465/AMJ.2011.60262792 · DOI
  7. Birkin, 2009, A new business model for sustainable development: An exploratory study using the theory of constraints in Nordic organizations, Bus. Strateg. Environ., 18, 277, 10.1002/bse.581 · 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. Breese, 2015, Benefits management: lost or found in translation, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 33, 1438, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.06.004 · DOI
  10. Brickson, 2007, Organizational identity orientation: the genesis of the role of the firm and distinct forms of social value, Acad. Manag. Rev., 32, 864, 10.5465/AMR.2007.25275679 · DOI
  11. Bryde, 2005, Methods for managing different perspectives of project success, Br. J. Manag., 16, 119, 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00438.x · DOI
  12. Chang, 2013, Reconceptualizingg mega project success in Australian Defence: recognising the importance of value co-creation, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 31, 1139, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.005 · DOI
  13. Chih, 2015, Project benefit management: a conceptual framework of target benefit formulation, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 33, 352, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.06.002 · DOI
  14. Clifton, 2011, The stakeholder approach: a sustainability perspective, J. Bus. Ethics, 98, 121, 10.1007/s10551-010-0538-6 · DOI
  15. Cooke-Davies, 2002, The “real” success factors on projects, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 20, 185, 10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00067-9 · DOI
  16. Denis, 2007, Strategizing in pluralistic contexts: rethinking theoretical frames, Hum. Relat., 60, 179, 10.1177/0018726707075288 · DOI
  17. Eskerod, 2015, Stakeholder inclusiveness — enriching project management with general stakeholder theory, Proj. Manag. J., 46, 40, 10.1002/pmj.21546 · DOI
  18. Hart, 2003, Creating sustainable value, Acad. Manag. Exec., 17, 56, 10.5465/AME.2003.10025194 · DOI
  19. Hollings, 2001, Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems, Ecosystems, 4, 390, 10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Kazadi, 2015, Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation process: identifying capabilities for knowledge creation among multiple stakeholders, J. Bus. Res., 69, 525, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.05.009 · DOI
  21. Kemp, 2007, Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development, Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol., 14, 78, 10.1080/13504500709469709 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Labuschagne, 2005, Environmental and social impact considerations for sustainable project life cycle management in the process industry, Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag., 12, 38, 10.1002/csr.76 · DOI
  23. Laursen, 2016, Taking stock of project value creation: a structured literature review with future directions for research and practice, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 34, 736, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.06.007 · DOI
  24. Lin, 2003, The practice of IS/IT benefits management in large Australian organizations, Inf. Manag., 41, 13, 10.1016/S0378-7206(03)00002-8 · DOI
  25. Loorbach, 2010, Business strategies for transitions towards sustainable systems, Bus. Strategy Environ., 19, 133, 10.1002/bse.645 · DOI
  26. Lundin, 1995, A theory of the temporary organization, Scand. J. Manag., 11, 437, 10.1016/0956-5221(95)00036-U · DOI
  27. Lusch, 2008, Toward a conceptual foundation for service science: contributions from service-dominant logic, IBM Syst. J., 47, 5, 10.1147/sj.471.0005 · DOI
  28. Mathur, 2008, Conceptualizing stakeholder engagement in the context of sustainability and its assessment, Constr. Manag. Econ., 26, 601, 10.1080/01446190802061233 · DOI
  29. Matinheikki, 2016, Managing inter-organizational networks for value creation in the front-end of projects, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 34, 1226, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.06.003 · DOI
  30. Mintzberg, 1985, Of strategies, deliberate and emergent, Strateg. Manag. J., 6, 257, 10.1002/smj.4250060306 · DOI
  31. Missonier, 2014, Stakeholder analysis and engagement in projects: from stakeholder relational perspective to stakeholder relational ontology, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 32, 1108, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.02.010 · DOI
  32. Porter, 2011, Creating shared value, Harv. Bus. Rev., 89, 62
  33. Prahalad, 2004, Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value creation, J. Interact. Mark., 18, 5, 10.1002/dir.20015 · DOI
  34. Rammel, 2003, Evolutionary policies for sustainable development: adaptive flexibility and risk minimising, Ecol. Econ., 47, 121, 10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00193-9 · DOI
  35. Robert, 2002, Strategic sustainable development—selection, design and synergies of applied tools, J. Clean. Prod., 10, 197, 10.1016/S0959-6526(01)00061-0 · DOI
  36. Serra, 2015, Benefits realisation management and its influence on project success and on the execution of business strategies, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 33, 53, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.011 · DOI
  37. Serrador, 2013, The impact of planning on project success: a literature review, J. Mod. Proj. Manag., 1, 28
  38. Silvius, 2014, Sustainability in project management: a literature review and impact analysis, Soc. Bus., 4, 63, 10.1362/204440814X13948909253866 · DOI
  39. Silvius, 2014, Sustainability in project management competencies: analyzing the competence gap of project managers, J. Hum. Resour. Sustain. Stud., 2, 40, 10.4236/jhrss.2014.22005 · DOI
  40. Steurer, 2005, Corporations, stakeholders and sustainable development I: a theoretical exploration of business–society relations, J. Bus. Ethics, 61, 263, 10.1007/s10551-005-7054-0 · DOI
  41. Van Der Brugge, 2005, The transition in Dutch water management, Reg. Environ. Chang., 5, 164, 10.1007/s10113-004-0086-7 · DOI
  42. Vuori, 2012, Investment project as a corporate internal venture, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 30, 652, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.01.011 · DOI
  43. Wiltbank, 2006, What to do next? The case for nonpredictive strategy, Strateg. Manag. J., 27, 981, 10.1002/smj.555 · DOI
  44. Williams, 2010, Issues in front-end decision-making on projects, Proj. Manag. J., 41, 38, 10.1002/pmj.20160 · 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Keeys, L. A., & Huemann, M.
ORCID
Keeys, Lynn A.
Venue
International Journal of Project Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-08
Volume
35
Issue
6
Pages
1196-1212
ISSN
0263-7863
DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.008
Cited by
148
References
2
Language
en
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