The front-end of projects: a systematic literature review and structuring

Williams, Terry; Vo, Hang; Samset, Knut; Edkins, Andrew

doi:10.1080/09537287.2019.1594429

Cited by 145

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The front-end of projects: a systematic literature review and structuring

Williams, Terry, Vo, Hang, Samset, Knut, Edkins, Andrew·2019·Production Planning & Control

DOI 10.1080/09537287.2019.1594429

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09537287.2019.1594429

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

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?

The project team could not rely solely on previous experience, adding to the uncertainty often observed at the front end of projects.
“The project team could not rely solely on previous experience, adding to the uncertainty often observed at the front end of projects (Williams et al., 2019).”
From Rethinking the project life cycle – how circularity challenges processes, roles and governance (2025) · cites this paper as Williams et al., 2019
The front-end phases of the project life cycle are where significant strategic decisions are made.
“The front-end phases of the project life cycle are where significant strategic decisions are made (Miller and Hobbs, 2005; Williams et al., 2019).”
From Rethinking the project life cycle – how circularity challenges processes, roles and governance (2025) · cites this paper as Williams et al., 2019
Compared to conventional project life cycle phases, which are linear, this project illustrated a process where the phases were more parallel.
“Compared to the conventional project life cycle phases, where the process is linear (Williams et al., 2019), this project illustrated a process where the phases were more parallel.”
From Rethinking the project life cycle – how circularity challenges processes, roles and governance (2025) · cites this paper as Williams et al., 2019

Self-check

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

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

Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria
Atkinson, R. (1999) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/s0263-7863(98)00069-6 · Cited by 2,359 · cited 1×
“…a growing trend of ‘strategic project management’ in the literature, in which the general idea is that the project team focuses on not only achieving the traditional ‘iron triangle’ (i.e. time, cost, and scope) (Atkinson 1999) but also supporting the strategy and sustainability of their company.”
Background
What Project Strategy Really Is: The Fundamental Building Block in Strategic Project Management
Patanakul, P., & Shenhar, A. J. (2012) · Project Management Journal · doi:10.1002/pmj.20282 · Cited by 147 · cited 2×
“They highlight the importance of the concept of ‘project strategy’, which they define as ‘the project perspective, position, and guidelines for what to do and how to do it, to achieve the highest competitive advantage and the best value from the project’ (Patanakul and Shenhar 2012, 7).”
Background
Investment evaluation within project management: an information systemsperspective
Irani, Z. (2010) · Journal of the Operational Research Society · doi:10.1057/jors.2010.10 · Cited by 72

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 386

10.1016/j.scaman.2010.09.001 · DOI
10.1002/pmj.21549 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.11.006 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.10.001 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.11.009 · DOI
10.1177/875697281704800207 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001317 · DOI
10.1080/01446190802527514 · DOI
10.1108/IJMPB-01-2017-0004 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.11.003 · DOI
10.1108/IJMPB-01-2015-0008 · DOI
10.1049/et.2011.0800 · DOI
10.4337/9781781002308.00021 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.07.006 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000447 · DOI
Association of Project Management., 2012, APM Body of Knowledge
10.1177/030630701003500305 · DOI
AXELOS., 2009, Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2
10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.005 · DOI
10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00281.x · DOI
10.1109/TEM.2015.2497209 · DOI
10.1177/875697281704800507 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001040 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000280 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.02.003 · DOI
10.1177/875697281604700504 · DOI
10.1093/jopart/mup033 · DOI
10.1080/00137910802058533 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.06.005 · DOI
10.1556/204.2016.38.2.7 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.08.007 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.07.008 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000333 · DOI
10.21552/EPPPL/2012/1/133 · DOI
10.1017/S1867299X00004505 · DOI
Bradshaw G. B, 2008, AACE International Transactions, 1
10.1002/pmj.21434 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.06.004 · DOI
10.1016/j.technovation.2008.06.003 · DOI
10.1177/875697280603700304 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.007 · DOI
10.1093/jopart/muv004 · DOI
10.1109/TEM.2014.2326986 · DOI
Brunsman A. R., 2008, AACE International Transactions, 1
10.1093/scipol/scu035 · DOI
10.1080/09548960600922590 · DOI
10.1068/b36017 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.01.002 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.03.001 · DOI
10.1108/09699981211259621 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.05.001 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.09.001 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.06.002 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000570 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000431 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:11(894) · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.12.003 · DOI
10.1108/17538371111120216 · DOI
10.1057/9781137274618_8 · DOI
10.1002/pmj.21503 · DOI
10.1080/01446190903222411 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000514 · DOI
Construction Europe, 2015, Construction Europe, 26, 9
10.1057/9780230236837_6 · DOI
10.1002/pmj.20106 · DOI
10.1002/pmj.20117 · DOI
10.1002/pmj.20059 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.09.006 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.08.008 · DOI
Dalcher D, 2011, The Oxford Handbook of Project Management
Dalcher D, 2016, PM World Journal, 5, 1
10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.07.001 · DOI
10.2307/41166482 · DOI
10.1002/pmj.21461 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.01.008 · DOI
10.1002/pmj.20242 · DOI
Derby C., 2012, PM Network, 26, 20
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000547 · DOI
10.1016/j.progress.2013.03.001 · DOI
10.1002/pmj.20034 · DOI
10.1057/jit.2011.8 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.06.001 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.07.004 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001150 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.12.004 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.11.005 · DOI
10.1080/21573727.2013.775942 · DOI
10.1057/9781137274618_5 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000074 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000194 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000310 · DOI
10.1111/jpim.12415 · DOI
10.1108/17538371311291017 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001050 · DOI
European Commission., 2015, Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects Economic Appraisal Tool for Cohesion Policy 2014-2020
10.5130/AJCEB.v14i3.4155 · DOI
10.3152/030234207X258996 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001194 · DOI
Flanagan J., 2007, Public Sector Business Cases Using the Five Case Model: A Toolkit
10.1057/9780230236837_8 · DOI
10.1177/875697280603700302 · DOI
10.1002/pmj.21409 · DOI
10.1680/jcien.15.00075 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.10.007 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.04.006 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.07.004 · DOI
10.1109/TEM.2010.2095017 · DOI
10.1016/B978-0-12-391946-5.00001-3 · DOI
10.1108/01443571111165848 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.06.004 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001305 · DOI
10.1016/j.respol.2018.02.001 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000599 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.03.012 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001136 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000994 · DOI
10.1111/j.1468-0009.2012.00673.x · DOI
10.5465/annals.2016.0017 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2007)133:6(425) · DOI
10.1108/00251741111126468 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001039 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.07.006 · DOI
10.1002/pmj.20032 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.07.009 · DOI
10.1057/9780230236837_4 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.01.014 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.01.005 · DOI
10.1002/pmj.21258 · DOI
10.1108/IJMPB-12-2015-0116 · DOI
HM Treasury, 2011, The Green Book - Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government
Holmlin R. M, 2016, Cost Engineering, 58, 6
10.1177/875697281704800508 · DOI
Hoppszallern S, 2010, H&HN: Hospitals & Health Networks, 84, 48
10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.06.006 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.020 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000456 · DOI
10.1002/pmj.20137 · DOI
10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.10.016 · DOI
10.1108/17538371111164092 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2009)135:8(772) · DOI
Jambhekar V. S., 2008, AACE International Transactions, 1
10.1504/IJPD.2009.024183 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.03.005 · DOI
10.1080/01446193.2012.668200 · DOI
10.1002/pmj.20080 · DOI
10.3390/admsci6030011 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.01.007 · DOI
10.1109/TEM.2007.900790 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.03.005 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.01.008 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.002 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000760 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.008 · DOI · Paper page
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000616 · DOI
10.1108/02656710810843559 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.05.004 · DOI
10.1057/9780230236837_9 · DOI
10.1002/pmj.21346 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.009 · DOI · Paper page
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000053 · DOI
10.1002/pmj.20058 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.03.008 · DOI
10.1108/01409171111117852 · DOI
10.1002/pmj.21396 · DOI
10.1177/875697280603700303 · DOI
10.1080/01446193.2012.687830 · DOI
10.1111/jpim.12217 · DOI
10.1002/pmj.21575 · DOI
Kodukula P., 2006, Project Valuation Using Real Options: A Practitioner’s Guide
Koller T., 2012, McKinsey Quarterly, 15
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:11(876) · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.03.007 · DOI
10.1109/TEM.2015.2454437 · DOI
10.1002/pmj.20284 · DOI
10.1002/pmj.20154 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001071 · DOI
10.1002/pmj.20112 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.05.003 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.01.010 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.04.002 · DOI
10.1080/14615517.2014.981037 · DOI
10.1108/IJMPB-04-2016-0031 · DOI
10.1108/09699980710731272 · DOI
Legaca G., 2014, PM World Journal, 3, 1
10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.09.014 · DOI
10.3152/095820207X260252 · DOI
10.4337/9781781002308.00009 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000815 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000573 · DOI
10.1111/jpim.12163 · DOI · Paper page
10.1007/978-0-230-20929-9_3 · DOI
10.1002/pmj.20195 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.05.013 · DOI
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2007)133:1(91) · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.11.003 · DOI
10.1080/09537287.2018.1513177 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.09.004 · DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.01.012 · DOI
10.4337/9781781002308.00018 · DOI
10.1002/pmj.21436 · DOI

200 of 386 shown

Sorted by citations

Rethinking the project life cycle – how circularity challenges processes, roles and governance
Lingegård, S., & Hedborg, S. (2025) · Project Leadership and Society · doi:10.1016/j.plas.2025.100194 · Cited by 10
Why clear managerial recommendations matter in major projects research: Searching for relevance in practice
Denicol, J. (2022) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.01.004 · Cited by 7

Authors: Williams, T., Vo, H., Samset, K., & Edkins, A.
Affiliations: Risk Institute, University of Hull, Hull, UK;
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway;
The Bartlett School of Construction & Project Management, University College London, London, UK
Venue: Production Planning & Control
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Published: 2019-04-08
Volume: 30
Issue: 14
Pages: 1137-1169
ISSN: 0953-7287
1366-5871
DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2019.1594429
Cited by: 145
References: 3
Language: en

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

The front-end of projects: a systematic literature review and structuring

Overview

Integrity signals

Verification

Claims the paper makes

Claims other papers make about this one

Self-check

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Metadata

Record

About these checks