The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
New Possibilities for Project Management Theory: A Critical Engagement
Open accessAbstract
This paper provides avenues for a broader engagement with the conceptual considerations of projects and project management with the aim of creating new possibilities for thinking about, researching, and developing our understanding of the field as practiced. Attention is drawn to the legacy of conventional but deeply rooted mainstream approaches to studying projects and project management, and implications of the specific underpinning intellectual tradition for recommendations proposed to organisational members as best practice project management. The identified concerns and limitations are discussed in the context of project management evolution where taken-for-granted advantages of project management as a disciplined effective methodology and its popularity are reexamined. The paper sheds light on a variety of voices from both scholarly and practitioner communities that have attempted to respond to this paradox and move the field forward. Taking issue with conventional labels of project success or failure, and drawing attention to alternative theoretical and methodological propositions, the argument turns toward critical management studies, outlining the implications of this intellectual tradition for studies of projects, project management, project performance, and individual skills and competencies to cope with social arrangements labelled “projects.”
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor
Abbott, A. (1988) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226189666.001.0001 · Cited by 7,733
Atkinson, R. (1999) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/s0263-7863(98)00069-6 · Cited by 2,359
Cited by
Project Success as a Topic in Project Management Journals
Ika, L. A. (2009) · Project Management Journal · doi:10.1002/pmj.20137 · Cited by 783
Do project managers practice what they preach, and does it matter to project success?
Papke-Shields, K. E., Beise, C., & Quan, J. (2010) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.11.002 · Cited by 393
Sabini, L., & Alderman, N. (2021) · Project Management Journal · doi:10.1177/87569728211007660 · Cited by 67
Whyte, J., & Mottee, L. (2022) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.10.007 · Cited by 55
Metadata
- Authors
- Cicmil, S., & Hodgson, D.
- Venue
- Project Management Journal
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2006-08
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 111-122
- ISSN
- 1938-9507 (ISSN-L)
- 8756-9728
- OpenAlex
- W2104645931
- Cited by
- 235
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 11.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: New Possibilities for Project Management Theory: A Critical Engagement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/875697280603700311
- The paper
- Cicmil, S., & Hodgson, D. (2006). New Possibilities for Project Management Theory: A Critical Engagement. Project Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280603700311
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.