Critical Review of Research Agenda in Project Management Report

This report offers a critical review of the research agenda in project management, focusing on a six-part series by Christophe N. Bredillet published in the Project Management Journal. It identifies the context of the research agenda, including the emergence of new project types and the need for a complete academic presence. The report explores nine different perspectives within project management, such as optimization, governance, and success schools, and contrasts structured and unstructured literature review methodologies. The structured approach, with its phases of planning, scope clarification, searching, analysis, and reporting, is highlighted as more systematic. The report also discusses the development of research agenda literature, including the influence of EURAM conferences. The review emphasizes the importance of project management research and its impact on management practices, the academic community, and the global economy.

Running head: CRITICAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH AGENDA
Critical Review of Research Agenda in Project Management
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Note:

1
CRITICAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH AGENDA
Abstract
The main aim of this report is to critically review the research agenda in project management.
The report is the summarization of the research agenda in project management published by
Christophe N. Bredillet in a six part series published in Project Management Journal. This
report helps to identify the context of the project management research agenda in the six part
series. The systematic methodology is better than the unstructured methodology. The most
important development in project management in recent years has been the emergence of a
new class of projects, in areas like the information technology and organisational change,
long term service delivery for public and the integrated business solutions. Moreover, the
objective of the report is to identify the various perspectives in the research agenda. The other
aims of the report are to identify the procedure of the development of the research agenda
literature and to critically analyze of the research agenda.
Key Words
Six keywords: project success factors, project success criteria, exploring research in
project management, knowledge, research, and competence.

2
CRITICAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH AGENDA
Table of Contents
Introduction....................................................................................................................3
Discussion......................................................................................................................4
1. Identification of the context of the project management research agenda.............4
2. Identification of different perspectives in this research agenda.............................4
3. Identification of the development of research agenda literature............................6
4. Critical analysis for research agenda....................................................................10
5. Lessons and limitations........................................................................................11
Conclusion....................................................................................................................11
References....................................................................................................................12

3
CRITICAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH AGENDA
Introduction
Project management is the guideline for the planning, initiation, control, execution,
and closing of the work for any particular team for the achievement of the distinct objectives
and goals and thus meeting the specific success criteria within a specific time period
(Bredillet 2008). A project is the temporary attempt that is designed for the production of a
unique service, product or result that has a definite start and ending point. The main
challenge of the project management is to attain the objectives and goals within the provided
constraints of the project (Burke 2013). The information of the project management is
normally described in the documentation of the project that is being created at the starting of
the process of development. The primary or the main constraints of a project are time, scope,
budget and quality (Kerzner 2013). The secondary constraints of the project include the
probable challenges or problems for the optimization of the allocation of the required inputs
and the applying them for reaching the previously defined objectives. The object of the
project management is for producing a completed project that complies with the objectives of
the clients. Projects are executed by several organizations or businesses (Larson and Gray
2013). The management of the production of the projects is done by the discipline known as
project management.
The following report outlines a brief description about the six articles of project
management by Christophe N. Bredillet. This report helps to understand the overall review of
the six papers of project management by Christophe N. Bredillet. The report identifies the
context of the project management research agenda and the different perspectives and the
development of the research agenda literature.

4
CRITICAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH AGENDA
Discussion
1. Identification of the context of the project management research agenda
Comparison and Discussion of Six Papers in a series by Christophe N. Bredillet published
in Project Management Journal
Modern project management initiated as an subsidiary of operations research, with the
adoption of techniques of optimization, developed in that field, however has subsequently
widened so that at least the nine schools of thought in project management can be easily
identified (Bredillet 2008). For supporting these particular developments, the project
management research community requires to be a complete and recognized part of the
academic community in management, so that academics in the subject can receive complete
recognition for their work and the others are encouraged to track research in the specific
related areas (Unger et al. 2012).
2. Identification of different perspectives in this research agenda.
Nine Different Perspectives
There are nine different perspectives used in the research agenda. They are as follows:
i) Optimization School: Modern project management has the roots in the field of the
operations research of the 1940s and 1950s (Bredillet 2008). Optimization tools like the
techniques of network scheduling that includes the critical path methods or CPM and
program evaluation and review technique or PERT. Both of these reflect the genesis of the
modern project management in the management science or in decision sciences field.
ii) Modelling School: Modern project management thoughts progressed from the
optimization of one or two objectives like cost and time to modelling of the entire system of
project management and also the interactions among the components of the system.

5
CRITICAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH AGENDA
iii) Governance School: The governance school had two bursts of activities (Bredillet
2008). The first burst of activity investigated about the relationship between the project
management and contract management, whereas the second burst of activity looked at the
procedures of governance on a particular project and in an organization that is project
oriented.
iv) Behaviour School: The behaviour school is apparently associated with the
governance school and it takes as its premise that the project as a temporary organization is a
social system, and it includes various areas that are focused on organizational behaviour or
OB, communication, team building and leadership, and recently HRM or human resource
management.
v) Success School: The success school focuses on the success and failure of the
project. Project success literature describes two main and important components of project
success (Bredillet 2008). They are as follows:
a) Project success factors: The elements of a project that can be influenced to increase
the likelihood of success; the independent variables that make success more likely.
b) Project success criteria: The measures by which the successful outcome of a project
is judged is known as project success criteria.
vi) Decision School: This particular school focuses on the factors that are relevant to
the initiation, approval, and funding of projects, as well as factors relevant to project
completion, termination, and conclusions about their success or failure (Bredillet 2008). This
approach addresses economic, cultural, and political rules that cause investments in projects.

6
CRITICAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH AGENDA
vii) Process School: This school became popular in the late 1980s, particularly in
Europe (Bredillet 2008). The focus is on defining structured processes from the conceptual
start of the project to achieving the end objectives.
viii) Contingency School: This school recognizes the difference between different
types of projects and project organizations, considers the approaches most suitable for
various project settings, and adapts project management processes to the needs of the project
(Bredillet 2008). It stresses that every project is different, and so the management approach
and leadership style adopted need to be adapted to the needs of the project.
ix) Marketing School: This school focuses on the management of early phases of
projects, identification of stakeholders and client needs, stakeholder management, formation
of project organizations, interactions between clients and contractors, and internal marketing
of the project to the organization (Bredillet 2008).
3. Identification of the development of research agenda literature.
Development of Research Agenda Literature
The European Academy of Management or EURAM has had a significant track on
the project management at all of the seven of its conferences that started from 2001 (Leach
2014). The practice of management, the academic community, and the world economy would
be more enriched if project management were taken more seriously (Turner 2016).
Methodologies for the Literature Review Process
The first methodology is an unstructured and explorative search of the literature about
all the alternatives to the classical view initiated this study (Todorović et al. 2015). It is
discovered that the rethinking initiative in the United Kingdom early on in the initial process.
The knowledge about the process in United Kingdom is sought out, as well as all the other

7
CRITICAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH AGENDA
ways to rethink about project management, in an explorative fashion that provided everybody
with knowledge about the field and a foundation for further studies (Bredillet 2008). Through
the initial process, it is found twenty six different articles, textbooks, and many more to be
relevant, offering new alternative perspectives and new insights into the traditional approach
(Walker 2015). Productive research normally address the factors affecting the first estimates
of time and cost that is needed for the accomplishment of the project objectives to the level of
the expected quality and the methods for handling deliberately optimistic estimates and
improvement of such estimates. The Journal of Management does not have project
management as one of its subject areas, although it does have technology management and
the operations management (Unger et al. 2012). This particular unstructured literature review
sometimes becomes a major problem, as it does not follow a proper and a structured pattern.
The second methodology is the framework for the structured literature review
(Nicholas and Steyn 2017). This is a more systematic and structured approach than the
unstructured and explorative literature review. This type of literature review requires an
explicit research method, which utilizes literature as the input. This does not utilize
questionnaire, interviews or observations as the inputs (Martinelli and Milosevic 2016).
There are certain steps for this particular approach. The steps for this method are as follows:
i) Planning of the Review: The review is planned in the first step, as without this
planning it is impossible to complete this methodology.
ii) Clarification of the Scope: The second step of this systematic methodology is the
clarification of the scope and the conceptualization of the topic.
iii) Searching, Evaluation and Selection of the Review: The literature review is
searched, evaluated and selected in the third step of the systematic methodology (Larson and
Gray 2013).

8
CRITICAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH AGENDA
iv) Analysis of the Selected Literature Review: Once the literature review is selected,
the review is analyzed in the fourth step of the systematic methodology.
v) Reporting and Disseminating: Finally, in the fifth or the last step of the systematic
methodology, the reporting and the disseminating is done.
This particular methodology is extremely useful and beneficial as it follows a proper
and systematic structure or pattern for the literature review. There are eventually four typical
phases that is utilized in the structured literature review (Bredillet 2008). Although it is
possible to separate the phases analytically, the actual research process was iterative, however
is still presented in a structured manner. The four phases of the structured literature review
are as follows:
Phase 1: This review scope is normally focused on the outcomes of the research study
and the theories of the rethinking literature (Fleming and Koppelman 2016). The coverage of
the systematic literature review was more comprehensive with the purpose of the inclusion of
the most of the literature within the scope that is defined.
Phase 2: It is possible to describe the literature of the project management as either
classical project management or rethinking project management (Bredillet 2008). However,
these two mentioned categories are not all inclusive and monolithic. The intention of the
present review is for presenting the assessment of the alternative perspectives, which are
emerged for the rethinking project management in the United Kingdom (Todorović et al.
2015). For this reason, the outset of the current study was the identification of key terms and
topics from the United Kingdom study that could be utilized in further search processes
(Nicholas and Steyn 2017). Initially, the major concepts are decided. The major concepts that
are decided include rethinking project management and reinventing project management.

9
CRITICAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH AGENDA
Phase 3: In the second phase, the objective was the creation of the search process,
which would encompass the literature from the initial search process in the phase one and
capture the appropriate literature (Fleming and Koppelman 2016). Eventually, the proper and
the significant search strings are identified through the initial study. This initial study was a
highly iterative process. The first inclusion of the third phase is the core of the
conceptualization of the rethinking project management is the United Kingdom based
network initiative that is documented in the special problem on rethinking project
management (Martinelli and Milosevic 2016). The second inclusion of the third phase is the
next area that share several ideas with the initiative of United Kingdom like the broader
conceptualization beyond simple execution and seeing the projects as temporary
organizations that are embedded in wider environments and in the permanent organizations
(Walker 2015). This area includes various papers taking temporary organizations as their
outset. The third inclusion of the third phase is the projects as practice papers. These papers
are included as they make on the actuality of the theme of the projects from the initiative of
United Kingdom (Bredillet 2008). There is a high criticism between classical project
management and rethinking project management thinking; although there are some writings
that rethinking project management is better amongst the two.
Phase 4: The analysis of the literature review is divided into two coding processes
(Hill 2013). At first, the inductive analysis is being conducted with the objective of the
identification of the overarching of the topics and then gradually categorizing each
contribution within one of the associated categories. Six categories are identified in this
process (Mir and Pinnington 2014). Although some contributions touched upon different
categories, each contribution was only associated with the main category of the contribution.

10
CRITICAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH AGENDA
4. Critical analysis for research agenda
The six papers by Christophe N. Bredillet demonstrate that project management is the
developing field for academic study in management of substantial richness and diversity that
can create a valuable contribution to the development of management knowledge, as well as
being of considerable economic importance (Leach 2014). The six papers review the
considerable development and trends of research in the subject that has been categorized into
nine major schools of thought like optimization, modelling, governance, behaviour, success,
decision, process, contingency, and marketing (Fleming and Koppelman 2016).
According to Blomquist et al. (2010), research on any project is not only an immature
field of research, however, it is also frail when it comes to understanding what occurs in
projects. The authors have contributed to make project management research matter to the
academic as well as to the practitioner by developing a project as practice approach, in
alignment with the ongoing debate in social science research.
According to Svejvig and Andersen (2015), the results of a structured review of the
rethinking project management or RPM literature based on the classification and analysis of
74 contributions and in addition take a critical look at the new world.
Winter et al. (2006), tells about the story of a UK Government-funded research
network called Rethinking Project Management, funded by the Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council between 2004 and 2006.
Winter et al. (2006) state that an important development in project management in
recent years has been the emergence of a new class of projects, in areas such as
organisational change and IT, integrated business solutions, and long-term public service
delivery.

11
CRITICAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH AGENDA
According to Packendorff (1995), the theoretical field of project management (PM)
can be described as a set of models and techniques for the planning and control of complex
undertakings.
5. Lessons and limitations
The six papers or articles have proved that project management helps in achieving the
objectives and goals of an organization. The main limitation of these six papers includes the
unstructured methodology of literature review. This particular type of methodology becomes
a major problem for any specific organization or school as mentioned.
Conclusion
Therefore, from the above discussion it can be concluded that project management is
the method for attaining the goals or objectives of an organization. The theoretical field of
project management or PM can be described as the set of techniques and models and for the
planning and control of the complex undertakings. Projects have become a significant way
for structuring work in most organizations and constituting one of the most significant
organizational developments. First, rethinking project management or RPM is a diverse
research area and a literature review can offer useful input to the conceptualization of the
rethinking project management concept by establishing a more integrated view and setting
boundaries. Second, an understanding of the development of rethinking project management
over time makes it possible to elucidate rethinking project management with all its sub
versions from a broader historical perspective, enabling us to see how the components of the
current stock were added and basically how one can arrive at the current situation. The above
report provides a brief description about the six articles by Christophe N. Bredillet. The
report critically reviews the six articles. A brief description about the various methodologies
is also provided in the report.