Comprehensive Literature Review on Project Management Approaches

This literature review delves into the multifaceted realm of project management, examining the evolution of practices and perspectives. It critiques the traditional Corporate Performance Management (CPM) approach, highlighting its limitations in addressing the complexities of modern projects and their environments. The review explores alternative methodologies, including systems thinking and self-organization theory, which offer frameworks for managing multiple projects and adapting to dynamic contexts. It emphasizes the importance of considering social and behavioral aspects, such as emotional intelligence and social learning within project teams. The document also discusses the need for continuous professional development and the acquisition of skills beyond technical expertise to navigate the complexities and uncertainties inherent in modern project environments. The review concludes by emphasizing the need for empirical investigation to validate the effectiveness of these new methods and approaches.

Literature review on project management
Introduction
This is a literature review on the practices of project management which explores a part of the
current debates about the subject. It was conducted using an explorative and unstructured method
of review which explored the project management process by studying different textbooks and
articles on project management that offered different insights and perspectives on the discipline.
The purpose of the review is to identify different perspectives that exist on the practice of project
management.
Literature Review
Over the past decades, new perspectives on project management have emerged thanks to the
introduction of new tools, methods, and practices that move beyond the traditional Corporate
Perfomance Management (CPM) thinking. The traditional approaches to project management have
been broadly criticized by researchers who felt that CPM is an incomplete and insufficient method as
it lacks the level of detail required (Svejvig & Andersen, 2015).
Complexity of projects and the complexity of their environment are part of the main arguments that
call for rethinking traditional project management. This rethinking has shifted the perspectives from
single project exploration in isolation to the management of multiple projects.
Aretha et al. (2009) has argued that a multiple project environment presents challenges that is very
different from the single project management challenges (Aretha, et al., 2009). He used the
complexity theory in order to understand the multi-project environment and identified it as a
combination of complex adaptive systems. Mayor et al. (2006) reflected on the programs and
portfolios that can be seen as mechanisms for managing projects in organization. According to him,
they create different issues than those in a single project face (Jones, et al., 2011). Thus, there is a
need that a project manager and his team must obtain transferable project management skills
Leybourne (2007) describes a perspective which sees project management as an open value system
that focuses on social and political aspects rather than on the tools and procedures (Leybourne,
2010). These social and behavioural considerations have expanded the discipline of project
management. Clarke (2010) explored the impact of emotions on the behaviour and decisions of a
project manager with respect to projects (Clarke, 2008). His empirical study showed that emotional
intelligence has a direct posititve effect on the success of projects. Sense (2009) focused on the
social learning that is obtained by a project team during projects, showing that this can help to build
a learning culture and organisational learning, both positively impacting a companies’ success
(Sense, 2009). Small and Walker (2010) state that the social complexities on a project are created
from the human plurality and thus, the project management strategy used must follow a continual
adaptation to be able to respond to the changes in power and political scenarios on projects (Small
& Walker, 2010).

Over the last decades, alternative methods, approaches and perspectives have been identified that
allow practitioners to rethink on the traditional project management practice. This helps them to
better cope with the complexities and uncertainties during projects. Berggren and Söderlund (2008)
identified how education practices have affected the knowledge and production capacities of project
managers (Berggren & Söderlund, 2008). According to Louw and Rwelamila (2012), project managers
can be linked with the reflective partitions that emerge from educational institutes (Louw &
Rwelamila, 2012). Sewchurran (2008) supported the view by presenting an alternative model that
focuses on the education side of the discipline and explored the reflective practices through
improvisation and contingencies (Sewchurran & Barron, 2008). Crawford et al. (2006) suggested that
the increasing complexities on projects demand more education (Crawford & Brown, 2009) and
practitioners who are willing to explore new theories on project management to acquire new skills
that include more than just the technical skills (Sankaran, et al., 2010).
Thomas and Mengel (2008) stressed on the importance to be able handling complexity and
uncertainty in the modern project environments (Thomas & Mengel, 2008). Thus, he suggested that
newer forms of professional development are required to prepare and educate project managers to
deal with such complexities. According to Kreiner (2002), a project manager needs to be prepared to
adapt plans in a changing environment (Kreiner, 2002). Supporting this view, Leybourne (2010)
suggests that companies must provide the freedom to their project managers (Leybourne, 2010) for
experimenting through unstructured practices and task management methods (Sherrer, 2010).
Most researchers are convinced that despite a vast exploration of traditional project management
practices, very little has been explored about the actualities of project management. Subsequently,
empirical investigation is needed in order to understand modern project management practices.
Arguments have also been presented on whether the traditional practices have diverted from the
models and concepts. There is very limited empirical investigation done on the practice of project
management. Thus, more exploration is needed as the field is only broadening crossing its current
limits and perspectives that are present currently (Dana, 2014).
With these explorations and added perspectives of multiple project management researchers, some
new models and theories have emerged in the recent past including evolutionary management and
self-organization and systems thinking.
Self-organization Theory: This theory sees projects as a self organized concept which exists in nature
with a tendency of growth and evolution. The growth is influenced by interactions between people,
where for example new functions can emerge leading to self-organization. These self-organized
systems have energy channels that enables both energy and information to flow in order to grow
through a feedback loop (Hoda, 2011). The process of self-organization can be seen as a combination
of positive and negative feedbacks that expand the horizons of knowledge. These feedbacks can be
obtained from external parties or internal stakeholders. For example, approval and acceptance from
external parties are positive feedbacks while rejection of criticism from them are negative feedbacks.
Similarly, assertiveness and compassion within internal teams have signals of positivity while lack of
confidence and disinterest in them would reflect negative feedback. Thus, these feedback cycles are
important to study, in particular when it is about understanding the evolution of project
management (Blois, 2013)

Systems thinking: System thinking makes it possible to manage the complexities and issues in
modern project scenarios through identification of different elements that exist in a multiproject
environment. It begins with the understanding of a problem solving process in which project
managers have to explore problems to identify their core and the behavior patterns that are
affecting project efficiencies. System thinking is a holistic approach to problem solving that builds on
the network of interactions, role plays, and approaches to creativity and adaption in the project
teams (Kopczyński & Brzozowsk, 2015).
Conclusion
The traditional project management approaches like CPM have been criticized by researchers as
they lack the level of detail and new perspectives have emerged with introduction of new tools,
methods, and practices. Among the main arguments to rethink traditional project management is
the fact that complexity of projects and the complexity of their environments are much higher
nowadays then ten or twenty years back, when a lot of research was done in the field of project
management.
Several debates can been observed with different new approaches being presented and discussed.
For example, some researchers believe in systems thinking which is a holistic approach to problem
solving while others focus on the self-organizing concept during projects. The literature review made
clear that further investigations are needed on how these new methods can help resolve problems
usually faced by traditional methods. If evidences can be obtained on these efficiencies then the
debate can make a big step forward as researchers begin to prove the superiority of new methods.
References
Aretha, D., Panteli, E. S., Kiekkas, P. & Karanikolas, M., 2009. Patient and/or family controlled
palliative sedation with midazolam for intractable symptom control: a case series. BioMed Central,
2(136), pp. 1-4.
Berggren, C. & Söderlund, J., 2008. Rethinking project management education.. International Journal
of Project Management., Volume 26, pp. 286-296.
Blois, 2013. The "self-organizing" project": a "systemic" view of the design and project processes, s.l.:
Systematic Designs.
Clarke, N., 2008. Projects are emotional: How project managers' emotional awareness can influence
decisions and behaviours in projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 3(4),
pp. 604-624.
Crawford, P. & Brown, B., 2009. Mental Health communicatios between service users and
professionals. Mental Health Review Journal, 14(3), pp. 30-39.
Dana, J., 2014. Chaos Theory in Project Management , s.l.: Masaryk University.

Hoda, R., 2011. Self-Organizing Agile Teams: A Grounded Theory, s.l.: Victoria University of
Wellington.
Jones, A. M. et al., 2011. The Impact of Arabidopsis on Human Health: Diversifying Our Portfolio.
NCBI, Volume 133-136, p. 939–943..
Kopczyński, T. & Brzozowsk, M., 2015. Systems thinking in project management: theoretical
framework and empirical evidence from Polish companies, s.l.: Poznan University of Economics, .
Kreiner, K., 2002. Tacit knowledge management: the role of artifacts. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 6(2), pp. 112-123.
Leybourne, S., 2010. Project management and high-value superyacht projects: an improvisational
and temporal perspective.. Proj. Manag. J. , Volume 41, p. 17–27..
Louw, T. & Rwelamila, P. D., 2012. Managing Projects in Africa. Project Management Journal, 43(4),
pp. 2-85.
Sankaran, S., Haslett, T. & Sheffield, J., 2010. Systems thinking approaches to address complex issues
in project management. Asia Pacific, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, PMI® Global Congress.
Saynisch, M., 2010. Beyond frontiers of traditional project management. Project Management
Journal, 41(2), pp. 21-37.
Sense, A. J., 2009. The social learning character of projects and project teams. International Journal
of Knowledge Management Studies, 3(4), pp. 195-208.
Sewchurran, K. & Barron, M., 2008. An investigation into successfully managing and sustaining the
project sponsor–project manager relationship using soft systems methodology. Project Management
Journal, 39(S1), p. S56–S68.
Sherrer, J. A., 2010. A PROJECT MANAGER'S GUIDE TO SYSTEMS THINKING, s.l.: Projectsmart.
Small, J. & Walker, D., 2010. Providing structural openness to connect with context: Seeing the
project entity as a human activity system and social process. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, 4(3), pp. 389-411.
Svejvig, P. & Andersen, P., 2015. Rethinking project management: A structured literature review with
a critical look at the brave new world. International Journal of Project Management, Volume 33, p.
278–290.
Thomas, J. & Mengel, T., 2008. Preparing project managers to deal with complexity–Advanced
project management education, s.l.: Research Gate.