Rethinking Organizational Design For Managing Multiple Projects

JPMA-02043; No of Pages 15
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
International Journal of Project Management xx (2017) xxx – xxx
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman
Rethinking organizational design for managing multiple projects

Monique Aubry a,⁎, Mélanie Lavoie-Tremblay b
a
School of Business and Management, Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada
b
School of Nursing, McGill University, Canada
Received 7 February 2017; received in revised form 24 May 2017; accepted 31 May 2017
Abstract
This paper aims at positioning organizational design as an important phenomenon in the field of project management with a high potential of
contributing to organizational theory. While organizational design has been neglected by scholars of management and organizational theory, it has
been of great interest to those from the project management field. This incongruence—comprising the focus of this study—calls for new insights
on theorization in context. The paper provides a preliminary theoretical framework combining contingency theory, the historical approach and
social theory to understand organizational design, both as a thing and as a process. It provides empirical evidence from three case studies in
healthcare. Findings confirm the specificity of each design while at the same time adopting a similar temporal pattern. We take this opportunity to
highlight the seminal work of Rodney Turner on project-based organization and design.
Executive summary: In this day and age, it is commonplace to assert that organizations are complex and that they change continuously over time.
The complexity is said to exist, for example, in large organizations dealing with multiple competing projects while at the same time performing
their regular operations. The concept of organizational design refers to both the resulting organization (the thing) and the process of performing the
design. The field of project management has made many theoretical contributions to organizational design; yet it has also created confusion by
introducing a plurality of terms for describing and understanding such organizations.
Organizational design is increasingly a topic in the literature from management and organizational theory and, especially, from project
management. A review of the literature from both fields demonstrates that contingency theory is still considered as a major theoretical foundation
for situating the organization within its context. The review also points to an increasing interest in social perspectives taking into account politics,
organizational dynamics, paradoxes and pluralism. In addition, it shows an opportunity for scholars in project management to contribute to
management and organizational theory.
This research proposes a pluralist theoretical framework for tackling contingency theory with the historical approach and social theory.
The empirical setting is comprised of complex large organizations—in this case, three university hospitals engaged in major organizational
transformations—that are challenged to pursue their regular operations while undertaking multiple completing projects. Interestingly, the three
hospitals are from the same geographical region. The organizational design was thus a crucial question and, in light of the complexity, no one-size-
fits-all type of solution was strived for.
Results confirmed the prevalence of individual organizational design rather than mimetism, or homogenization, between the three hospitals.
Being in the same region, the heads of the respective project management offices met on a number of occasions to exchange about their challenges
and solutions. Nevertheless, in the end each hospital made an individual decision regarding its organizational design.
The study also identified organizational design as an ongoing process, introducing the concept of trajectory to illustrate how projects and
organizational design change over time. In doing so, we observed a pattern where reflection and sense-making took place before engaging in any
specific decision regarding the organizational design.
The theoretical contribution of this research is to demonstrate the potential of pluralist theoretical frameworks for understanding complex
phenomena such as organizational design in the context of managing multiple projects. More specifically, the process view of organizational
design was found to reveal new insights that would have remained hidden otherwise.
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Aubry), [email protected] (M. Lavoie-Tremblay).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.012
0263-7863/00 © 2017 Elsevier Ltd, APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: M. Aubry, M. Lavoie-Tremblay, 2017. Rethinking organizational design for managing multiple projects, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.012
2 M. Aubry, M. Lavoie-Tremblay / International Journal of Project Management xx (2017) xxx–xxx
From a practical view, our research challenges certain utopian assumptions regarding the stability and replicability of a one-size-fits-all model
in organizational design. Instead, we recommend developing an in-depth understanding of an organization's specific context by means of sense-
making activities. The latter should be performed in an ongoing approach to ensure that the organizational design evolves in keeping with its
environment.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd, APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Organizational design; Project organizing; Project management office; Organizational project management; Organizational transformation; Healthcare;
Qualitative research
1. Introduction granted and, therefore, not addressed. For example, DeFillippi

and Sydow (2016) suggested the four Rs—Responsibilities,
“How can I organize my business unit so that it delivers the Routines, Roles and Relations—as governance mechanisms in
projects I have in my portfolio?” This is a common question project networks, albeit they say nothing about how these
from decision-makers in the corporate world. In academia, this mechanisms are to be brought together in multiple competing
question is examined as part of a research field dedicated to this networks. Third, these project management scholars missed
topic of organizational design. The task is certainly not easy out on the opportunity to engage in the debate of organizational
in complex organizations, where hierarchy and projects cohabit design within the management and organizational theory
(Pettigrew et al., 2003) in multiple layers of power and field. Finally, very little has been done to provide solutions
networks (Clegg et al., 2006). Moreover, such organizations to managers facing the challenges of organizing projects as a
are more likely to be impermanent (Weick, 2009) and are best whole.
understood as being in continuous movement (Hernes, 2014). Borrowing the terms tall and flat ontologies, namely from
Organizational design is defined as a field that studies “how Seidl and Whittington (2014), we propose adopting a tall view to
to organize people and resources in order to collectively understanding organizational design as a larger social phenom-
accomplish desired ends” (Greenwood and Miller, 2010, p. 78). enon. In that sense, we ask the following research question:
In this paper, we are interested in organizational design for the “How is organizational design performed in the management of
management of multiple competing projects in large organiza- multiple projects?” In answering this research question, we also
tions. Our assumption is that this type of organizational design aspire to revive the field of organizational design. Overall, the
constitutes a phenomenon distinctive from the design of the field of organizational design has been informed by the seminal
overall organization (e.g., Greenwood and Miller, 2010; Van de works of Galbraith (1977, 1995, 2002, 2010), Mintzberg (1979,
Ven et al., 2013) or of single projects (e.g., Eppinger, 2001; 1989), Miller and Friesen (1984) and more recently Pettigrew
Shenhar and Dvir, 1996). (Pettigrew and Fenton, 2000; Pettigrew et al., 2003). While these
A number of scholars from the field of project management continue to be valid and legitimate foundations for organizational
have already studied organizational design in different contexts, design, the field is in need of a renewal if it is to be able to face the
albeit not, until recently, referring to the concept of organiza- challenge of more complex organizational forms, as underscored
tional design. Among the contexts examined were: P-form by Greenwood and Miller (2010): “[…] we restate the importance
organization (Söderlund and Tell, 2009); project-based organi- of organization design highlighting the relatively recent emer-
zation (Bakker, 2010; Miterev et al., 2017); project portfolio gence of highly complex organizational forms and the intimidat-
(Kopmann et al., 2015; Unger et al., 2012); project business ing challenges confronting the would-be researcher.” To engage
(Artto and Wikstrom, 2005); megaprojects (Miller and Hobbs, in such a theoretical renewal, we adopted a pluralist theoretical
2005); governance (Müller and Lecoeuvre, 2015); project framework (e.g., Denis et al., 2007) combining contingency
networks (DeFillippi and Sydow, 2016); global projects theory, the historical approach and social theories. Finally, of all
(Turkulainen et al., 2013); and project management offices the different types of research fields in management, we consider
(PMOs) (Artto et al., 2011; Aubry et al., 2007). While each of project management to be in the best, or the most promising,
these individual facets is primordial to the understanding of the position to bring about this renewal of the dynamic of the field,
management of projects, this approach entails the following since it is already exploring various contexts of organizational
problems. First, these researches fail to address the wider design.
concept of organizational design. Each study brings piecemeal This paper is part of a research program conducted over a
parts which are then difficult to integrate into a coherent and period of four years in three university hospitals where major
comprehensive perspective. Very few scholars have proposed investments had been authorized for the redeployment of their
to build a coherent integrative framework on these facets, services (see Acknowledgments). The focus of that program
with the exception of Winch (2014) on project organizing and was on the “people” side of such investments and not their
Aubry et al. (2012) on organizational project management. construction, information systems or technology aspects. The
The consequence of such a fragmentation of the field is the research methodology followed a qualitative approach mainly
difficulty to develop a solid theoretical foundation. Second, in based on interviews, and the research activities took place as
many cases, the organizational design of projects is taken for the project was unfolding.
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.012
M. Aubry, M. Lavoie-Tremblay / International Journal of Project Management xx (2017) xxx–xxx 3
The main contribution of this paper is to emphasize the theories towards theoretical pluralism. Within the historical
project management perspective within the management and approach, organizational design is presented as a universal
organization debate on organizational design. It attempts to form of bureaucracy (Weber, 1947) or as multi-divisional
renew the conceptual understanding of organizational design (Chandler, 1962). In this approach, organizational design pursues
within process studies. The three empirical settings underlying one unified ideal. Contingency theory, by contrast, introduces
organizational transformation projects are indicative of how differentiation to organizational design based on specific
organizational design is performed. For professionals, this paper variables (e.g., size) or contexts (e.g., innovation). Moreover, it
introduces the non-technical aspects of organizational design, spans from a quest for ideal types (Burns and Stalker, 1961) to a
including the slower, more reflexive approach in contrast to the recognition of a limited number of configurations with internal
search for cut-and-paste solutions with immediate impact. coherence (Miller and Friesen, 1984). We also observe a change
The paper is organized as follows. The literature review covers in this theory regarding its view of organizational design, namely
organizational design first in the management and organization from a deterministic view based on identifiable variables to an
literature and then in the literature from the project management in-depth understanding of context including social and political
field. The research question is then presented, followed by a aspects. The identification of variables has allowed for the
theoretical framework elaborated from the combination of three development of simulation software (e.g., Burton and Obel,
approaches. The methodology presents the qualitative approach, 1980) that can be used to transform organizational design from a
allowing for a rich account of three case studies. Findings from resulting structure (e.g., a thing) to one that includes the process.
intra- and inter-case analyses are then presented. These finding More recently, scholars of organizational design have begun
are subsequently discussed, followed by a conclusion. recognizing the complexity of the task by adopting theoretical
pluralism (Denis et al., 2007).
2. Literature review
2.2. Organizing for projects
Literature on organizational design is quite abundant in
management and organization as well as in the field of project Before engaging further in the literature review on organiza-
management. Table 1 presents a synthesis of this literature by tional design in the field of project management, we specify the
classifying it into three main theoretical approaches—contingency scope of this paper based on two dimensions: the level of analysis
theory, historical approach and social theories—and theoretical and the specificity of the view. The level of analysis is that of
pluralism. In this review, we are interested in how these different organizational project management, which comprises the overall
theoretical approaches have contributed to understand organiza- components essential to the management of projects (Aubry et al.,
tional design. 2007; Sankaran et al., 2017). Organizational project management
Overall, contingency theory proved to be the main theoretical differs from the organizational level in that it covers the entire
lens, and continues to be so in more recent research as well organization, including all its operations and projects; thus, it
(Fenton and Pettigrew, 2000; Miller, 2017; Van de Ven et al., goes well beyond the management of an individual project.
2013). However, we also observed emerging research streams Organizational design is present at these three levels (organization,
that support different theorizations of what we now observe in organizational project management, and projects). In this research,
complex organizations where the social aspects are prevalent we focus on organizational project management, and more
(e.g., Clegg et al., 2006). We also found that the organizational and particularly on organizational design (see Fig. 1).
management literature as well as project management literature The literature review on organizational design for managing
resorted to theoretical pluralism to address the complexity and projects is integrated in Table 1. We can observe that this
variety of organizational design. literature somehow found its inspiration from the literature on
management and organization. Scranton (2015), building on
2.1. Organizational design in organizational theory the historical practice of business history, looked at projects and
short-term actions. Instead of a universal organizational form,
The term organizational design is associated with several he observed “major dislocations for many industrial world
other terms that have been used almost synonymously, such as companies and workers” (p. 8). Project management scholars
structure (e.g., Chandler, 1962; Galbraith, 1995; Miles and heavily contributed to organizational design in contingency
Snow, 1978) or architecture (e.g., Nadler and Tushman, 2003). theory. They studied different facets of organizational design,
More recently, under the influence of the research stream first as determined by a limited number of variables and then
examining the constant transformation of organizations, action as evolving towards a process taking into account rich and
verbs have been preferred over nouns, giving rise to a process diversified contexts. It is in this research stream that a variety
view centered on the act of organizing and structuring of terms has been suggested to identify organizations managing
(Pettigrew et al., 2003; Weick, 2009). In this paper, we chose multiple projects, among them those conducted in P-form,
to use the term organizational design, as it includes both the project-based, project-oriented, multi-project firm and project-led
noun and the action verb de-sign, meaning to create, fashion or contexts. Transaction cost economic theory has served as a
execute according to plan (Merriam-Webster, 2007). foundation to explain governance decisions. Among the key
As we can observe from Table 1, since the 1960s the evolution contributions of this stream is the seminal work done by Turner
of research in organizational design evolved from individual and Keegan (Keegan and Turner, 2002; Turner and Keegan, 1998,
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.012
4
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.012
M. Aubry, M. Lavoie-Tremblay / International Journal of Project Management xx (2017) xxx–xxx

Table 1
Synthesis of the literature inspired by organizational design.
From management and organizational literature From project management literature
Global theoretical Organizational design as … Key question/Contribution Representative authors Key question/Contribution Representative authors
approach
Historical approach … fixed result History of organizations arguing for universal Chandler (1962), Weber (1947) History of individual organization to describe Scranton (2015)
organizational form: bureaucracy and and explain the resulting organizational
multidivisional to developing a model of design and the dynamic process.
organizational behavior designed to control
the activities of members.
Contingency … determined by a number To develop a generalized typology of Burns and Stalker (1961), Matrix type of organization: question of Hobbs and Aubry (2011),
of specific and identifiable organizational forms either as ideal types or as Donaldson (2001), Lawrence and how to organize projects in matrix type of Hobbs and Ménard (1993),
variables variables for modeling organizations. Lorsch (1967), Stinchcombe organizations based on a limited number of Larson (2004)
(1959), Woodward (1965), variables; search for ideal type of PMO
… determined by a number Identification of the components of Burton et al. (2015), Galbraith
of specific and identifiable organizational design and recognition of the (1977)
variables and internal information processing view of the
processes organization.
… determined by a number Development of simulation based on Burton and Obel (1980), Burton
of specific and identifiable micro-contingency; and managerial software et al. (2015); Levitt et al. (1999)
variables toolkit for organizational design based on
multiple contingencies.
… determined by Industrial economics: transaction cost Williamson (1975) Economic theory: transaction cost Müller et al. (2016), Turner
transaction costs theory as an approach to establish internal, understanding of governance mechanisms for and Keegan (1998), Turner
external or hybrid organizational functions. project-based organizations. Ethics is put in and Keegan (2001), Turner
relation with this economic perspective and Müller (2003), Winch
through the governance structure. (2014)
… process to develop an Refutation of contingency theory as a Miller and Friesen (1984), Diversity of situations: Overall context Engwall (2003), Hobday
in-depth understanding of limited number of variables to explain the Mintzberg (1979) (including history of the organization) has (2000), Lampel and Jha
organization variety found. Development of the (2004)
From management and organizational literature From project management literature
Global theoretical Organizational design as … Key question/Contribution Representative authors Key question/Contribution Representative authors
approach
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.012
configurational approach as few types with priority over individual variables. Some
internal coherence. generic configurations are identified.
P-form, project-based or project-oriented Cattani et al. (2011), Huemann
organizations, multi-project firms. (2010), Geraldi (2008),
Project management capabilities in Söderlund and Tell (2009).
project-based organization and in relation to
permanent functions
Social theories … process to take the Post-bureaucratic: Hierarchy still there; Clegg (2012), Clegg et al. Power and politics are always part of a Flyvbjerg (2001), Miller and
political system into account; making power system part of organizational (2006) governance structure and its evolution in large Lessard (2000)
control and power. design. organizations and major projects.
M. Aubry, M. Lavoie-Tremblay / International Journal of Project Management xx (2017) xxx–xxx

… process to integrate actors Network (N-form) of organization for Burt (1978), Hedlund (1994), Networks are understood as a type of Bresnen et al. (2005),
and knowledge as key innovation where knowledge plays a crucial Granovetter (1992), Powell governance with its specific mechanisms. DeFillippi (2001), DeFillippi
components role: In networked organizations, how to (1990) Given the network-like structure in and Sydow (2016), Müller
make knowledge connection in project-based organizations, new knowledge et al. (2013)
archipelagos. mechanisms are developed based on situated
learning and reflective practices.
… process dynamically Complementarities and process view of Pettigrew et al. (2003), Projects follow a strategy. Aubry et al. (2012), Morris
bridging strategy and structure strategizing/structuring for innovation. Pettigrew and Fenton (2000) Competing values in the contribution of and Jamieson (2004)
and diversity of PMOs to the organizational performance.
forms within organizations
Theoretical pluralism … process taking into Given the complexity of organizational designs Greenwood and Miller (2010), Tensions and paradoxes in organizational Aubry et al. (2014), DeFillippi
account pluralist context today, using theories in concert: contingency, Van de Ven et al. (2013) design leading to frequent changes. and Arthur (1998), Müller
resource-based view and institutional theory; or Governance structure. This perspective admits (2017)
complexity, creative organizational design. the coexistence of competing views on
governance in a continuum of, on the one hand,
maximizing the utility of agency and, on the
other hand, governance being a cooperative
approach between multiple stakeholders.
5
Fig. 1. Scope of this research: level of analysis and specific view.
2000, 2001) on project-based organization and governance.

Regarding the organizational design, Turner and Keegan's key Fig. 2. Theoretical framework for organizing and organizational design.
contributions are: 1) versatility of governance and operational
control in project-based organization; and 2) the identification of
new social roles of the broker and steward. As a complement to Contingency theory explains how certain organizational forms
governance, transaction cost theory has been useful to explain or dimensions are more susceptible to be associated with superior
ethics in relation with organizational design (Müller et al., 2016). performance than others. For example, Greenwood and Miller
Social theories have expanded the process view of organiza- (2010) acknowledged the findings from contingency theory in
tional design particularly within the network theory as gover- professional service firms (PSFs). “These suggestions—higher
nance type (DeFillippi and Sydow, 2016) and have shed light on differentiation, more formal integration, and more extensive
the dual control systems of project networks and hierarchy (Clegg lateral integrative structures—have been observed empirically
et al., 2006). Scholars in the project management field have and shown to be associated with superior performance in PSFs”
mainly highlighted differences between temporary and perma- (p. 83). More globally, contingency theory places great emphasis
nent organizations. These differences may be at the origin of on taking the context of the organization into account
tensions and paradoxes within organizations and to frequent (Donaldson, 2001; Engwall, 2003; Van de Ven et al., 2013).
organizational changes (Aubry et al., 2014). However, the context should not lead to a deterministic approach
From Table 1 we can observe that the two literatures share with a limited number of ideal types of structures, since this does
commonalities in terms of evolution from a deterministic approach not reflect what is found empirically in innovative forms of
in terms of their variables for social and dynamic perspectives or organizing (Pettigrew et al., 2003). The same has been observed
organizational design. Interestingly, the recent project management in project management structures where the variety of forms
literature has introduced diversified rich empirical settings rather than ideal types is the rule (Geraldi, 2008). Scholars in
while developing the theoretical foundation. It also embraces the organizational project management have explained the diversity
complexity of methodological challenges as a means to capture of PMOs using basic contingency variables such as size, region or
design process across multiple organizational levels. In this regard, industrial sector (Hobbs and Aubry, 2010). Incorporating
scholars in the project management field have explained two of the contingency theory into other theories such as complexity theory
three reasons for the lack of interest of scholars in the management or the creative design perspective reveals a high potential for
and organizational field (Greenwood and Miller, 2010). The third understanding the complexity found in organizations (Van de
stream of literature exhibits an overriding interest in parts of Ven et al., 2013). Also, power, conflicts and tensions are part of
organizational design to the detriment of a more comprehensive normal organizational life (Smith and Lewis, 2011), which leads
perspective. This is what this paper is about. Indeed, our research to the dynamic transformation of organizations. This falls outside
question is as follows: “How is organizational design performed in contingency theory.
the management of multiple projects?” The answer to this question The historical approach takes as a premise that change
shall provide an overall understanding of the process of organizing happens regularly in impermanent organizations (Weick, 2009).
(performing the design) and the resulting organizational design. A particular phenomenon is best explained by taking into account
the history of the global context (Zeitlin, 2008). In this regard, the
3. Theoretical framework history of iconic projects has been shown to be very relevant for
understanding the evolution and the context of decision-making
Given the current pluralistic context in which organizations (e.g., Hughes, 1998; Lenfle, 2011). The historical approach puts
operate, we endeavored to adopt a theoretical approach able the notions of time and temporality, which are so important in the
to capture the complexity of the phenomenon, namely one context of the project as a temporary organization (Bakker, 2010),
following Greenwood and Miller (2010), by using “theories in at the core of organizational design. Moreover, the historical
concert […] to unlock the daunting complexity of contemporary approach does not subscribe to any single temporality but rather
organizational designs” (p. 83). In this research, we apply three to multiple temporalities (Boutinet, 2004). This calls for a history
theories complementarily: contingency theory, the historical taking into account different temporalities that coexist in parallel.
approach and social theory (see Fig. 2). For example, Hughes (1987) advocated a technological system
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.012
taking into account the multiple contexts of the technological, (Mintzberg, 1979). Undertaking multiple competing projects
political, social and economic realms. In project management, represented a huge challenge for the hospitals in terms of
this historical view has been adopted to explain how changes organizational design. The question of “how to organize for the
happen in PMOs (Aubry et al., 2008). In this way, the historical management of projects” was fundamental for them. Second, we
approach aligns with the process view of organizational design. had access to retrospective data, making it possible to follow the
According to Langley et al. (2013), process research “focuses emergence and development of these projects. Third, there was a
empirically on evolving phenomena, and it draws on theorizing particular momentum of three similar projects in the same
that explicitly incorporates temporal progressions of activities regional area, which allowed for a potential comparison between
as elements of explanation and understanding” (p. 1). In this them. Case studies offer the possibility of learning from the actors
way, this historical approach allows looking at the trajectory of and their perceptions (Patton, 2002). Multiple case studies, for
organizational design as a process wherein the design is both their part, offer the possibility of comparison (Yin, 2013) between
enabled and constrained by its history. different contexts, which is a core interest of this research.
Adopting contingency theory and the historical approach According to Langley (1999), few cases may be sufficient to
provides a coherent framework to capture organizational design deliver insightful outcomes using the temporal perspective on
as a thing and as a process within a combined ontology and process data.
epistemology framework (Van de Ven and Poole, 2005), as
exemplified in the research program on PMOs (Aubry, 2013). 4.1. Data collection strategy
However, there is a need to include social aspects in the study of
organizational design, since any power system is embedded in Our research targeted two groups of participants: members
structures (Clegg et al., 2006; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Mintzberg, 1983). of the steering committees; and employees of the PMO. The
In this vein, our research responds to the call for more steering committee is composed of different directors, each
organizational social theories in the field of project management representing a different unit in the university hospital and
(Floricel et al., 2014). A number of theoretical social approaches directly involved in the transformation. In a preliminary stage,
have the potential to help understanding organizational design, we asked the PMO directors in each hospital to identify
such as actor network theory or post-bureaucracy (Clegg and potential participants and to inform them about the research. In
Pitsis, 2012). We have chosen to adopt “sense-making” (Weick, a second step, we invited these potential participants by email
1995) as the basis of a social view on organizational design. The to participate in this research. In keeping with our ethical
sense-making approach puts emphasis on how people go through standards, all targeted respondents were completely free to
a collective organizing process of enactment, selection and participate in the research or not. Respondents who answered
retention in a context of ecological change (Weick et al., 2005). positively were asked to participate in an interview and to
Interestingly, this theoretical approach aligns well with the complete questionnaires. Table 2 presents the respondents'
conceptualization of new forms of organizing where networks, profiles and their participation.
knowledge and power systems are to be taken into consideration The qualitative data came from multiple sources to allow the
(Fenton and Pettigrew, 2000). researcher to address a broader range of issues and to help in
the development of a converging line of inquiry (Yin, 2013).
4. Methodology The evidence used in this study was drawn mainly from
individual interviews and internal documents. The interviews
Exploring organizational design in complex organizations lasted around 45 min. An interview guide served as the data
from a social perspective calls for a methodology with a strong collection tool for the interviews, which were conducted by the
potential to capture rich contextual elements. Inspired by the researcher in a private space within the organization. The
work of Flyvbjerg on phronesis (Flyvbjerg, 2001; Flyvbjerg et interview guide and coding system were pilot-tested. The pilot
al., 2012), this research is designed to “address issues in which interview was independently coded by two research team
people are concerned” (Schram, 2012). In this sense, it veers members and any coding disagreements were discussed until
from the classic social science approach of adopting a unifying agreement was reached on all coded portions of the interviews
methodology or a distinctive logic of inquiry. Instead, it applies (Tong et al., 2007). All the interviews were digitally recorded
a pluralistic methodology that considers both qualitative and with the participants' permission and transcribed verbatim.
quantitative data, all of which are analyzed with an interpre-
tative approach. 4.2. Data analysis strategy
The overall research design is based on three in-depth case
studies from the healthcare sector, all being university hospitals In a first step, intra-case analyses were performed for each of
where major transformations were going on at the time of the three university hospitals (Miles and Huberman, 1994).
research. While this is, admittedly, an opportunistic choice Common formats adopted in individual case analyses facilitated
of cases (Patton, 2002), it does respond to a high level of the inter-case analysis. Several iterations were required to make
relevance regarding the organizational issue of how to organize sense of the richness (and the volume) of data from different
projects in a pluralistic context (Denis et al., 2011). There are sources.
several reasons why these cases were relevant for this research. The qualitative data were subjected to a content analysis using
First, hospitals are recognized as a professionalized bureaucracy a variety of methods (Langley, 1999; Miles and Huberman,
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.012
Table 2
Interviewees' profiles.
Characteristics Case A Case B Case C Total
Steering PMO Steering PMO Steering PMO
committee members committee members committee members
Period of interviews 01/14–02/14 01/14–02/14 02/13–05/13 02/13–05/13 09/13–11/13 09/13–11/13 02/13–02/14
Interviewees Number 9 15 13 12 4 11 64
Participation Rate 69% 65% 81% 75% 67% 92% 74%
Gender Female 5 13 7 8 3 6 42
Male 4 2 6 4 1 5 22
Job level Expert1 9 9 8 27
Middle Manager 3 1 4 3 2 13
Director 6 9 2 17
Project Manager 5 3 8
Mean time in current job (in year) 2.7 2.9 1.8 0.9 3.9 1.8 2.3
1994). In particular, time bracketing was used to analyze how describe each case with a focus on how the organizational design
events unfolded over time in the context of each case, and to gain evolved in response to events taking place in their internal and
an understanding of processes (Langley, 1999). In a last step, external contexts. We assigned these events to the following
we performed a full cross-sectional analysis of the three cases context categories: 1) Institutional: government decisions; 2) Stra-
(Yin, 2013). At this stage, we applied theme-based strategies to tegic: hospital management; 3) Technical-external: construction;
identify similarities and differences among the cases (Miles and and 4) Technical-internal: management of projects. It should be
Huberman, 1994). noted that, for purposes of clarity, we do not present all events,
focusing instead on those that related more specifically to our
5. Descriptions of cases and their contexts research question.
Recent research in project management shows that projects are 5.1. Case A
best understood as situated in their specific context (Engwall,
2003) comprising the technical, strategic and institutional levels This university hospital was borne from an administrative
and taking into consideration both the internal parent organization merger between six different hospitals and has been under a single
and its external environment (Morris and Geraldi, 2011). This direction since 1997. The merger resulted in the incorporation of a
section provides a description of the cases with regard to these large-scale redeployment of services involving a number of clinical
three levels. The three case studies presented here are situated in teams while nevertheless giving each of the former hospitals the
the same regional area and thus share a common social, political opportunity to retain their own culture. More specifically, the
and technological context. Each of them has passed through a services were physically merged from the six hospitals into three,
number of stages before arriving at the point of seeing the project one of which being a new hospital. The contract type for this
finally realized. Moreover, decisions concerning the investments project was a public private partnership (PPP), which was the
in these three hospitals kept changing in response to current approach which the government imposed on all major projects at
affairs in government and politics, as is often the case in public the time. Maybe because it was the first of the university hospitals
project management (Flyvbjerg, 2001). Table 3 presents an to embark on this major transformation, the management team
overall description of the three cases at the moment of the was faced with considerable challenges as to how to succeed in this
interviews. As shown in the two last columns of Table 3, the age project. For example, it was clear that the PPP model focused
of the PMO is to be interpreted in relation to the phase of the solely on the construction aspects of a project while overlooking
transformation project. the human aspects of such an organizational transformation, such
Interestingly, the common external context impacted the three as harmonization of clinical processes and team consolidation.
hospitals in different ways. In the following sub-sections we Several initiatives were taken to learn from other experiences of
Table 3
Description of the cases.
Actual size of the organization
Number of employees Number Number Estimated budget PMO Staff PMO steering committee Age of PMO Phase of the
and physicians of sites of beds in CAD $ (years) transformation project
Case A 10,000 6 1000 2.355 B 26 CEO and all program directors 7 Last phase
Case B 12,000 3 1000 2.439 B 19 Associate CEO and all program managers 2 Early phase
Case C 6000 2 430 995 M 14 Some program directors 6 Middle phase
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.012
hospital transformations as well as from an internal consultation (reference to be added after the review). At the time of the
process. It also became clear that the coordination of efforts was interviews, Case B had reached about midpoint of the project's
necessary to manage how employees from the different hospitals overall timeline.
might transition into working together in a single unit. Further, the
organizational design had to be revised to adapt to this specific 5.3. Case C
transformation project. In 2007, the hospital management
decided to centralize these coordination efforts into a centralized In Case C, the decision on the investment for this hospital was
unit responsible for the transition, being the so-called project made in 2002. This case likewise concerns a major transformation
management office (PMO) (reference to be added after the project including the construction of a new hospital, albeit it does
review) along with a steering committee. The PMO was then not involve a merger with other hospitals. It also includes a
realized with funding from the government. In 2012, a change of redeployment of services with the specific objective of gaining in
the party in power had profound impacts on this university efficiency. As in the other two cases, a centralized unit (PMO)
hospital. Two other major events changed the internal context was put in place to coordinate the efforts to support the people
and the PMO. First, ethical violations took place at the highest side of the transition. Contrary to the two other cases, Case C was
level of governance of this hospital. Second, the government not implemented under the terms of a PPP contract and the
asked for an evaluation of the project and for recommendations funding of the PMO was not subjected to the same process.
for tighter budget control of the project. It also changed the Activities of the PMO started early in the project history, before
funding of the PMO by imposing that this entity be funded by the the construction even started. Case C was at its early stage at the
sales generated from the project. With the nomination of a new time of interviews.
general manager, strong control of the project and three years to
go before the big transition, the director of the PMO conducted 6. Resulting organizational design
a Transition Readiness Assessment to determine whether the
project was on the right track and to identify the work to be done. We performed a cross-case analysis of the three major
At the time of interview, Case A was the most advanced of the transformation projects making use of both qualitative and
three hospital projects. quantitative data. The following sub-sections present the results of
that analysis on the basis of four dimensions which are relevant for
5.2. Case B organizational design: number and nature of the projects in the
PMOs; mandate of the PMO; roles and deliverables; and trajectory
In Case B, the announcement of the construction of the new of PMOs.
hospital was made in 1999, followed by the identification of the
site in 2000. This transformation project included the construction 6.1. The number and nature of the projects
of a new university hospital and the redeployment of clinical
services with a focus on the mission of a university hospital: The nature of a project is a common attribute used in project
ultra-specialized care as well as research and teaching units. As in typology (Shenhar and Dvir, 1996). See Table 4 for the
Case A, this case was preceded by an administrative merger, here description to the project portfolio at the time of data collection.
in 1996 and of three hospitals, and with the physical merger The nature of the comprehensive transformation project is
involving a move of activities to one single site, namely the new about the same in the three hospitals. However, there are
hospital. This case study provides a rich account of the significant important nuances between them. The nature of the physical
degree of turbulence during the period covered. During the projects is more complex in cases A and B because these
front-end phase of this transformation project, political tensions projects involved moving to a completely new site, which was
prevailed as to where the new hospital was to be built. Then, in not the case for Case C, in which the construction was more
what was seen as a move to secure votes during an election, the site like an extension to the existing buildings. This aspect of the
location identified in 2000 was changed, with considerable media nature of the transformation project may have an impact on the
coverage and negative impacts on the perception of the project types of projects. For instance, in Case C, most projects
among the population. Multiple changes in the management of the concern processes and represent less risk and more incremental
hospital then took place throughout the unfolding of the project. innovation than those of the two other cases.
The construction was likewise done under a PPP contract, with the
hospital management adopting the same strategy as in Case A 6.2. Organizational chart, mandate/roles
regarding the prime importance of managing the people side. A
centralized coordination unit (PMO) was put in place to ensure the Following Engwall (2003), there are some important
transitioning of people from the old sites to the new ones, including contextual elements to take into account when describing the
the new hospital. Moreover, the ethics challenges that had been organizational design of the three university hospitals. Inter-
encountered in Case A had repercussions on this case in the sense estingly, deliberate occasions of mimetism (DiMaggio and
that the government changed the regulations regarding how the Powell, 1983) happened between all three university hospitals.
PMO is to be funded. More specifically, the PMO was then put For DiMaggio and Powell (1983), mimetism reflects the
under pressure to set up portfolio management structures to process of homogenization among organizations from the
prioritize projects with the highest potential of return on investment same field through different mechanisms, some formal (legal
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.012
Table 4
Project portfolio/case.
Number of projects Innovation
Type Risk or uncertainty Degree
Prod./serv. Process Market Input Org. No/Low Med. High Incr. Radical
Case A 43 16 31 4 5 23 8 23 11 20 22
Case B 81 25 19 9 7 50 27 20 11 36 22
Case C 39 8 33 1 2 21 28 7 4 22 15
Note: The total is sometimes higher or lower than the number of projects because some projects can be attributed to two types or because other information was
unknown at the time of data collection.
rules) and others more informal (legitimacy). In our study, this The PMO characteristics were compared between the three
took place in two ways. First, the three PMO directors met cases as presented in Table 5, at the time of data collection.
several times to help each other and to share their approaches While the mandates of PMOs were formally defined in each
and processes, discussing questions such as how to perform, case, we focus on how the two groups of respondents perceived
what tools to use, or how to implement them. Second, in the the PMO mandate, namely to ascertain the more informal aspects.
context of this research program, transfer activities, which Following Miles and Huberman (1994), we performed several
created opportunities for sharing, were organized on two iterations of data analyses and identified inferences in order to
occasions among national healthcare institutions. provide a summary view found in Table 6. We identified a total of
Moreover, in all three university hospitals there was a strong eight groups. The assessment of strong, medium and low were
conviction of the need to take care of the people (employees, determined by counting the number of references found in the
managers, physicians, patients) who would be affected by the interview analyses; blank means that no references were made.
organizational transformation. This principle guided the transi- Two elements were common to all cases. The first one refers to
tion process as an organizational strategy and was the starting the supportive role of the PMO in driving and realizing the
point of the organizational design process. Not surprisingly, projects. This confirms the mandate of the PMO as a supportive
all three cases implemented similar mechanisms. First, they entity more so than as an entity that is accountable for the outcome
created an entity, the PMO, responsible for supporting the success of the project. In other words, it is not the PMO's responsibility to
of the transformation at a high level. Second, they set up, in make “business” decisions. The second common role refers to
collaboration with the department directors, a coordinating portfolio management, with the planning and coordination
committee with various levels of decision-making authority. between projects including decisions on the prioritization of
And third, all cases adopted a matrix-type project structure projects. However, from Table 6 we can also observe variety in the
comprising a dual “control chain,” one focused more on the emphases found in the three cases. For example, cases A and C
project and the other concerning everyday clinical operations. placed great importance on project management, while this was of
All three cases made individual, context-specific decisions medium importance for Case B. Mentoring and knowledge
regarding the organizational design. In this section, we analyze transfer was strong in Case C yet not so important in the two other
the organizational design based on the characteristics of the cases.
organizational chart (as a material representation of the formal Globally, in Case B the roles were more blurred than in the
structure) and the PMO's mandate and roles. two other hospitals, which show a greater variety of roles and
Table 5
Characteristics of PMO organizational design in the three cases.
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
The PMO reported to General manager Associate general manager General manager
members of the steering committee General manager and all department directors Associate general manager and all Some department directors
department directors
Total number of persons in 26 19 14
the PMO
Profile of PMO members Director (1) and associate director (1) Director (1) and Associate director (2) Director (1)
Project managers (10) Process experts (3) Process expert (3)
Process expert (3) Project/Change managers (6) Clinical expert (1)
Clinical expert (3) Human resources expert (1) Project manager (3)
Knowledge broker (2) Communication and training advisor Communication expert (1)
Change management (1) and communication expert (1) (1) and training expert (1) Change management expert (3)
Performance and evaluation experts (1) Research expert (3) Administration advisor (1)
Senior advisor (1) Administrative assistant (1) Administrative assistant (1)
Administrative assistant (2)
Italics indicate the roles that are the object of internal partnerships.
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.012
Table 6
Perception of PMO mandate and roles across the three cases.
PMO's mandate/roles Case A Case B Case C
1 Accompany and support the teams/managers STRONG STRONG STRONG
2 Portfolio management: plan, coordinate change, transition and transformation STRONG STRONG STRONG
3 Project management: “patient” orientation, project planning, methodology STRONG Medium STRONG
4 Project evaluation and financial efficiency STRONG STRONG
5 Change management and mobilization STRONG Medium Low
6 Mentoring on project management and knowledge transfer Medium Low STRONG
7 Establish collaboration STRONG Low Medium
8 Follow a strategic plan Medium STRONG
deliverables. In other words, the two other hospitals have a The PMO is often subject to issues, tensions and sometimes
broader perception of the role of PMOs. conflicts (Aubry et al., 2010). In the three case studies, this
made for a climate in which the PMO was less inclined to make
decisions and to, instead, retain the role of advisor. The name
6.3. Organizational design and the trajectory of projects given to those PMOs is clearly indicative of this intention:
“Support Office.” To some degree, this may lead to indecision
From our perspective, organizational design is not a static state (reference to be added after review).
of a structure, as implied by organizational charts, but instead a As illustrated in Table 7, cases A and B were faced with
process. Time and temporality(ies) are major dimensions to take turbulence in the hospital management. This manifested in
into account in the study of organizational design (Langley et al., changes in the organizational design in the mandate of the
2013). In this analysis, each case was structured in comparable PMO, in the number of employees in the PMO, and in a new
time periods to allow for inter-case analysis (see Table 7). All liaison to be set up with other units (reference to be added after
three cases featured organizational design activities that prepared the review). Case C was the most stable of the three cases
for the launch of projects. We considered the PMO start-up as the regarding the organizational design, having no organizational
starting point of the project. After that, we identified three turbulence.
periods: initiation, cruising speed and final sprint. However, only
Case A had gotten to the final sprint stage at the time of data 7. Discussion
collection.
Overall, Table 7 indicates that these three projects did not have This paper aims at exploring how organizations handle the
the same history, even if they took place in the same sector, are all need to deliver multiple projects. We had the opportunity to study
situated in the same geographic area, and were realized in about similar transformation projects in three university hospitals from
the same decade. the same region and taking place within about the same time
What is fascinating in cases A and C was the duration of the frame. This unique research situation offered the possibility to
preparation aimed at searching for a way to get organized for observe three different dynamics with regard to social, political
a major project. For example, in the first case, which was the first technological contexts as well as organizational cultures resulting
major project of this type in Quebec, the managerial team visited in three specific organizational designs. Our interest is to better
hospitals in Europe and the United States where they had done understand how organizational design as a theoretical concept
comparable projects. What they learned from these experiences can explain decisions regarding the management of multiple
convinced them of the need to manage the “people” side of those projects and, subsequently, how this can contribute to manage-
major transformation projects. In all three cases, activities were ment and organizational theory.
done to learn how to do the organizing. Hospitals are complex
organizations in that they are pluralistic (Denis et al., 2007). As 7.1. Questioning mimetism: Similar problems and individual
there is no model to copy from one organization to the next, there answers
is no choice but to make sense, as in “sense-making,” of the
situation (Weick, 2009). It seems that this is exactly what these From the results presented above, we observed how the
organizations did. three university hospitals with comparable projects adopted a
Table 7
Trajectory of projects.
Preparation 1st period: Initiation 2nd period: 3rd period
Cruising speed Final sprint
Taming period PMO/nomination Lag period PMO Start-up
Case A Visits to international sites 2007 1 year 2008 Organizational turbulence Hard [Adverse] control Making it happen!
Case B Conflicting period - site 2011 Very short 2011 Organizational turbulence Organizational turbulence
Case C Informal preparation 2009 3 years 2012 Smooth transitioning Keep moving
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.012
unique organizational design to undertake their respective hospital, than Case A, where the context was smoother in this
major transformations in specific contexts. First, each hospital regard.
had its own history and culture, some experiencing more Moreover, we observed a temporal pattern emerging from
turbulence than others. The nature of projects within their the three cases. What is worth emphasizing is the front-end
portfolio was quite different with regard to the number of period, in other words, the time spent on preparation before the
projects, the types of deliverables, the level of uncertainty and implementation of a PMO and the start of its operations. In all
the degree of innovation. three cases there was a lag between the decision to implement a
Second, the PMO's organizational design reflected this PMO and the nomination of the leader on the one hand and, on
diversity. Beyond the fact that all three organizations set up a the other hand, the real start of PMO activities. In Case A, visits
PMO and a steering committee and adopted a matrix-type of to international hospital sites were done to sensitize senior
organization, the characteristics and mandate of the PMOs were executives to the challenges of such major transformation
different. For example, the profiles of the PMO members were projects. In cases A and C, the nomination of the PMO directors
oriented either towards project management or towards human previous to the starting of PMO activities served to prepare the
aspects. In one PMO, partnerships were developed with other mandate of the PMO and to engage a collective effort towards
internal units, while in others all expertise was provided from the upcoming transformation affecting human resources and
within the PMO. Of great interest was also the role of the patients.
knowledge broker within the PMO, recalling the new roles To our knowledge, the current literature on PMOs and more
identified by Turner and Keegan (2001). Third, outside the broadly on organizational design offers no such description of
support role of the PMO and portfolio management, other practices prior to the design. For example, Greenwood and
mandates vary widely. Miller (2010) describe the organizational design for a
The three organizations had a number of contextual professional services firm yet fail to examine how this design
similarities: same medical sector; same geographical region; came into being. This so-called taming period seems essential
and a project exhibiting ambiguity and unclear solutions (see in a context where there is no ideal type to copy from (Hobbs
Table 5). In addition, they were part of a close network of and Aubry, 2010). It opens up a black-box of sense-making
managers in the healthcare sector dealing with major projects. activities that are more likely hidden from the current literature.
Knowing that all three organizations had multiple occasions of
copying each other, we observed that context and culture seem 7.3. Theoretical contributions
to play a stronger role than any drive to replicate what has been
done elsewhere. Indeed, Case C had a unique clinical mission The research question aims at answering the question of how
(a specific population) and did not issue from an administrative organizing can take place in a context of multiple projects. To
merger. The hospital identity is stable and played a positive role answer this question, we suggest a theoretical framework that
during this major project. The two others, by contrast, did go draws from three complementary theories to address organiza-
through a merger yet kept their unique hospital culture tional design in a pluralistic context. These are: contingency
nonetheless (and probably reinforcing it in face of this “bad” theory, the historical approach and social theory. In our view,
project). Thus, the recent redeployment projects forced the none of these theories would have been able to capture, on their
hospitals to face a plurality of identities and to build a new own, the multiple facets of organizational design.
identity through the project. The theoretical value of this Contingency theory serves to understand the overall context
discussion is that it examines the question of why mimetism did of all three cases. In the internal context, following Mintzberg
not apply. The latter would have been, presumably, predicted (1979), university hospitals are best described as a “profes-
by DiMaggio and Powell (1983), who emphasize the role of the sional bureaucracy” type of configuration. In fact, all three
field level within institutional isomorphism. While our research hospitals have a strong hierarchical culture where a project
covers the institutional field only partially, it reveals that each management culture was either at an early stage or non-existent
organization does act “rationally” enough to allow for the prior to this major project. A matrix-type of organizing was
implementation of an organizational design that best suits its regarded as fairly new in all cases and its introduction was
own situation. difficult in certain circumstances. This also explains why the
PMO was mainly restricted to be a “support” entity and not
allowed to make decisions. From our analysis of the external
7.2. Organizational design as a process: three individual PMO context in the public sector, politics and the party in power have
trajectories sharing a common temporal pattern a strong impact on projects. A look at Tables 4, 5 and 6 are
convincing. Cases A and B felt more impact than Case C. For
In line with the specific organizational design (as a thing) example, in cases A and B, a foregoing government report from
found in each of the three hospitals, each case had a unique 2012 had resulted in significant changes to the funding of
trajectory, albeit within a temporal pattern. The history of each PMOs. More specifically, PMOs went from being funded
case shows that the majority of disruptive events happened through the government budget to being obligated to become
at different levels and impacted the unfolding of the project. self-funded by the profit generated from individual projects. In
Case B, for example, exhibited more turbulence of the context, Case A, this led to reorganizing the PMO and, in cases A and
namely in terms of change in the general management of the B, to the prioritization of projects with the best return on
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.012
investments, alongside the more or less inevitable implemen- context of organizational design, including their interrelations. This
tation of project portfolio management. However, that context opens up avenues for future research given that this theoretical
does not fully explain the organizational design decision. For framework is promising, as was shown in this research.
instance, when considering the scope of the transformation A second limitation relates to the regional limitation of the
project and the associated project portfolio, one could conclude three case studies. While this was an opportunity for this paper,
that same types of projects (objectives, risk level and innovation) as suggested by Greenwood and Miller (2010), future research
would call for a similar design. In this regard, cases A and B had should expand on larger or more diversified regions.
similarities with regard to the nature of their transformation
projects and their project portfolio, while Case C was different.
8. Conclusion
Differences in organizational design do not reflect this result.
The historical approach serves to understand the dynamics of
Our paper examines the question “How is organizational
organizing over time. As time went on, we observed that events,
design performed in the management of multiple projects?”,
issues, tensions or conflicts happened all along the project. In
offering several academic contributions on the topic. First,
particular, cases A and B suffered from organizational turbulence.
efforts were made to bridge the research from management and
However, as mentioned, they had quite different project trajectories
organizational theory to the project management field on
and different decision-making approaches to organizing.
organizational design. In this regard, the review of the literature
Making sense of organizational design brings an important
was an attempt to bridge both. The seminal work of Turner
insight to understanding organizational design as an ongoing
and Keegan (1998, 2001) on project-based organizations has
process (Weick et al., 2005). In cases A and C, we observe a
largely inspired this stream of project management research. Of
significant period of preparation, with activities taking place before
particular importance was the identification of new roles of the
the effective implementation of the PMO. The sense-making
broker and steward in managing the internal and external
process—enactment, organizing and sense-making—is of
relations. Second, the initial theoretical framework proposed
particular interest. First, as mentioned above, the literature on
in this paper is a first attempt to theorize the “organizational
organizational design usually takes a static stance on organiza-
design” so crucial for the management of projects. This is also an
tional design, or one in which organizational design is taken as a
attempt at the integration of multiple terms (forms, structure,
given. Case studies reveal organizational design as an ongoing
project-based, project-oriented, matrix-type, etc.) under a coher-
process where the initial stage can be found several months or
ent theory of organizing for projects. The fragmentation of the
years back. Examples of sense-making activities are visits to
field has been noted for the project level (Söderlund, 2011). The
other hospitals, readings of evidence-based literature and
same reality exists at the organizational level (Bakker, 2010). Our
collective discussions. This sense-making appears to be essential
theoretical framework offers an alternative to the economic view
in the organizational design for project management, as no model
of transaction cost theory (Winch, 2014) and to other contingency
can simply be copied from one organization to another (Hobbs
approaches.
and Aubry, 2010). Second, sense-making is an ongoing process.
We draw three main conclusions from this research:
In all three cases, the organizational design evolved as shown by
their trajectory. Sense-making had to operate constantly and
naturally as events unfolded over time. Third, the sense-making • Context is of prime importance when engaging in organiza-
process contributes to the “articulation of organizational meaning tional design. Context refers to the overall understanding in
structures” (Hernes, 2014, p. 115). Articulation brings together which the organization is embedded. It includes the technical,
the unit and the whole: “[…] although the acts of articulation are strategic and institutional levels (Morris and Geraldi, 2011).
oriented towards the parts to be articulated, the meaning stems • Organizational design is better understood as an ongoing
from the whole that extends beyond the units in question” process that is constantly on the move, as has been posited
(p. 116). Designing organizations for the management of multiple by process theory (Hernes, 2014).
projects has to bring together multiple units (projects, programs, • Organizational design takes time. This has prompted us
portfolios) into a meaningful whole. Moreover, this articulation is to coin the term slow organizational design. Overall, this
dynamic insofar as meaning evolves towards new “possible.” means that there is no ideal model to copy; that the particular
context, history and identity of an organization must be
7.4. Research limitations taken into consideration; and that one must engage in a
collective effort to enact what is found outside and inside the
This research has limitations. The main limitation is related organization—which takes time.
to theory development. Following Whetten (1989), we have
tried to develop the building blocks of the theory—what, how,
why, who, when, where—with a primary focus on the what and Conflict of interest statement
the how. The why is still not fully answered in this paper and, in
our opinion, not ready to allow offering clear propositions that The authors declare that the manuscript has not been submitted
would then be tested through hypotheses. This paper offers or published elsewhere. A short version for a professional audience
a first exploration with the theoretical framework. The three was published (Aubry and Lavoie-Tremblay, 2017). There are no
complementary theories have yet to be better developed in the other potential conflicts of interest with regard to this submission.
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.012
Acknowledgments DeFillippi, R.J., 2001. Introduction: project-based learning, reflective practices

and learning outcomes. Manag. Learn. 32, 5–10.
DeFillippi, R., Arthur, M.B., 1998. Paradox in project- based enterprise: the
The research team is grateful to all informants of this case of film making. Calif. Manag. Rev. 40, 125–139.
research who contributed their precious time for the advance- DeFillippi, R., Sydow, J., 2016. Project networks: governance choices and
ment of the knowledge. This research received a grant from paradoxical tensions. Proj. Manag. J. 47, 6–17.
the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (122179 for Denis, J.-L., Langley, A., Rouleau, L., 2007. Strategizing in pluralistic contexts:
rethinking theoretical frames. Hum. Relat. 60, 179–215.
2012-2016).
Denis, J.-L., Dompierre, G., Langley, A., Rouleau, L., 2011. Escalating indecision:
between reification and strategic ambiguity. Organ. Sci. 22, 225–244.
DiMaggio, P.J., Powell, W.W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional
References isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am. Sociol.
Rev. 48, 147–160.
Artto, K.A., Wikstrom, K., 2005. What is project business? Int. J. Proj. Manag. Donaldson, L., 2001. The Contingency Theory of Organizations. Sage, London.
23, 343–353. Engwall, M., 2003. No project is an island: linking projects to history and
Artto, K.A., Kulvik, I., Poskela, J., Turkulainen, V., 2011. The integrative role context. Res. Policy 32, 789–808.
of the project management office in the front end of innovation. Int. J. Proj. Eppinger, S.D., 2001. Innovation at the speed of information. Harv. Bus. Rev. 79.
Manag. 29, 408–421. Fenton, E., Pettigrew, A., 2000. Theoretical perspectives in new forms of
Aubry, M., Drouin, N., Müller, R., Sankaran, S., 2013. The design of research organizing. In: Pettigrew, A., Fenton, E. (Eds.), The Innovating Organization.
programs: Example from a PMO research program. Novel Approaches to SAGE, London, pp. 1–46.
Organizational Project Management Research: Translational and Transfor- Floricel, S., Bonneau, C., Aubry, M., Sergi, V., 2014. Extending project
mational. Copenhagen Business School Press, Copenhagen, pp. 237–265. management research: insights from social theories. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32,
Aubry, M., Lavoie-Tremblay, M., 2017. Organizing for the management of 1091–1107.
projects: The Project Management Office in the dynamics of Organizational Flyvbjerg, B., 2001. Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails
Design. In: Sankaran, S., Müller, R., Drouin, N. (Eds.), Organizational and How It Can Succeed Again. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Project Management: Achieving Strategies Through Projects. Cambridge (UK).
University Press, Cambridge (UK). Flyvbjerg, B., Landman, T., Schram, S., 2012. Real Social Science: Applied
Aubry, M., Hobbs, B., Thuillier, D., 2007. A new framework for understanding Phronesis. Cambridge University Press, Cabridge (UK), p. 308.
organisational project management through the PMO. Int. J. Proj. Manag. Galbraith, J.R., 1977. Organization Design. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company,
25, 328–336. Reading, Massachusetts.
Aubry, M., Hobbs, B., Thuillier, D., 2008. Organisational project management: Galbraith, J.R., 1995. Designing Organizations: An Executive Briefing on
an historical approach to the study of PMOs. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26, 38–43. Strategy, Structure, and Process. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
Aubry, M., Hobbs, B., Müller, R., Blomquist, T., 2010. Identifying forces Galbraith, J.R., 2002. Organizing to deliver solutions. Organ. Dyn. 31, 194–207.
driving PMO changes. Proj. Manag. J. 41, 30–45. Galbraith, J.R., 2010. The multi-dimensional and reconfigurable organization.
Aubry, M., Sicotte, H., Drouin, N., Vidot-Delerue, H., Besner, C., 2012. Organ. Dyn. 39, 115–125.
Organisational project management as a function within the organisation. Geraldi, J.G., 2008. The balance between order and chaos in multi-project
Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 5, 180–194. firms: a conceptual model. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26, 348–356.
Aubry, M., Richer, M.-C., Lavoie-Tremblay, M., 2014. Governance perfor- Granovetter, M., 1992. Problems and explanation in economic sociology. In:
mance in complex environment: the case of a major transformation in a Nohria, N., Eccles, R.G. (Eds.), Networks and Organizations, Form and
university hospital. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32, 1333–1345. Action. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, pp. 25–56.
Bakker, R.M., 2010. Taking stock of temporary organizational forms: a Greenwood, R., Miller, D., 2010. Tackling design anew: getting back to the
systematic review and research agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 12, 466–486. heart of organizational theory. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 24, 78–88.
Boutinet, J.-P., 2004. Vers une société des agendas: Une mutation de Hedlund, G., 1994. A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation.
temporalités [Towards a society of agendas: A mutation of temporalities]. Strateg. Manag. J. 15, 73–90.
PUF, Paris. Hernes, T., 2014. A Process Theory of Organization. Oxford University Press,
Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia, A., Swan, J., 2005. Organisational routines, Oxford (UK).
situated learning and processes of change in project-based organizations. Hobbs, B., Aubry, M., 2010. The Project Management Office: A Quest for
Proj. Manag. J. 36, 27. Understanding. Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.
Burns, T., Stalker, G.M., 1961. The Management of Innovation. Tavistock Hobbs, B., Aubry, M., 2011. A Typology of PMOs Derived Using Cluster
Publications Limited, London, UK. Analysis and the Relationship with Performance. IRNOP, Montreal, Canada.
Burt, R.S., 1978. Cohesion versus structural equivalence as a basis for network Hobbs, B., Ménard, P.M., 1993. Organizational choices for project management.
subgroups. Sociol. Methods Res. 7, 189–212. In: Dinsmore, P.C. (Ed.), The Handbook of Project Management. Amacom,
Burton, R.M., Obel, B., 1980. A computer simulation test of the M-form New York, pp. 81–108.
hypothesis. Adm. Sci. Q. 25, 457–466. Hobday, M., 2000. The project-based organisation: an ideal form for managing
Burton, R.M., Borge, O., Hakonsson, D.D., 2015. Organizational Design: A Step complex products and systems? Res. Policy 29, 871–893.
by Step Approach. 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambidge (UK). Huemann, M., 2010. Considering human resource management when
Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., Frederiksen, L., Täube, F., 2011. Project-based developing a project-oriented company: case study of a telecommunication
Organizing and Strategic Management, Advances in Strategic Management. company. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28, 361–369.
Emerald, Bingley (UK), p. 541. Hughes, T.P., 1987. The evolution of large technological systems. In: Bijker, W.E.,
Chandler Jr., A.D., 1962. Strategy and Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge. Hughes, T.P., Pinch, T.J. (Eds.), The Social Construction of Technological
Clegg, S., 2012. The end of bureaucracy? In: Diefenbach, T., By, R.T. (Eds.), Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. MIT
Reinventing Hierarchy and Bureaucracy : From the Bureau to Network Press, Cambridge, pp. 51–81.
Organizations. Emerald, Bingley, UK, pp. 59–84 Hughes, T.P., 1998. Rescuing Prometheus: Four Monumental Projects that
Clegg, S., Pitsis, T., 2012. Phronetic, projects and power research. In: Flyvbjerg, Changed the Modern World. Vintage, New York.
B., Landman, T., Schram, S. (Eds.), Real Social Science: Applied Phronesis. Keegan, A.E., Turner, R.J., 2002. The management of innovation in project-based
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 66–94. firms. Long Range Plan. 35, 367–388.
Clegg, S., Courpasson, D., Phillips, N., 2006. Power and Organizations. Sage, Kopmann, J., Kock, A., Killen, C.P., Gemunden, H.G., 2015. Business case
London. control in project portfolios-an empirical investigation of performance
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.012
consequences and moderating effects. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 62, Sankaran, S., Drouin, N., Müller, R., 2017. Cambridge Handbook of
529–543. Organizational Project Management. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
Lampel, J., Jha, P.P., Morris, P.W.G., Pinto, J.K., 2004. Models of project bridge (UK).
orientation in multiproject organizations. The Wiley Guide to Managing Schram, S., Flyvbjerg, B., Landman, T., Schram, S., 2012. Phronetic social
Projects. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey, pp. 223–236. science: An idea whose time has come. Real Social Science: Applied
Langley, A., 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Acad. Manag. Phronesis. Cambridge University Press, Cabridge, UK, pp. 15–26.
Rev. 24, 691–710. Scranton, P., 2015. Projects as a focus for historical analysis: surveying the
Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., Van De Ven, A.H., 2013. Process landscape. Hist. Technol.
studies of change in organization and management: unveiling temporality, Seidl, D., Whittington, R., 2014. Enlarging the strategy-as-practice research
activity, and flow. Acad. Manag. J. 56, 1–13. agenda: Towards taller and flatter ontologies. Organ. Stud. 35, 1407–1421.
Larson, E., 2004. Project management structures. In: Morris, P.W.G., Pinto, Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., 1996. Toward a typological theory of project management.
J.K. (Eds.), The Wiley Guide to Managing Projects. John Wiley & Sons, Res. Policy 25, 607–632.
Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, pp. 48–66. Smith, W.K., Lewis, M.W., 2011. Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic
Lawrence, P.R., Lorsch, J.W., 1967. Organization and Environment: Managing equilibrium of organizing. Acad. Manag. Rev. 36, 381–403.
Differentiation and Integration. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass. Söderlund, J., 2011. Pluralism in project management: navigating the crossroads
Lenfle, S., 2011. The strategy of parallel approaches in projects with unforeseeable of specialization and fragmentation. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 13, 153–176.
uncertainty: the Manhattan case in retrospect. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 29, 359–373. Söderlund, J., Tell, F., 2009. The P-form organization and the dynamics of
Levitt, R.E., Thomsen, J., Christiansen, T.R., Kunz, J.C., Yan, J., Nass, C., project competence: Project epochs in Asea/ABB, 1950-2000. International
1999. Simulating project work processes and organizations: toward a micro- Journal of Project Management 27, 101–112.
contingency theory of. Manag. Sci. 45, 1479–1495. Stinchcombe, A.L., 1959. Social structure and organisation. In: March, J.G.
Merriam-Webster, I., 2007. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. 11th ed. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizations. Rand McNally, Chicago, pp. 142–193.
Merriam-Webster, Springfields (MA). Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., Craig, J., 2007. Consolidated criteria for reporting
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Source qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus
Book of New Methods. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills. groups. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 19, 349–357.
Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C., 1978. Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. Turkulainen, V., Kujala, J., Artto, K., Levitt, R.E., 2013. Organizing in the
McGraw-Hill, New York. context of global project-based firm—The case of sales–operations
Miller, D., 2017. Disruptive texts: case narratives as research inspirations. interface. Ind. Mark. Manag. 42, 223–233.
Acad. Manag. Rev. 42, 154–164. Turner, R.J., Keegan, A.E., 1998. The versatile project-based organization:
Miller, D., Friesen, P.H., 1984. Organizations: A Quantum View. Prentice-Hall, governance and operational control, Rotterdam Institute of Business Economic
Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Studies. RIBES Research Paper 9844, Rotterdam.
Miller, R., Hobbs, B., 2005. Governance regimes for large complex projects. Turner, R.J., Keegan, A.E., 2000. The management of operations in the project-
Proj. Manag. J. 36, 42–50. based organization. J. Chang. Manag. 1.
Miller, R., Lessard, D.R., 2000. The Strategic Management of Large Engineering Turner, R.J., Keegan, A.E., 2001. Mechanisms of governance in the project-
Projects Shaping Institutions, Risks, and Governance. MIT Press, Cambridge, based organization: roles of the broker and steward. Eur. Manag. J. 19,
Mass. 254–267.
Mintzberg, H., 1979. The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of the Turner, R.J., Müller, R., 2003. On the Nature of the Project as a Temporary
Research. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Organization. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 21, 1–8.
Mintzberg, H., 1983. Power in and around Organizations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Unger, B.N., Kock, A., Gemünden, H.G., Jonas, D., 2012. Enforcing strategic
Cliffs, N.J. fit of project portfolios by project termination: an empirical study on senior
Mintzberg, H., 1989. Mintzberg on Management: Inside Our Strange World of management involvement. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30, 675–685.
Organizations. The Free Press, New York. Van de Ven, A.H., Poole, M.S., 2005. Alternative approaches for studying
Miterev, M., Mancini, M., Turner, R., 2017. Towards a design for the project- organizational change. Organ. Stud. 26, 1377–1404.
based organization. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35, 479–491. Van de Ven, A.H., Ganco, M., Hinings, C.R., 2013. Returning to the frontier of
Morris, P.W.G., Geraldi, J., 2011. Managing the institutional context for contingency theory of organizational and institutional designs. Acad.
projects. Proj. Manag. J. 42, 20–32. Manag. Ann. 7, 393–440.
Morris, P.W.G., Jamieson, A., 2004. Translating Corporate Strategy Into Weber, M., 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. The Free
Project Strategy. Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA. Press, Glencoe, IL.
Müller, R., 2017. Governance and Governmentality for Projects: Enablers, Weick, K.E., 1995. Sense Making in Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks (CA).
Practices, and Consequences. Routeledge, New York. Weick, K.E., 2009. Making Sense of the Organization: The Impermanent
Müller, R., Lecoeuvre, L., 2015. Operationalizing governance categories of Organization. Wiley, Chichester, UK.
projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33, 29–40. Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., Obstfeld, D., 2005. Organizing and the process of
Müller, R., Glückler, J., Aubry, M., 2013. A relational typology of project sensemaking. Organ. Sci. 16, 409.
management offices. Proj. Manag. J. 44, 59–76. Whetten, D.A., 1989. What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? Acad.
Müller, R., Turner, R., Andersen, E.S., Jingting, S., Kvalnes, Ø., 2016. Manag. Rev. 14, 490–495.
Governance and ethics in temporary organizations: the mediating role of Williamson, O.E., 1975. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust
corporate governance. Proj. Manag. J. 47, 7–23. Implications. Collier Macmillan, New York, USA.
Nadler, D.A., Tushman, M.L., 2003. Competing by Design: The Power of Winch, G.M., 2014. Three domains of project organising. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
Organizational Architecture. Oxford University Press, New York. 32, 721–731.
Patton, M.Q., 2002. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Sage Publications, Woodward, D.G., 1965. Industrial Organization, Theory and Practice. Oxford
Thousand Oaks, CA. University Press, London (UK).
Pettigrew, A.M., Fenton, E., 2000. The Innovating Organization. Sage, London, Yin, R., 2013. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 5 ed. Sage, Thousand
p. 335. Oaks, CA.
Pettigrew, A.M., Whittington, R., Melin, L., Sanchez-Runde, C., Van den Zeitlin, J., 2008. The historical alternatives approach. In: Jones, G., Zeitlin, J.
Bosch, F.A.J., Ruigrok, W., Numagami, T., 2003. Innovative Forms of (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Business History. Oxford University
Organizing. SAGE Publications, London, UK. Press, Oxford, pp. 120–140.
Powell, W.W., 1990. Neither market nor hierarchy: networks forms of
organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 12, 295–336.
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.012

Rethinking Organizational Design For Managing Multiple Projects

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rethinking Organizational Design For Managing Multiple Projects

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rethinking Organizational Design For Managing Multiple Projects

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JPMA-02043; No of Pages 15

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Rethinking organizational design for managing multiple projects

1. Introduction granted and, therefore, not addressed. For example, DeFillippi

M. Aubry, M. Lavoie-Tremblay / International Journal of Project Management xx (2017) xxx–xxx

M. Aubry, M. Lavoie-Tremblay / International Journal of Project Management xx (2017) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Scope of this research: level of analysis and specific view.

2000, 2001) on project-based organization and governance.

Acknowledgments DeFillippi, R.J., 2001. Introduction: project-based learning, reflective practices

You might also like