Implementation in the era of accelerating projectification –

Synthesizing Matland (1995) and research on temporary

organizations

By
Christian Jensen1
Staffan Johansson2
Mikael Löfström3

Paper presented at the 19th IRSPM Conference, Birmingham, UK, March 30 - April 1, 2015.

Panel L101 – Open panel -Wednesday April 1, 11:00 AM – 12:30 P.M.

Please contact the authors before citing.

1
University of Gothenburg, Sweden, Dept of business adm
2
University of Gothenburg, Sweden, Dept of social work
3
University of Borås, Sweden, Dept of business adm

1
 Abstract

It has become increasingly common to use projects as a form of organization when

implementing public policies in the area of social welfare and probably also in other policy
areas. A key player behind this development is the EU and its various structural funds, but the
same trend can also be found at national and regional level in different countries. We have in
previous research identified political, administrative and organizational motives behind this
trend toward more project-based organizations within the public administration (Jensen,
Johansson and Löfström, 2013). The problem is that the form of project organization carries
inherent problems /special challenges when these projects are supposed to be implemented in
permanent agencies and organizations.
The purpose of this paper is to identify problems and challenges that public
administrations face when projects are used as a form of organization in policy
implementation, and identify possible strategies that can facilitate successful implementation
when projects is used as a form of organization.
The article takes its starting point in the policy implementation research and
especially the seminal work of Richard Matland (1995) who bases the implementation
analysis on the variables policy conflict and policy ambiguity as important factors by which it
is possible to identify both various paradigms in implementation research, but also the factors
that can explain the implementation results. This research tradition is complemented by
research on temporary organizations. Our analysis shows that the use of project organization
puts special demands on the players involved and if these are not taken into account, there is a
high risk that projects which are designed to bring about social change risk becoming islands
in the stream that are not producing the intended effects which policy makers and citizens
expect.

2
1. Introduction and purpose

The problems related to implementing public policy are as urgent and pressing as ever,
although the concept of implementation seems to have fallen down some steps on the political
and also on the academic agenda (Hupe, 2014). The reason behind this may be that our
contemporary societal challenges are not mainly addressed as implementation problems but
rather as complex governance problems which demand creating arenas, regulations and
incentives for coordinated action among relevant actors. But as stated by Hill and Hupe
(2014) and Hupe (2014), we still don’t know what really happens on the base level when new
public policy initiatives are launched and are supposed to influence action among politicians,
managers, bureaucrats, professional staff and citizens. One reason behind this is probably that
new organizational forms and arrangements used when implementing policies is perceived as
trivial and are not fully understood. Some popular organizational forms – such as project
organizations – may affect the implementation process and the outcomes more than have been
understood in mainstream implementation research.
It has become increasingly common to use ‘project’ as a form of organization
and policy tool when implementing policies and innovations in the public sector. A key player
behind this development in Europe is the European Union and its structural funds that spend
billions of euros on temporary projects, but the same trend can also be found at national,
regional and local levels in different countries. We have in previous research identified
political, administrative and organizational motives behind this trend toward ‘projectification’
within the public sector (Jensen, Johansson and Löfström, 2013).
Political motives – agenda setting - refers to the need for policymakers to signal
to the public and to other stakeholders that they take certain addressed problems and needs
seriously and could therefore put some policies with earmarked resources in some kind of
political ‘display windows’, with a different logic compared to recurrent regular operations
funded in the regular budget processes. And in settings where policymakers don´t want to use
the existing administrative structure for implementation - since it is perceived as a part of the
addressed problem. The policymakers signal that they are proactive and that they want to act
as quickly and decisively as possible.
Administrative motives – bureaucratic control - refers to the need for funding
agencies to hold funds separated from each other in order to hold the agents accountable for
control and evaluation. One way for government to facilitate such hierarchical control and
evaluation seems to be to allocate and earmark funds and organize the implementation in

3
separate projects in parallel with the recurrent regular activities of the governmental agencies.
For the applicants it is therefore appropriate to establish a project organization for each
allocated fund. Opportunities for supervision and control also seem to be better, since the
policy area is clearly defined in time and space and various project tools help to enable a
firmer control.
Finally, organizational motives – innovative action - refers to the need for local
entrepreneurs and sometimes also for funders to encourage people and involved organizations
to do things they otherwise would not have done, and to secure the realization of the
intentions from interference from other ideas and activities. By organizing the policy into
projects the policy-makers could, on the one hand, keep the issue separate from existing
agencies’ operating activities, and on the other hand, creating networks in order to involve
new actors (e. g. nonprofit organizations) which are difficult to engage within the mainstream
hierarchical bureaucratic structure (Hill and Hupe, 2014). To organize the policy into projects
signals innovation, allowing those involved to deviate from traditional operations and to act in
new ways. This kind of behavior is favored by creating project organizations, which are kept
separated from the recurrent standardized operations in the permanent organizations (Sahlin-
Andersson, 2002). The problem is that the structural form of project organizations often
carries inherent problems and special challenges when the content and experiences of these
projects are supposed to be implemented and integrated into permanent organizational
structures.
The purpose of this paper is to identify problems and challenges that public
administrations face when the project is used as a structural form of organization (as a policy
tool) when implementing public policy, and also to identify possible strategies that can
facilitate successful implementation. The challenges and strategies are structured by
Matland´s (1995) synthesis of research on policy implementation, which also appears to be
suitable for analyzing project organizations as possible policy tools.

Outline of the paper

In the second section of this paper, we present research related to policy implementation in
public administration, relevant for the social policy area. In the third section we present some
research on project organizing relevant to implementation of social policy in public
administration. In the fourth section we will integrate the two research fields based on crucial
variables, identified by Matland (1995). Finally, we will draw some conclusions about the
problems and prospects in research on using projects as a policy tool in the public sector.

4
2. Research on policy implementation – the state of the art and a point of departure

The interest in problems related to implementing public policies entered the public and
academic agenda in the seventies, partly as a consequence of implementing ambitious and
ambiguous social policies in North America as well as in Europe. Accounts of research on
policy implementation in public administration have since then been structured by the top-
down, bottom-up and the synthesizer’s perspectives. Pressman and Wildavsky (1973)
introduced a top-down perspective on policy implementation based on rational decision-
making: policy-makers set goals and implementation analysis is concerned with investigating
what helps or hinders the achievement of those goals. The top-down perspective was
challenged by a bottom-up perspective which sees policy as action (Barrett and Fudge, 1981;
Hjern and Porter, 1981; Lipsky, 1980/2010). The debate between ‘top-downers’ and ‘bottom-
uppers’ was later followed by a synthesizer’s perspective arguing that sometimes it is most
relevant to investigate the problem from the policy-makers point of view, while sometimes it
is most relevant interesting to understand how citizens encounter the actual public services in
different policy areas, with important contributions by e. g. Lane (1987), Matland (1995) and
Rothstein (1998).
There have since then been several reviews of the research on policy
implementation, (e.g. Hill and Hupe, 2014; Matland, 1995; O´Toole, 1986; Sabatier, 1986),
but the interest in classic implementation issues seem to have declined the latest decades, first
related to the extensive introduction of New Public Management (NPM) since the nineties,
and later also related to the changed focus ‘from government to governance’ (Pierre and
Peters 2000; Torfing, et al 2012). However, this decline may be an illusion because the
research on what happens between the establishment of policy and its impact in the world of
action is not always found under the heading ”implementation research”. Hill and Hupe
(2014) have identified three sorts of developments.
First there are the mainstream implementation studies, that are still done, and it
seems to have increased the latest decades if studies on the implementation of evidence-based
practices and programs are included. Most of this research departs from a top-down
perspective, in order to promote fidelity and to identify deficits from the prescribed guidelines
(Fixsen et al. 2005).
Second there are neo-implementation studies, which are linked to literature on
multilevel governance. Looking at governing across more than one administrative layer, e.g

5
implementation of directives of the European Union by the various member states. In that
context the traditional question about the relationship between policy formation and policy
implementation is not obvious. In particular there is a possibility that implementation is
presupposed where, in fact, legitimate policy co-forming is occurring (Hill and Hupe, 2014).
Third, there are studies of implementation performed under different headings,
such as public management studies. Some of these can be labeled advanced implementation
studies (Hupe 2014), and one of the characteristics of these studies is that they focus on
confronting existing knowledge about a relatively narrowly defined subject, in a systematic
way, with relevant sets of data. This is done instead of theorizing about what should be the
elements of a comprehensive over-arching grand theory of implementation by constantly
adding new variables. (Hupe 2014)
Since our aim is to link research on project organizations to current relevant
implementation research without no ambition to develop a general implementation theory, we
agree with Hill and Hupe (2014) who have stated that two clusters of variables do seem to be
critical in most research: those about the nature of the substantive policy and those about the
institutional context. We have consequently chosen to depart from Robert Matland’s (1995)
synthesis of top-down and bottom up perspectives, which distinguishes issues about the extent
of policy ambiguity on one hand, and issues about policy conflict on the other. This model is
relevant and suitable in the social policy area, where we have done most of our empirical
research on project organizations.

Figure 1. Matland´s ambiguity-conflict matrix

Policies with low level of ambiguity and low level of conflict can be implemented through
‘administrative implementation’, i. e. a rational decision process which is the ideal for a top-
down approach. Policies with low degree of ambiguity but high level of conflict demand

6
’political implementation’, since implementation outcomes are determined by power. In the
case of ’political implementation’, Matland argues that theories that emphasize interactions
and policy/implementation feedback are particularly applicable, while those that stress
decision-making at the micro-level are less applicable. Policies with high degree of ambiguity
but low level of conflict demand ’experimental implementation’, where local environments
are likely to influence much on outcomes. There are, according to Matland (1995), complex
feedback and learning issues on the local level to consider in this case, which mean that
bottom-up approaches to analysis are likely to be applicable. Finally, policies with high
degree of ambiguity and also high level of conflict could be characterized by the concept
’symbolic implementation’, where the strength of (professional) coalitions, particularly at the
local level, tend to determine outcomes. Thus, Matland’s model helps us to think about
implementation as differing in relation to the varying character of the policies to be
implemented, which seems to be suitable when analyzing project organizations used when
implementing different kind of social policies.

3. Research on temporary organizations

Research on project organization has shown that we live in a ‘projectified’ welfare state
(Hodgson and Cicmil, 2006; Lundin and Söderholm, 1998; Midler, 1995; Sahlin-Andersson
and Söderholm, 2002; Söderlund, 2004). Projects have become the procedure through which
authorities can reduce complexity and managed increased demand for change, as well as an
organizational unit that interact and compete with others over limited resources (Crawford
and Helm, 2009; Hodgson and Cicmil, 2006; Jensen, Johansson and Löfström, 2006; 2007;
2013; Lundin and Söderholm, 1998). Thus, in order to increase our understanding of the
challenges regarding policy implementation, we will briefly describe some research on project
organizations, particularly in the public sector. We conclude our discussion with a
classification of projects used in social policy implementation and suggest a model for how
this classification can be synthesized.
Project management (PM) literature, emanating from construction industry,
normatively defines a project as a tool; an activity carried out with specified goals, over a
limited period of time, with a predetermined input of resources and specified forms of work
(Cleland and Ireland, 2002; Morris and Hough, 1987; Pinto and Prescott, 1988; Wirick,

7
2009). The idea that the project is an optimal tool for change has become widespread far
beyond the construction industry, and nowadays the idea also permeates social policy field.
One way to clarify the difference between permanent and temporary
organization within the public sector is to borrow Mintzberg's (1983) distinction between
(machine-/ professional) bureaucracy and adhocracy (see Table 1). The permanent activities
of most public organizations are controlled essentially by a rule-based logic. The operations
are production-oriented and coordinated through standardized work processes or standardized
skills. The environment is fairly predictable and it is therefore possible to create uniform
workload. The change process is often characterized by incremental change, and the most
important restriction on public activities is the stipulated budget.
In contrast, adhocracies or projects are initiated to solve a specific problem.
Projects are also supposed to contribute to change and renewal, and the coordination is
therefore done by mutual adjustment – i.e. different professions, principals and systems had to
adapt to each other. The environment seems therefore uncertain and the workload likewise. If
it turns out that the new approach is successful, this means a change in leaps and bounds. The
most important restrictions for projects are the temporary status and what happens after
completion.
However, close-knit, highly motivated, specialized and engaged project teams
might have a strong interest to continue the project, which is also reinforced by the fact that
human service organizations (HSO) are often highly professionalised environments. The
termination process involves both dismantling the boundaries that were created initially and
dissolving the identity, hierarchy and rationality created in the project. The outcome of the
termination process will thus depend on how the project was established and how the project
team functioned during the project life cycle (Johansson, Löfström and Ohlsson, 2007).

Table 1. Bureaucracy versus Adhocracy

Bureaucracy Adhocracy (project)

Production oriented Task-oriented
Coordinated through the Coordinated through mutual
standardization of work processes/ adjustment
skills
Predictable environment Uncertain environment / future
Uniform workload Uneven workloads
Incremental change Radical change
The most important restriction: costs The most important restriction: time

8
Furthermore, most research on projects has focused on their internal logic. The specific
features of the project are thus over-emphasized at the expense of the contextual interaction.
Engwall (2003) rhetorically claims that ‘‘No project is an island’’, and that projects are
always embedded in wider historically, organizational and institutional settings (see also
Blomquist and Packendorff, 1998; Johansson, Löfström and Ohlsson, 2007; Jones and
Lichtenstein, 2008; Kreiner, 1995; Löwendahl, 1995; Söderlund, 2004). These contextually
oriented studies have focused on the relationship between projects and their interactional
environment (Jensen, Johansson and Löfström, 2006).

A classification of projects used in social policy implementation

The relationships between projects and regular activities and its institutional settings have
show that projects in the same field of activity can be quite different from each other and have
few similarities. They may have different tasks, functions, funding and goals, and they can
have different relationships to the environment (Crawford et al., 2003; Jensen, Johansson and
Löfström, 2007; 2013; Johansson, Löfström and Ohlsson, 2007; Trägårdh and Jensen, 2013).
Thus, there is reason to categorize the project based on the relationship that they are expected
to have to ordinary activities on the one hand, and the actual purpose of the project on the
other hand. When it comes to the relationship between project and regular activities, it can be
fruitful to distinguish between intra-organizational and inter-organizational projects. Intra-
organizational projects are conducted in the context of one organization/principal, while inter-
organizational project is jointly operated by two or more organizations/principals. Although a
major purpose for all projects is to achieve some sort of change, it can equally be fruitful to
distinguish projects that intend to develop the existing operations or organizations from those
who intend to create new activities or new organization (Jensen, Johansson and Löfström,
2007). Combining these both axes creates four idealized types of project: change projects,
pilot projects, collaboration projects and assignment projects (se figure 2).

9
Figure 2. Classification of projects and their relations with their principal organizations

The combination of intra-organizational orientation with the mission to create new activities
leads to pilot projects. These projects have the primary responsibility to deal with completely
new challenges, and need for that reason a temporary organization in order to experiment and
develop a more permanent structure for dealing with those new challenges. The challenge for
a pilot project is to distance and withdraw from the prevailing patterns of thought and
procedures, to create a new permanent solution to a specific problem (Jensen, Johansson and
Löfström, 2007). This includes the task to establish a new organization which implies that the
operations must become indispensable and to finance the business, either through grants or by
selling the new services. It is important to generate and reward innovation. The trust and the
status of the project are essential. Within human service organizations, this belief is often
related to different professions norms and fields of knowledge. This means that the
development of a pilot project frequently is conducted on the basis of the various professions'
competence and ability to deal with new challenges. Parallel to this, it is also important to
develop relationships with potential funders; organization which in the future can buy or fund
the new organization's services. The challenge ot the pilot project is consequently about
managing simple entrepreneurship as the project is initially dependent on one principal and its
prevailing patterns of thought and routines.
The combination of intra-organizational settlement with the mission to develop
existing activities or organizations leads to change projects. These projects have the purpose

10
to create change in an existing permanent organization, i.e. develop new solutions during the
project and implement those solutions in the permanent organization and as a result develop
procedures and operations. The challenge for a change project is often threefold: to distance
and withdraw from previously existing patterns of thought and procedures, to develop new
procedures during the project, and to implement new thought and procedures in the permanent
organization (Johansson, Löfström and Ohlsson, 2000; 2007). In a study of change projects
within the Swedish social services large differences were found in the way they were
organized (Johansson 2000; Johansson, Löfström and Ohlsson, 2000). Some projects were
largely separated from ordinary activities. They had a special project manager that was
specially recruited for the purpose and the project was especially composed to bring about as
much creativity as possible. The project took place at special locations and the task was quite
different from what they usually were doing. These projects were perceived as pleasurable
and creative, but they had major problems with returning experience to the permanent
operations. Other projects were more integrated within the permanent organization. The
project manager was at the same time line manager in the permanent organization, and project
working group was the same as the usual working team. The project work was performed in
the same place as the regular work, and tasks did not differ very much from those performed
in the permanent operations. These more integrated projects did not seem to be very creative
and innovative, but they had far less trouble in implementing lessons learned. It is important
to note that the different ways of organizing are not in themselves necessarily better or worse.
If you primarily want to achieve creativity one should probably choose an isolated
organizational model. Would you rather ensure participation and successful implementation
one should adopt an integrated model (Johansson, Löfström and Ohlsson, 2007). Change
projects are expected to develop existing operations. The challenge is therefore to ensure and
maintain embedded interaction, thereby facilitating the management of lessons learned from
the project.
The combination of inter-organizational orientation with the mission to create
new activities or new organizations leads to collaboration projects. In these types of projects
several principals come together temporarily to both increase their operational capacity to act
and create a new joint operation to solve new and specific challenges. Empirical examples of
such projects within the social services are collaborative projects with a focus on specific
target groups, such as long-term unemployed and others who have a complex problem that
requires coordinated efforts by public authorities (Lindqvist, and Grape, 1999; Löfström
2010). This means that the projects have to deal with inter-organizational problems, which

11
could include various types of governance structures, regulations, financial conditions,
operational responsibilities, organizational cultures. A challenge will thus be to establish a
common approach, since the interacting organizations have a tendency to primarily look after
their own interests rather than integrate in order to accomplish joint action. Thus, the
collaboration projects are expected to solve a task that already several parties are responsible
for, in a new and coordinated manner, often with the expectation of a new permanent
organization in the future. The challenge is thus to manage complex entrepreneurship; to
manage multiple mutually different prevailing patterns of thought and routines.
The combination of inter-organizational orientation with the mission to develop
existing activities leads to assignment projects. As the public sector domination in producing
welfare services has decreased in recent decades in most countries, the number of other
service providers and entrepreneurs has grown and now includes both private sector and
nonprofit organizations. The trend towards outsourcing public welfare production creates a
special situation for the organization that stands as contractors and engaged in so-called
assignment projects. Those projects involve relationships between multiple stakeholders, and
to understand such projects one must understand what characterizes such relationships and
their context - especially the relationship between client and contractor. For those
organizations which projects is a central part of their operation occur also internal
coordination problems similar to those that arise in, what projects literature termed multi-
project organization (Engwall and Jerbrant 2003; Eskerod 1996). The challenge for an
assignment project is to capitalize from previous experiences to solve tasks on a project basis
without being tempted to become overly standardized in its problem solving. This means that
the project should primarily concentrate on achieving the goals or objectives that are defined
for the project by the purchaser. Also here, status and reputation is crucial (Jensen, Johansson
and Löfström, 2007). For the purchaser, the challenge is to develop ‘procurement skills’, that
is to use past experience in entirely new assignment. The challenge is thus to create and
maintain open interaction and to do it in such a way that experience and lessons learned for
both parties can be intensified and exploited.

4. Synthesizing policy implementation research and project organizing research

An analysis of these two research traditions shows that the use of project organization puts
special demands on the actors involved and the organizing of the projects. Various forms of
policy challenges (such as ambiguity and conflict) put different demands on the project
organizations and their relationships to permanent organizations. In the further analysis, the

12
starting point will be Matland’s ambiguity-conflict matrix where we place the four
combinations in comparison to using projects as implementation strategy based on two
questions:
1. Why choose the project organization as implementation form instead of implementing
the policy directly into the existing permanent organizations?
2. What challenges do different kind of projects face when implementing policy, and
what determines successful implementation in the different policy conditions?

Using project organizations when implementing policy with low conflict and low ambiguity

Policies with a low level of conflict and low levels of ambiguity can, according to Matland
(1995), apply a classical top-down implementation through a rational decision process. A low
level of conflict and ambiguity mean that implementation activities to a large extent can be
predetermined, standardized and it is possible to limit the influence of the environmental
factors. Matland (1995) uses the World Health Organization's (WHO) mass vaccination
program to eliminate smallpox as an example when it’s possible to establish standard
operating procedures for the implementation process. It is not difficult to find contemporary
programs, for example the 2009 flu pandemic which also demanded a need to implement a
mass vaccination program. Another example is implementation of a decided administrative IT
system such as journal system in healthcare with the aim of reducing the amount of
administrative work and increase patient safety. The system and its use are well defined, as
are the actors that are expected to use it. It is also clear who should do what and the
implementation can be done without any major discussions or negotiations with stakeholders
involved.
The main motivation of using projects when implementing policy with low
conflict and low ambiguity is primarily a matter of bureaucratic control, especially if there
are earmark funds for the implementation. Since the project is a demarcated organization, it is
easier for funding organizations to control and evaluate the implementation when it is not
integrated into regular operations. In exceptional cases also agenda setting and innovative
action could be motives if the regular organization is unable to organize the implementation
by themselves. For this type of implementation is change projects and assignment projects the
most appropriate form of organization as they aim to develop existing operations or
organization, but even pilot projects and collaboration projects can be useful if the task is
new.

13
 The specific challenges for different types of projects when policies with low
conflict and ambiguity were to be implemented differ to some extent from the general
challenges for various types of projects described in the third section. When the project is set
up to organize development work, they are isolated to be given the opportunity to develop
new ideas and try new models (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). In this case this is, however,
not the main reason for implementation through project organization. The policy that will be
implemented requires no development work, but requires mainly extra resources for effective
implementation of the policy. The establishment of a project can increase the capacity to act,
i.e. give the implementation of the policy effectiveness and legitimacy.
For pilot projects the main challenge is to combine control with simple
entrepreneurship. When the implementation requires result in new activities or new
organization could the pilot project an appropriate tool as it can concentrate fully on the task
This means that the project needs to be able both to distance itself from the organization,
while taking advantage of the experience available. At the same time it is crucial that the
implementation is systematic and that there is a documentation of actions and processes to
ensure that it is done according to the policy intentions.
The main challenge for change project is to combine control with embedded
interaction. The challenge is to detaching the project from previous ideas and methods to
develop new ideas and practices, and to generate change in the permanent organization. The
change project needs to establish a relationship to the principal organization and because
implementation does not require development work the project needs rather verify that the
purpose of the policy is achieved.
The main challenge for the collaboration project is to combine control with
complex entrepreneurship to obtain interaction between the principal organizations:
integration of responsibilities, rules, organizational culture, competence etc. A critical factor
may be that organizations monitor each other rather than trying to accomplish common
change. Another critical factor may be to get the principals willing to agree on the project
organization and the purpose of the implementation.
Finally, the main challenge for the assignment project is to combine control with
open interaction to take advantage of past experiences to solve the task without becoming
overly standardized in its problem solving.. This means that the project should primarily
concentrate on the task and achieving the objectives defined for the project.

14
Using project organizations when implementing policy with high conflict and low
ambiguity

According to Matland (1995) policies with high level of conflict but low degree of ambiguity
demand ’political implementation’ which means that implementation outcomes are
determined by power. Matland argues that top-down political models are particularly
applicable since the issue is simple but controversial, and he uses school integration through
busing in the 1960s as an example of a highly controversial yet distinct issue implemented by
central authorities. One such example in our contemporary social policy area is the provision
of free syringes to drug addicts.
In the same way as for the previous section, policy implementation with high
level of conflict but low degree of ambiguity are normally executed as part of the regular
democratic power structures; one actor or a coalition of actors have sufficient power to force
their will on other participants. However, sometimes when policies are disputed the
negotiation power and agenda setting will determine the outcome; decisions are preceded by
tactical considerations, haggling and bargaining, and the output of the process could be
compromises of one sort or another. It is not unusual that project as an organizational form
may serve as a tool to generate compromise, or as a way to incrementally handle a political
deadlock that may be perceived as more harmful. Thus, the most important motive behind
using projects when implementing policy with high conflict low ambiguity is often agenda
setting. As an institutionalized form, projects may also provide legitimacy and bureaucratic
control for policy implementation by facilitating planning, implementation, monitoring and
evaluation, especially if the projects are funded by an external organization. Since there is no
disagreement on how the policy will be realized organizational learning motives are unusual,
but by creating a project one can have parallel activities to satisfy different parties will, some
activities take place within the projects while other activities take place within regular
activities.
The specific challenges for the different kind of projects when implementing
policies with high conflict and low ambiguity differ from the former section. For the pilot
project the main challenge is to combine compromise with simple entrepreneurship. Our
example of providing free syringes to drug addicts is just one out of many example of an issue
surrounded by political conflicts. The controversy could partly be resolved by creating a pilot
project with free injection needles for certain groups, parallel with normal restrictive policy,
and leaving the crucial political issue for later resolution. The main challenge for change

15
projects is to combine compromise with embedded interaction. Conflicts need not only occur
at the beginning of a policy process (where the project becomes a tool for a compromise),
conflicts may also arise in connection with lesson learned from the project and the expectation
that these experiences also should apply to the ordinary operations.
The main challenge for collaboration projects is to combine compromise with
complex entrepreneurship; to manage different institutional interests before, during and after
the project. New societal challenges that cannot be resolved within current functional
specialization (public health, social exclusion, long-term unemployment and so forth), has
created political pressure to act despite the fact of diverging political opinions about what
constitute a sound policy within said policy area. EU and national generated great
expectations on projects aiming at increasing collaboration between different principals and
authorities, between different professional groups and the relevant clients, almost exclusively
organized as projects, often also largely funded by EU or special funds at national level.
Several of these collaboration projects work admittedly to develop new ways of working, but
initially the program also deals with various power relations within the sphere of authorities,
different regulatory systems, and various areas of competence (Löfström, 2010; Trägårdh and
Jensen, 2013). The main challenge for the assignment project is to combine compromise with
open interaction. In general, one can say that the conditions to reach compromises are quite
good when the ratio is contractually, especially if both parties are used to procurement
procedure. The contract clarifies the relationship, but at the same time should not the contract
should hamper the creativity of the project. This means that the project should primarily
concentrate on achieving the goals or objectives that are defined for the project by the
purchaser/funder.

Using project organizations when implementing policy with low conflict and high
ambiguity

Policies with high degree of ambiguity but low level of conflict demand, according to
Matland (1995) ’experimental implementation’, which defines cases where preferences are
problematic and technology is uncertain, which also means that local environments are likely
to influence much on outcomes. There are, according to Matland (1995) complex feedback
and learning issues on the local level to consider in this case, which mean that bottom-up
approaches to analysis are likely to be applicable. Matland uses ‘Headstart’ – a pre-school
program for disadvantaged children from the 1960s in USA - as an example of an
experimental form of implementation. It is not difficult to find similar policy challenges in our

16
contemporary welfare states, e.g. efforts aimed at improving the conditions for children in
public schools or quality improvements in the care of the elderly.
The most important motive behind using projects when implementing policy
with low conflict and high ambiguity is probably to achieve innovative action on the local
level, but there could also be other motives such as agenda setting and the quest for
bureaucratic control, especially if the experimental activities are funded by external
organizations such as the European Union or national government agencies. The more
practical reason behind choosing projects when performing experiments and other forms of
learning activities, instead of integrating such activities in the ordinary public organizations
recurrent operations is rather obvious. The recurrent standardized operations of the agencies
are not disturbed and can run smoothly parallel to and simultaneously as experimental work
are ran in different kind of project organizations. This is applicable to pilot projects,
collaboration projects, change projects and assignment projects, which has been identified
above.
The specific challenges for projects when implementing policies with low
conflict but high ambiguity differ a lot from policies with low ambiguity. Generally speaking,
the project organization seems to be an appropriate tool of implementation, since the rationale
behind using projects is that this is often wiser to begin with and learn from small experiment,
before broadening the action to drive change across the entire organization. It is however,
important that the principals of these projects are aware that learning cannot be forced, and
that it is important to build trustful relations between the projects and its stake-holders.
For pilot projects the main challenge is to combine experimentation with
managing simple entrepreneurship; to find new, appropriate and legitimate solutions for the
addressed problems that other organizations are willing to fund. Even if there is not so much
conflict regarding policy goals, there could be different opinions concerning the level of
ambition and the urgency of creating new sustainable solutions.
The main challenge for change projects is to combine experimentation with
managing embedded interaction; to distance and withdraw from the prevailing patterns of
thought and procedures, to develop new procedures during the project, and to implement new
thought and procedures in the permanent organization. The dilemma here could be to balance
the potential conflict between radical innovation and on the other hand well integrated and
anchored implementation (Johansson, Löfström and Ohlsson, 2000; 2007). We have noted
several times in evaluations that change project was successful but the effects on ordinary
activities was minimal (Johansson, Löfström and Ohlsson, 2007).

17
 For collaboration projects the main challenge is to combine experimentation
with managing complex entrepreneurship; to find a balance between the involved
organizations and to establish a common approach, since the interacting organizations have a
tendency to primarily look after their own interests rather than integrate in order to
accomplish joint action. Finally, the challenge for an assignment project is to combine
experimentation with managing open interaction; to capitalize from previous experiences to
solve tasks on a project basis without being tempted to become overly standardized in its
problem solving.

Using project organizations when implementing policy with high conflict and high
ambiguity

Finally, policies with high degree of ambiguity and also high level of conflict could be
characterized by the concept ’symbolic implementation’, where the strength of (professional)
coalitions, particularly at the local level, tend to determine outcomes. Matland (1995) uses the
establishment of the Community Action Agencies (CAA) as a part of an American program
of combatting poverty as an example of symbolic implementation. Since the program aims at
redistribute power, and is also disputed among different kind of professional groups, it as a
good example of a policy that fall under this category. It is not difficult to find similar
controversial social policy challenges and wicked problems in most contemporary European
welfare states, such as homelessness, honor related violence (HRV), or efforts against drug
abuse or youth crime.
The most important motive behind using projects when implementing policy
with high conflict and high ambiguity is probably organizational – the quest for innovative
action, but depending on the degree of conflict and tension within the project and between the
project and stakeholders, also agenda setting and the quest for bureaucratic control could be
motives behind creating such project organizations. Sometimes there are no existing
organizations for dealing with such issues, which demand actors and organizations to
establish pilot projects or collaboration projects for these new activities or target groups. And
if there are agencies running recurrent standardized operations, these are not disturbed and
can run smoothly parallel to change projects and assignments projects.
The challenges for the different kind of projects when implementing policies
with high conflict and high ambiguity can be extensive. The activities often takes place in
settings where actors belong to different organizations and professions and have conflicting
interpretations of problems as well as solutions. The establishment of project organizations

18
could, however, increase the capacity to act and hereby facilitate the implementation of some
policies.
For pilot projects the main challenge is to combine trust-building with managing
simple entrepreneurship in order to find new, appropriate and legitimate solutions that other
organizations are willing to fund. It is important to involve all stakeholders which could
clarify lines of conflicts. It is desirable that the project management can stay neutral in the
sharpest conflict lines and that the work is focused on building trust in a small scale which can
dissolve paralysis. In this work, it is also important to show the projects' funders that it is
possible to create compromises and solutions that are beneficial to the projects’ target groups.
The challenge for a change project is to combine trust-building with embedded interaction; to
distance and withdraw from the prevailing patterns of thought and procedures, to develop new
procedures during the project, and to implement new thought and procedures in the permanent
organization. The dilemma here could be to balance the potential conflict between radical
innovation and on the other hand well integrated and anchored implementation (Johansson,
Löfström and Ohlsson, 2000; 2007).
For collaboration projects the main challenge is to combine trust-building with
managing complex entrepreneurship; to find a balance between the involved organizations
and to establish a common approach, since the interacting organizations have a tendency to
primarily look after their own interests rather than integrate in order to accomplish joint
action. Typically, these aspects are handled in functionally separated organizations and
systems, often involving further internal inconsistencies and uncertainties. To integrate all
these dimensions, with a focus on relevant user/target group, collaboration has emerged in
public sector as a universal solution (Huxham and Vangen, 2002) and we now see several
examples of multi-actor collaboration projects (Jones & Lichtenstein, 2008; Löfström, 2010).
Also here it is important to involve all stakeholders which could clarify lines of conflicts, and
it is desirable that the project management can stay neutral in the sharpest conflict lines and
that the work is focused on building trust in a small scale which can dissolve paralysis. In this
work, it is also important to show the project's funders that it is possible to create
compromises and solutions that are beneficial to the project's target groups.
The challenge for an assignment project is to combine trust-building with
managing open interaction; to capitalize from previous experiences to solve tasks on a project
basis without being tempted to become overly standardized in its problem solving. This
means that the project should primarily concentrate on achieving the goals or objectives that
are defined for the project by the purchaser/funder. The projects not only influence different

19
relationships, roles and important border areas, but also how problems, solutions and
preferential right of interpretation can be clarified. Hereby it is possible to gradually build up
mutual trust through interaction in a smaller scale than through confrontations between large
institutionalized organizations.

Table 2. Summary: Implementation prerequisites, driving motives, and specific challenges

related to different types of projects.

Policy area Pilot Change Collaboration Assignment

example Main motives projects projects projects projects
Low Controlled Controlled
ambiguity simple Controlled complex Controlled
Low Vaccination Bureaucratic entrepreneur- embedded entrepreneur- open
conflict IT-system control ship interaction ship interaction
Low Compromised Compromised
ambiguity Free syringes Agenda setting simple Compromised complex Compromised
High for drug Bureaucratic entrepreneur- embedded entrepreneur- open
conflict addicts control ship interaction ship interaction
High Experimental Experimental
ambiguity Innovative simple Experimental complex Experimental
Low Improvement action entrepreneur- embedded entrepreneur- open
conflict In elderly care Agenda setting ship interaction ship interaction
High Homelessness, Trust-building Trust-building
ambiguity HRV, drug Innovative simple Trust-building complex Trust-building
High abuse youth action entrepreneur- embedded entrepreneur- open
conflict crime. Agenda setting ship interaction ship interaction

5 Conclusions
Our understanding of how public policy is actually implemented is central for public
administration scholars but is also the backbone of a well functioning democracy. In order to
get a renaissance in the study of policy implementation we suggest that we have to study how
the implementation is actually organized in practice. Therefore, we have described and
combined two key areas of insights about policy implementation: First, Matland’s (1995)
insight that policy implementation is subjected to two crucial conditions, partly the degree of
policy conflict, partly the degree of the policy ambiguity. Second, the insight that
implementation nowadays to a large extent is organized in temporary organizations where
project organizations can have both different functions and different inherent challenges. By
studying various projects and their relationship with other organizations, we think we have
contributed to a better understanding of how implementation more specifically is organized.
We believe that this combination may be an important step to revitalize the discussion of
policy implementation, and also a contribution to our understanding of the implementation as

20
an organizational phenomenon. We also believe that our project perspective serves as a useful
basis when proceeding with a more fine-grained organizational analysis concerning managing
implementation of public policies.

References

Barrett, S.M. & Fudge, C. (1981). Policy and action: essays on the implementation of public
policy. London: Methuen.
Blomquist, T. & Packendorff, J. (1998). Learning from renewal projects: content, context and
embeddedness. Projects as arenas for renewal and learning processes. R. Lundin
and C. Midler. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Cleland, D. I., & Ireland, L. R. (2002). Project Management: Strategic Design &
Implementation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Crawford, L., Costello, K., Pollack, J., & Bentley, L. (2003). Managing soft change projects
in the public sector. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 443-448.
Crawford, L. H., & Helm, J. (2009). Government and Governance: The Value of Project
Management in the Public Sector. Project Management Journal, 40(1), 73–87.
Engwall, M. (2003). No project is an island: linking projects to history and context. Research
policy, 32(5), 789-808.
Engwall, M., & Jerbrant, A. (2003). The resource allocation syndrome: the prime challenge of
multi-project management? International Journal of Project Management, 21(6),
403-409.
Eskerod, P. (1996). Meaning and action in a multi-project environment. Understanding a
multi-project environment by means of metaphors and basic assumptions.
International Journal of Project Management, 14, 61–65.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blasé, K. A., Friedman, R. M. & Wallace, F. (2005).
Implementation research: a synthesis of the literature. Tampa: University of South
Florida.
Hill, M. & Hupe, P. (2014). Implementing public policy: governance in theory and in
practice. London: Sage.
Hjern, B., & Porter, D. O. (1981). Implementation Structures: A New Unit of Administrative
Analysis. Organization studies, 2/3, 211-227.
Hodgson, D. E., & Cicmil, S. (2006). Making projects critical. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.

21
Hupe, P. (2014). What happens on the ground: Persistent issues in implementation research.
Public Policy and Administration, 29(2), 164–182.
Jensen, C., Johansson, S., & Löfström, M. (2006). Project relationships – a model for
analyzing interactional uncertainty. International Journal of Project Management,
24(1), 4-12.
Jensen, C., Johansson, S., & Löfström, M. (2007). Projektledning i offentlig miljö. [Project
Management in Public Sector]. Malmö: Liber.
Jensen, C., Johansson, S., & Löfström, M. (2013). The project organization as a policy tool in
implementing welfare reforms in the public sector. International journal of health
planning and management, 28(1), 122-137.
Johansson, S., Löfström, M., & Ohlsson, Ö. (2000). Projekt som förändringsstrategi: analys
av utvecklingsprojekt inom socialtjänsten. [Projects as a strategy for change]
Stockholm: SNS förlag.
Johansson, S., Löfström, M., & Ohlsson, Ö. (2007). Separation or integration? A dilemma
when organizing development projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 25(5), 457-464.
Jones, C., & Lichtenstein, B. (2008). Temporary interorganizational projects – How temporal
social embeddedness enhance coordination and manage uncertainty. In Cropper, S.,
Ebers, M., Huxham, C. & Smith Ring, P. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of inter-
organizational relations. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Kreiner, K. (1995). In search of relevance: Project management in drifting environments.
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 335-346.
Lane, J-E (1987). Implementation, accountability and trust. European journal of political
research, 15 (5): 527–546.
Linderoth, H. (2002). Bridging the gap between temporality and permanency. In K. Sahlin-
Andersson & A. Söderholm (Eds.), Beyond project management. New perspectives
on the temporary – permanent dilemma. Stockholm: Liber.
Lindqvist, R., & Grape, O. (1999). Vocational rehabilitation of the socially disadvantaged
long-term sick: inter-organizational co-operation between welfare state agencies.
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 27(1), 5 - 10.
Lipsky, M. (1980/2010). Street level bureaucracy. New York: Sage.
Lundin, R., & Söderholm, A. (1995). A theory of the temporary organization. Scandinavian
Journal of management, 11(4), 437-455.

22
Lundin, R., & Söderholm, A. (1998). Managing the Black Boxes of the Project Environment:
Conceptualization and Learning. In J. K. Pinto (Ed.), Project Management
Handbook. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass.
Lundin, R., Söderholm, A., & Wilson, T. (1998). Notions of Time in Projects and
Organizations. In F. Hartman, G. Jergeas, & J. Thomas (Eds.), The Nature and Role
of Projects in the Next 20 Years: Research Issues and Problems in Project
Management Specialization. Alberta, Canada: University of Calgary.
Löfström, M. (2010). Inter organizational collaboration projects in the public sector: a balance
between integration and demarcation. The International journal of health planning
and management, 25(2), 136-155.
Löwendahl, B. R. (1995). Organizing the Lillehammer Olympic winter games. Scandinavian
Journal of Management, 11(4), 347–362.
Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict
Model of Policy Implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 5(2), 145-174.
Midler, C. (1995). "Projectification" of the firm: The Renault case. Scandinavian Journal of
management, 11(4), 363-375.
Mintzberg, H. (1980). Structure in 5's: A Synthesis of the Research on Organization Design.
Management Science, 26(3), 322.
Morris, P. W. G., & Hough, G. H. (1987). The anatomy of major projects: a study of the
reality of project management. Chichester; New York: Wiley.
O’Toole, L. J. (1986). Policy recommendations for multi-actor implementation: An
assessment of the field. Journal of Public Policy, 6(2), 181–210.
Pierre, J. & Peters B. G. (2000). Governance, Politics and the State. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Pinto, J. K., & Prescott, J. E. (1988). Variations in Critical Success Factors Over the Stages in
the Project Life Cycle. Journal of Management, 14(1), 5-18.
Pressman, J. & Wildavsky A. (1973). Implementation. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Rothstein, B. (1998). Just institutions matter: The moral and political logic of the universal
welfare state. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A
critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6(1), 21–48.

23
Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2002). Project management as boundary work. Dilemmas of defining
and delimiting. In K. Sahlin-Andersson & A. Söderholm (Eds.), Beyond project
management: new perspectives on the temporary – permanent dilemma. Stockholm:
Liber.
Sahlin-Andersson, K., & Söderholm, A. (2002). The Scandinavian School of Project Studies.
In K. Sahlin-Andersson & A. Söderholm (Eds.), Beyond Project Management: New
Perspectives on the temporary - permanent dilemma. Lund: Liber.
Söderlund, J. (2004). Building theories of project management: past research, questions for
the future. International Journal of Project Management, 22(3), 183-191.
Torfing, J., Peters, G., Pierre, J. & Sorensen, E. (2012). Interactive Governance - Advancing
the Paradigm. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wirick, D. (2009). Public-Sector Project Management: Meeting the Challenges and
Achieving Results. Wiley

24