Studies of failure in complex technology systems point to the role of non-linear interactions, “emergence,” conflicting objectives, overly centralized management and “multi-nodality” in precipitating this failure. At the same time, studies of technology failure and safety in high-reliability organizations point to the benefits of what might be termed an “interventionist” approach to managing. Drawing on the insights of these studies, we explore three case studies of complex projects to show the importance of ongoing management “interventions” in preventing project failure. We conclude that “interventionism,” as a balance to overreliance on centralized project management systems, may be a fruitful approach to project management in the context of complex projects.
AldermanN., McLoughlinI. P., IvoryC. J., ThwaitesA. T., VaughanR. (2003). Trains, cranes and drains: Customer requirements in long-term engineering projects as a knowledge management problem. In von ZedtwitzM., HaourG., KhalilT., LefebvreL. (Eds.), Management of technology: Growth through business, innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 331–348). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
2.
AkrichM. (1992) The description of technical objects. In BijkerW., & LawJ. (Eds.), Shaping technology building society: Studies in sociotechnical change.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
AndersonP. (1999). Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10(3), 216–323.
4.
ArthurB. W. (1989). Positive feedback in the economy. Scientific American, 262(2).
5.
BallM. (1988). Rebuilding construction: Economic change and the British construction industry.London: Routledge.
6.
DaftR. L., & LewinA. R. (1990). Can organization studies begin to break out of the normal science straight jacket: An editorial essay. Organization Science, 1, 1–9.
7.
DaviesA., TangP., BradyT., HobdayM., RushH., & GannD. (2001). Integrated solutions: The new economy between manufacturing and services.Falmer, UK: SPRU, University of Sussex.
8.
DooleyK. J., & Van de VenA. (1999). Explaining Complex Organizational Dynamics, Organization Science, 10(3), 358–372.
9.
EngwallM. (2003). No project is an island: Linking projects to history and context. Research Policy, 32(5), 780808.
10.
FazioP., MoselhiO., ThebergeP., & RevayS. (1988). Design impact of construction fast-track. Construction Management and Economic, 5, 195–208.
11.
GarretyK., RobertsonP. L., & BadhamR. (2004). Integrating communities of practice in technology development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 22, 351–358.
12.
HarawayD. (1991). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology and socialist feminism in the late twentieth century. In HarawayD. (Ed.), Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature (pp. 149–181). London: Free Association Books.
13.
HarawayD. (1996). Modest witness: Feminist diffractions in science studies. In GalisonP., & StampD. J. (Eds.), The disunity of the sciences: Boundaries, contexts, and power (pp. 428–441). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
14.
IvoryC., ThwaitesA., & VaughanR. (2003). Shifting the goal posts for design management in capital goods proj-ects: Design for maintainability. R&D Management, 33, 527–538.
15.
IvoryC., & VaughanR. (2004). Managing projects through making sense of project discourses: The case of long term service-led engineering projects, in conference proceedings of the EURAM 2004 Governance in Managerial Life (Governance of Projects Track) Conference, 5th—7th May.
16.
KazanjianR. J., DrazinR., & GlynnM. A. (2000). Creativity and technological learning: The roles of organizational architecture and crisis in large-scale projects. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 17, 273–298.
17.
La PorteT. R., & ConsoliniP. (1991). Working in theory but not in practice: Theoretical challenges in high-reliability organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1, 19–47.
18.
La PorteT. R. (1994). Large technical systems, institutional surprises, and challenges to political legitimacy. Technology in Society, 16(3), 269–288.
19.
LatourB. (1993). We have never been modern, trans. by Catherine Porter, New York and London: Penguin.
MaylorH. (1999). Project management (2nd ed.). London: FT and Pitman Publishing.
22.
PerrowC. (1984). Normal accidents: Living with high risk technologies.New York: Basic Books.
23.
Project Management Institute (2001). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® Guide)—2000 Edition. Newtown Square, PA: Author.
24.
SchulmanP. R. (1993). The negotiated order of organizational reliability. Administration and Society, 25(3), 353372.
25.
ThomasJ., & BuckleP. (2004a). Exploring the impact of an official discourse on an emerging profession, presented at Making Projects Critical II Conference, University of West England, Bristol, December 13-14.
26.
ThomasJ., & BuckleP. (2004b). Living in the white spaces between the lines: Exploring the gendered logic systems in project managers’ discourse, in proceedings of IRNOP VI Project Research Conference, August 25-27, 2004, Turku, Finland.
27.
ThomasJ. (2000). Sense-making in projects. In LundinR. A., & HartmanF. (Eds.), Projects as business constituents and guiding motives.Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 25–43.
28.
TurnerJ. R. (1993). The handbook of project-based management.London: McGraw-Hill.
