From the Editor
Authors: Hans Georg Gemünden
Year: 2014

05/20/2014 11:36 AM pmj_21426.indd 2 methodological aspects of applying this approach in the context of knowledge management. Her systematic analysis got the prize for the best student paper at IRNOP in Oslo last year. The paper from Thierry Gidel, Gaël Buet, and Dominique Millet is much more pragmatic; it develops a method on how to assess the difficulty of integration in a vehicle-independent innovation project, from the pool of predevelopment projects, with a potential new vehicle project, and how to derive recommendations from this on how intensively and how early in the process integrative communication and planning activities should take place. Their hypothesis is: The needs for integration are not constant; rather, they vary considerably. They develop a measure for the construct “intrusiveness” and, depending on the value of this indicator, they offer varied recommendations on how to organize the integration process. This is a really well done study with high practical value. Based on some insight into the German automotive industry, I can say that the integration need is also clearly recognized, but the integration measures are much more static, following the saying, “one size fits all.” The sixth and final paper from Rebecca Yang, Yaowu Wang, and Xiao-Hua Jin is a very interesting empirical study on stakeholders’ attributes, behaviors, and decision-making strategies in construction projects. Following are abstracts of the papers in this issue. Have fun reading! In the first paper “Project Leadership in Becoming: A Process Study of an Organizational Change Project” by Johann Packendorff, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden; Lucia Crevani, Mälardalen University, Västerås, Sweden; and Monica Lindgren, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, the authors develop and apply a process ontology to the study of project leadership. First, the theoretical implications of a process ontology as applied to project leadership are discussed, outlining an analytical framework in which the on going construction of action space and project direction is seen as involving constructions of project paths, positions, issues, and rhythms. Afterward, the framework was applied to a process study of an organizational change project in which a U.S. management control regulation was implemented in the Swedish subsidiary of a multinational chemical firm. This issue of PMJ presents a very interesting article from Johann Packendorff, Lucia Crevani, and Monica Lindgren who take a process view on project leadership in an organizational change project. They do not concentrate on a given leader who exerts a certain leadership behavior; rather, they take a processual view of how leadership is becoming during a project. This article is not only remarkable because of its different conceptualization of leadership, but also because of the ethnographic approach it uses for its comprehensive empirical analysis. I see three major themes in project and program management, which deserve further research and quality publications: (1) Megaprojects, which are delivered externally from a network of suppliers to a customer organization; (2) management of complex project landscapes, i.e., multi-project management; and (3) management of major organizational transformations. The article offers a new, interesting conceptual lens and an interesting empirical method for the analyses of such cases. The next two papers have to do with major changes in how projects are organized, particularly in the software and media industries. Agile methodologies are intensively diffusing and used in new application areas, and new forms of agile are being developed; additionally, hybrids of conventional process methodologies and agile methodologies are discussed and applied. The paper from Edivandro Carlos Conforto and coauthors offers the results of a survey, which documents the situation in Brazil and how barriers in traditional industries can be overcome. The other paper on agile methodologies comes from Michael Jahr; it offers a formalized quantitative analysis and shows how the performance of agile can be assessed and that hybrid strategies offer better results. The review process for this paper was done by my colleague and departmental editor, Gary Klein, who had to reject many quantitative papers because they were not sufficiently current. This paper, however, is current and has a high practical value for this emerging new management approach because it provides a quantitative assessment and demonstrates the value of hybrid solutions. The next two papers are action research papers. The paper from Chivonne Algeo concentrates more on the From the Editor