From the Editor
Authors: C. Bredillet
Year: 2012

The eight articles appearing in this issue advance project management research along two directions. First, they question the underlying current assumptions of project management and propose alternative perspectives. Second, they bring forward emerging research methods to investigate the research problems in a novel way. The first article is “Advancing Project Management: Authenticating the Shift From Process to ‘Nuanced’ Project-Based Management in the Ambidextrous Organization” (Leybourne & Sainter). The purpose of this article is to advocate for a new project management paradigm that is more flexible and organic as opposed to the current normative perspective. The authors draw on the literature from ambidextrous organizations. Just as ambidextrous organizations operate in conditions of uncertainty and complexity, projects also face a similar challenge from their context. Thus, drawing a parallel between ambidextrous organizational research and project complexity research, the authors bring forward hard and soft systems of projects that need to be standardized, and that are required to be flexible. In support of their argument, the authors state that standardization of certain aspects of a project, such as processes, tools, and leadership, leads to project success. On the other hand, standardizing project organization structure, culture, and performance metrics has limited impact on project success. Further, it is argued that the project practitioners entering the workforce have a greater proclivity to work in complex project environments and therefore are better able to embrace new tenets of project organizations. Interestingly, the authors point to how this interest in acknowledging and managing complexity in projects is not restricted to practice alone, but also to project management education. Based on these arguments, a new model of project management paradigm is proposed where the project planning and execution are merged so as to better manage the uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity inherent in the project. The second paper appearing in this issue is “Establishing Project Portfolio Management: An Exploratory Analysis of the Influence of Internal Stakeholders’ Interactions” by Beringer, Jonas, and Gemünden. This article takes the discussion on the changing nature of project management forward, proposing alternative ways to practice project portfolio management by understanding stakeholder behavior across project portfolio management phases. Two major research questions are put forward: (1) to what extent are different stakeholders engaged with their respective project portfolio management processes? and (2) how does the interaction between the stakeholders affect the intensity of a stakeholder’s engagement to a Project Portfolio Management Process Group? First, the extant literature on portfolio management that includes prioritization and management of resources across the projects in a portfolio is presented. The three major Process Groups—Portfolio Structuring, Resource Management, and Portfolio Steering— are explained. Next, the research on stakeholder management, especially in the context of project portfolio management, is presented. In line with the research questions, the scope of this study is restricted to strategic stakeholders: senior managers, middle level managers, project portfolio managers, and project managers. The authors contacted 223 project portfolio firms from Austria, Germany, and Switzerland, and those that had at least 20 simultaneous active projects within their portfolio were considered as a sample for the empirical investigation. The survey included 426 managers from these firms. A percentage analysis, followed by correlation analysis, revealed that senior management is strongly engaged with portfolio structuring, while line managers are engaged with resource management. Project portfolio managers are engaged with portfolio steering. Interestingly, project managers are not closely engaged with any of these three Process Groups. Further, role clarity affects the intensity of engagement between the project stakeholders in a particular project portfolio management phase. The third article appearing in this issue is “Portfolio Management: The Australian Experience” (Koh & Crawford). As in the second article of this issue, this article refines our understanding of project portfolio management by focusing on the governance structures and the roles and responsibilities of project portfolio managers. The broad research question posed is: How different are the roles and responsibilities of project portfolio managers? A qualitative study using an inductive interviewbased approach with six portfolio managers from service From the Editor Christophe N. Bredillet, PhD, DSc, Project Management Academy, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia