From the Editor
Authors: C. Bredillet
Year: 2011

In order to read this Project Management Journal issue, I suggest embracing a modeling perspective. Talking about modeling should lead me to define what is meant by “model” and to develop some kind of categorization, classification, or taxonomy of models. One can consider basic categories like quantitative vs. qualitative, explanatory vs. predictive, stochastic, nonstochastic mathematical, or qualitative models, linear vs. nonlinear and their underlying assumptions, degree of simplification, systemic effects integration, and so on. I would like to encourage the reader to focus on the following perspective (for more detail see, for instance, Bredillet, 2010, p. 15): “modeling to understand that is to do ingeniously!” The first assumption is that management of projects implies a systemic vision, “an ‘intelligent’ action, ‘ingenium,’ this mental faculty which makes possible to connect in a fast, suitable and happy way the separate things” as stated by Le Moigne (1995, p. 52), quoting Giambattista Vico (1708). The second assumption is that acting in complex, uncertain, and ambiguous management situations involves ‘modeling to understand’—that is, to do ingeniously—‘ingenium’ (Le Moigne, 2003). Thus, beyond the research perspective of each paper, the reader may develop, according to a socialconstructivist perspective, his or her own set of models using “analogically situated experiences to create insight through novel contexts” (Houde, 2007, p. 321) for project management. Hanisch and Wald propose to systemize the different streams of research on the basis of a literature review and to develop a research framework (model) integrating multiple theoretical perspectives and influencing factors (“A Project Management Research Framework Integrating Multiple Theoretical Perspectives and Influencing Factors”). The purpose is to support multiperspectives approaches and the development of strategies for further research. Gasik proposes a model of project knowledge management. Starting from the assessment that knowledge is the most important resource needed for project management, this paper aims at suggesting a full, consistent model of project knowledge management. In their paper, “The Management of International Development Projects: Moving Toward a Standard Approach or Differentiation?”, Landoni and Corti provide a historical view of international cooperation project management systems (models). They compare five of the main models highlighting commonalities, differences, and limits and suggest possible further research. Steffey and Anantatmula (“International Projects Proposal Analysis: Risk Assessment Using Radial Maps”) investigate the risks that inherently affect an international project’s success. They propose a new method (model) of radial risk mapping in order to assist management in graphing their risk findings and to aid in their proposal analysis. De Bakker et al. (“Risk Management Affecting IS/IT Project Success Through Communicative Action”) observe the limited positive effects of an exclusive focus of instrumental action of risk management practice on project success. Moving beyond this assessment, they demonstrate that stakeholders use deliberately risk management (communication model) to convey messages to others. In doing so, they aim at influencing their behavior, synchronizing their perception, and making them aware of the context and their responsibilities, thereby contributing to project success. Chipulu et al. (“An Analysis of Interrelationships Between Project Management and Student-Experience Constructs”) investigate how the parameters that impact the student experience may be interrelated (model). Their findings are aligned with the results of previous research acknowledging that information and communications technology plays an important role in teaching and learning project management. They support as well the assumption that learning is integral to the development of interpersonal skills. Enjoy reflecting on this issue!