Fwd: AUBEA 2013 - Abstract Review Results

Download PDF
2 downloads 0 Views 258KB Size Report
Comment
Apr 26, 2013 - To: Derek Walker , Peter SP Wong . Hi Derek ... Contact Sue Maloney (see below) for any.
2/3/14

RMIT University Mail - Fwd: AUBEA 2013 - Abstract Review Results

Derek Walker

Fwd: AUBEA 2013 - Abstract Review Results 3 messages Duro Kolar To: Derek Walker , Peter SP Wong

26 April 2013 08:45

Hi Derek and Peter AUBEA has accepted our abstract for the 2013 programme in Auckland. I will commence drafting the paper submission this weekend, and endeavour to have a first (or preliminary) draft prior to our next meeting for review. Regards Duro Kolar. ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: AUBEA 2013 Date: 26 April 2013 07:59 Subject: AUBEA 2013 - Abstract Review Results To: Duro Kolar

Ref: 177 26 April 2013 Duro Kolar RMIT University AUSTRALIA

Dear Duro, On behalf of the Organising Committee for AUBEA 2013, I would like to advise that the following abstract/s has/have been accepted for inclusion in this year's programme. Any recommendations or comments from the reviewer are noted below also. Please note: a small number of abstracts are still under review; if you have submitted other abstracts which do not appear below, they may still be under review. We will inform you of the review results shortly. Contact Sue Maloney (see below) for any queries about your submissions. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=08565a7b1c&view=pt&as_subj=aubea&as_subset=all&as_within=1d&search=adv&th=13e435f0ba69d1a1

1/3

2/3/14

RMIT University Mail - Fwd: AUBEA 2013 - Abstract Review Results

Abstract Details Title: Theme/s: Author/s:

Shaping Project Strategy: Tribalism BUILDING PEOPLE Duro Kolar Derek H. T. Walker Peter Shek Pui Wong

Reviewer comments:

Please click here for information on the paper submission and review process. Paper submission closes on Sunday 14 July. Registration is now open, with Earlybird rates available till Monday 30 September. Please click here for more registration information, or click here to register on your personalised page. Congratulations and thank you in advance for your contribution. If you have any questions about the conference, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Kind regards, Sue Maloney Conference Coordinator The University of Auckland Phone: +64 9 923 5642 Email: [email protected]

Peter SP Wong To: Duro Kolar Cc: Derek Walker

26 April 2013 09:02

That's great Kolar. Let me know if you need some help. Cheers, Peter [Quoted text hidden]

Derek Walker To: Peter SP Wong Cc: Duro Kolar

27 April 2013 16:25

well done Duro this should be fun as well as a good experience AUBEA is a friendly conference so people are often willing to help you and give advice cheers derek [Quoted text hidden]

-https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=08565a7b1c&view=pt&as_subj=aubea&as_subset=all&as_within=1d&search=adv&th=13e435f0ba69d1a1

2/3

SHAPING PROJECT STRATEGY: TRIBALISM D. Kolar, D.H.T. Walker, P.S.P. Wong School of Property, Construction, and Project Management, RMIT University, Melbourne Australia [email protected] ABSTRACT In recent years, there has been an increasing recognition of the importance of the front end of projects, especially, the shaping of project strategy. Researchers have begun to realise that projects fail not only because of incompetent execution, but also, and frequently, because of the influence of stakeholders. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the interest and influence of diverse stakeholders in shaping project strategy, namely, the tribal world of organisations. The paper will also develop a conceptual framework for understanding the elements of tribalism in shaping project strategy. An extensive literature review and analysis was conducted that revealed the concept of project strategy is ambiguous in existing project literature, and that organisational project strategy is mainly shaped by the economy, diverse interests, culture, knowledge, power and politics. Moreover, it was also revealed that acting strategically has a greater influence over the success of strategic decisions than thinking strategically. Keywords: tribalism

Crafting,

decision

making,

influence,

shaping,

strategy,

INTRODUCTION The concept of project strategy is ambiguous in existing project literature (Artto et al., 2008a). The Oxford Dictionaries defines strategy as ‘a plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall aim.’ Britannica defines it as the ‘art of employing plans toward a goal.’ The above may be served as good starting points for understanding the meaning of strategy. Rumelt et al. (1991) suggest that strategy is the direction of organisations or business firms. Artto et al. (2008a, p. 8) conducted an extensive literature review and analysis on the concept of project strategy and concluded that project strategy is ‘a direction in a project that contributes to success of the project in its environment.’ In the definition, direction can be interpreted as goals, plans, means, methods, tools, or other controlling devices, success as achieving the project goals including the ability to survive in a competing and hostile environment, and environment as external factors that may influence project delivery (Artto

et al., 2008a). In general, this literature provides a generic definition of the concept of project strategy characterised by a project’s parent organisation independence and number of project stakeholder organisations. Furthermore, it is noted that scholars often assume project strategy as a linear function that relates to a set of static objectives, plans, and mechanisms, and has its own independent strategy from a parent’s organisation business strategy (Artto et al., 2008a). Nevertheless, the literature does not consider factors or processes for project strategy formulation or implementation, particularly elements that may influence project strategy. Young et al. (2012, p. 889) also agreed with the findings reported by Artto et al. (2008a) and argued that ‘there is little guidance about how strategy gets translated into projects’. In this connection, they suggested that further research should focus on project strategy formulation and implementation. The research limitations identified by the previous scholars timely reminded us that there is still a lack of study in investigating how project strategy is implemented by organisations, and the dynamic connection that project strategies have with the project internal and external environment. In this aspect, some project management researchers described project strategy as an image of its parent organisation’s business strategy (Artto et al., 2008b; Morris and Jamieson, 2005; Kerzner, 2003; Loch and Kavadias, 2012; Milosevic and Srivannaboon, 2006; Shenhar et al., 2005; Shrivastava and Grant, 1985). Artto et al. (2008b) conducted a critical analysis on prior project management literature addressing different context-specific strategies of single projects that revealed projects can be either autonomous of a parent organisation i.e. pursue their own strategies, or a subordinate of a parent organisation i.e. aligning and obeying the strategy of a parent organisation. Similarly, Milosevic and Srivannaboon (2006) conducted a study on strategic management literature on alignment of project management and business strategy that revealed project strategies are derived from, and aligned to, an organisation’s business strategy. Kerzner (2003) argues that strategies tend to derive from a formulated business strategy through executives. However, Milosevic and Srivannaboon (2006, p. 107) suggest that to align project management elements and business strategy, organisations should ‘interpret their business strategy in the context of project management by initiating and selecting projects to fulfil business needs.’ The empirical literature tends to focus on the degree of project autonomy from its parent organisation, and mechanisms that organisations use to align project strategy with business strategy. Artto et al. (2008b) paper also suggests that future project strategy research should focus on connections between a parent organisation’s project and stakeholder strategies. Implicitly, this suggests that future empirical studies should consider the potential impact of stakeholder performance, conflicting or aligned with project strategy.

The above indicates that in previous studies concepts of project strategy may not have duly focused on the elements that may shape project strategy. The literature typically assumes that a project’s strategy is derived from a parent organisation’s business strategy, cascaded down from organisational executives, with static objectives, plans, and mechanisms (Artto et al., 2008a). However, based on its stakeholder focus, we consider that the literature contributes to the discussion of shaping project strategy. The literature views the autonomy of a project based on the complexity of a project’s stakeholder environment. Artto et al. (2008b) suggest that projects should consider the complexity of its stakeholder environment including a stakeholders’ different strategies and stakeholder alliance formation in its selection of project strategy. In other words, project strategies can be shaped by the diverse stakeholders who may have diverse interests in the projects. However, it is worth noting that a typical project may involve a number of stakeholders who may not necessarily share common views and interests. Furthermore, stakeholders may not necessarily share equal rights and responsibilities over the project. In this study, the above dynamics among stakeholders help formulate that project strategies are described as the tribal elements of a project. This paper is based on a literature review to identify the tribal elements of a project. Furthermore, the effects of the tribal elements in shaping project strategies are studied. The findings of this study would enhance our understanding of an intertwined web of external and internal factors that incrementally shape project strategy. This paper commences with a review of the tribal elements that may shape project strategies. This is followed by a discussion of a conceptual model that depicts the elements that shape project strategy. The paper concludes with a summary of key points relating to the usefulness of the proposed approach to project strategy. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR SHAPING PROJECT STRATEGY In this section we will present a conceptual model for shaping project strategy. Based on an extensive literature review and analysis, we were able to derive a framework of external and internal networks of organisational elements (or shapers) that incrementally shape project strategy. The external network of organisational shapers includes a web of economy, social, political, and expert knowledge relational frameworks. Furthermore, the internal network of organisational shapers includes a web of power and politics, information and knowledge, culture, and governance relational frameworks. Collectively, the shaper elements have the ability to influence the decision making process for project strategies.

The model expands on Smith and Winter (2010) research of project formation, particularly, the understanding of the project shaper element of tribal power. According to Smith and Winter (2010, p. 53) ‘projects are formed in the social world’. This implies that tribal power emerges from the interplay of diverse stakeholders having different interests or agendas. Moreover, the literature views tribal power as a significant factor in project formation, especially to the critical front end phase of projects where project strategies are formulated and implemented (Morris and Jamieson, 2005). The paper also expands on Aristotle’s saying that ‘man is a political animal’, meaning that the distinction between man and animal is that man, or a human being, is engaged in political behaviour. Human beings have different interests that lead to different actions, and certain interests must over-power other interests (Wilson, 2003). Network of external organisational shapers Project strategy is influenced by an external web of intertwined relational frameworks. The external environment has been recognised to influence organisational strategy (Allison, 1971; Artto et al., 2008a; Artto et al., 2008b; Bourne and Walker, 2005; Mintzberg, 1983; Pettigrew, 2003; Vuori et al., 2013; Wilson, 2003). Organisational strategies are shaped by the state of the economy or environment (Jabnoun et al., 2003; Pettigrew, 2003). Rumelt et al. (1991) conducted an extensive review of the relationship between strategy and strategic management and found that the changing nature of the economy is a major influential factor that shapes organisational strategy. Moreover, Elbanna (2006) argues that intuition plays a significant role in shaping project strategy in an unstable economy, but negatively in a stable one. Influential variables include the macro-environment, competition, market demand and uncertainty, and technology (Jabnoun et al., 2003). In general, the literature provides a narrow view on the level of influence the economy has on shaping strategic decisions. The literature tends to neglect empirical studies on project strategy, the economy, and the decision making process. Due to this narrow and neglect of studies in the existing literature, there needs to be an understanding of the significance the economy plays in crafting project strategies. The social environment is also another element that shapes organisational strategies. Influencer forces come from a variety of groups including partners, contractors, unions, professional societies, agencies, special interest groups, regulators, governments, family and friends seeking to control the externalities of an organisation (Bourne and Walker, 2005; Delmas and Toffel, 2004; Mintzberg, 1983; Shrivastava and Grant, 1985). These stakeholders impose normative and coercive pressures on organisations (Delmas and Toffel, 2004). Artto et al. (2008b) conducted an extensive literature review on the complexity of the stakeholder environment that recognised there are multiple stakeholders with strong and conflicting interests that influence project strategy. Similarly, Vuori et

al. (2013) conducted a study on the formation of project strategy in response to the project’s environment and concluded that a project organisation needs to create a strategy to fit with the influence of its external stakeholder environment. This suggests that external organisational stakeholders are strong influencers of project strategy. Moreover, it implies that organisations should align, or fit, their project strategy with their external environment. External influencers have the power to shape organisational behaviour by social norms, formal constraints, pressure campaigns, direct control, and membership on boards of directors, which can take many forms including regular or episodic, general or focussed, detached or personal, initiative or obstructive, formal or informal (Mintzberg, 1983). External stakeholders are able to shape project strategy to their own advantage by employing an act of influence – the more acts, or shaper elements employed, the greater the power of influence over organisational strategy (Mintzberg, 1983). Thus a view can prevail that external stakeholders have significant power to influence, and thus shape, project strategy. However, the empirical literature tends to focus on the degree of project autonomy from its parent organisation within a limited stakeholder environment. Empirical research should focus on identifying the effects of using different external social influencers in a project environment, especially incrementally over a project lifecycle, and consider a project’s stakeholder complexities. Politics, or political power, has a significant influence in shaping project strategy (Buchanan and Badham, 2008; Delmas and Toffel, 2004; Eisenhardt and Bourgeois III, 1988; Elbanna, 2006; Sallinen, et al. 2013; Mintzberg, 1983; Wilson, 2003). Mintzberg (1983) is credited as being a pioneer in power in and around organisations, especially powers of coalition and powers of configuration that influence strategies. Mintzberg (1983, p. 172) defines politics as ‘individual or group behaviour that is informal, ostensibly parochial, typically divisive, and above all, illegitimate – sanctioned neither by formal authority, accepted ideology, nor certified expertise’. Similarly, Buchanan and Badham (2008, p. 11) define politics as ‘power in action, using a range of techniques and tactics.’ Sallinen et al. (2013) conducted a study on a governmental stakeholder’s influence on large projects and concluded that a governmental stakeholder can simultaneously restrain and enable projects. For example, a government stakeholder can inform the public about projects and make requirements easier to apply (enabling influence), and can enforce requirements, interfere and halt project work (restraining influence) (Sallinen, et al., 2003). The literature suggests that politics, especially when individual or groups form powers of coalition are able to influence project strategies. More surprisingly, is the fact that political influence can be enabling and restraining. Moreover, Eisenhardt and Bourgeois III (1988) argue that as a means of influence organisational actors tend to form external alliances with the aim to influence and shape organisational decisions. This is also reinforced by Freeman and Reed (1983) argument that external

stakeholders have the ability to influence organisational strategy due to the use of political process, namely, stakeholders forming groups of coalitions that demand organisational change. However, further research is need to understand the influence of politics, and different forms of politics, on project strategy in government and non-government environments. Moreover, the literature does not consider the influence of political power in different project contexts. Such empirical studies would deepen understanding of the power of politics in shaping project strategy. Expert knowledge is essential to the decision making process, which has the ability to significantly influence project strategy (Eweje et al., 2012). Bruijn and Leijten (2008) argue that the substance and generation of information is crucial to the decision making process. Eweje et al. (2012) conducted a study on the influence of information feed on decision making by a project manager and concluded that externally-focused information types have the strongest influence on project strategy. Flyvbjerg et al. (2009) conducted a critical analysis on the delusion and deception in large infrastructure project that revealed external expert actors have the ability to influence project strategy by presenting favourable and often deceptive information. Projects survive because the analysis of information may be biased or inadequate (Flyvbjert, 2009; Williams and Samset, 2010), and external actors form powers of coalition with internal actors (Shrivastava and Grant, 1985). In this view, external actors with expert knowledge have the ability to present or withhold information that can influence the decision making process within an organisation. Consultants tend to provide information that looks favourably on paper with the objective for an organisation to obtain funding for a project (Flyvberg et al., 2009). Moreover, Flyvbjerg (2012) argues that projects tend to secure approval and funds by external actors providing information that underestimates costs and overestimates benefits. Similarly, Williams and Samset (2010) suggest that actors have the ability to interpret and use information differently to influence, and thus shape, the project decision making process. The outcome of this is strategic misrepresentation of project costs and benefits (Flyvbjerg, 2012). This provides the delusion of making projects feasible, but may have adverse consequences in the long-run. In general, the literature provides a narrow view of expert knowledge as a project shaper element. The literature tends to focus on the power of experts to present or withhold salient information to influence the decision making process. Further empirical studies are needed to understand different forms of influence deployed by experts to shape project strategy, especially in diverse project environments i.e. complex and complicated projects. Understanding the external network of influential organisational elements, or shapers, has the ability to significantly shape project strategy. By using any or all of the external means of influence, an actor or group of actors have the ability to influence organisational project strategies. Influencers can take many forms, restraining and enabling projects, presenting

favourable and deceptive information. An internal organisation surrenders a significant proportion of their power as the external coalition of relational frameworks strengthens their power of influence (Mintzberg, 1983). Network of internal organisational shapers Project strategy is also influenced by an intertwined web of internal relational frameworks. Internal systems of power have a strong influence on strategic decision making (Eisenhardt and Bourgeois III, 1988; Jarzabkowski, 2008; Mintzberg, 1983; Wilson, 2003). Internal influencers with power include the chief executive officer, middle line managers, operators, analysts, and support staff (Mintzberg, 1983). Organisational actors can also enhance their interests and obtain the most power by formal authority, control of formal decision processes and structures, control of scare resources, control of boundaries, control of technology, interpersonal alliances and networks, charisma and the ability to cope with uncertainty, symbolism, language and the management of meaning (Wilson, 2003). They manage the decision making process so that their interests are protected and maximised (Eisenhardt and Bourgeois III, 1988). Moreover, Mintzberg (1983, p. 111) states that internal influencers differ from external influencers in a number of significant ways: They tend to have a serious commitment to the organisation by virtue of their dependence on its well-being; they come to know the organisation intimately, by virtue of the amount of time they spend there; and they are the ones who make the decisions and take the actions; the initiative rests with them; the external influencers must influence their behaviour. It is clear that internal actors, vertical and horizontal, have significant power to influence and shape organisational strategy. Jarzabkowski (2008) conducted a seven-year study of top managers in three universities that revealed organisational strategy is shaped by three types of behaviour: interactive, procedural, and integrative strategising. Interactive strategising shapes strategy by influencing the meanings, power, and norms of a specific action; procedural strategising shapes strategy by administrative processes; and integrative shapes strategy by ongoing behaviour by interacting with actors about the meanings, power, and norms instantiated in administrative processes (Jarzabkowski, 2008). This implies that organisations are political due to the diverse influence stakeholders have on shaping organisational strategy. Winter and Szczepanek (2009) argue that projects are political processes due to a number of aspects, namely, interests and agendas, hidden agendas, power and influence, political tactics, and attitudes to politics. Moreover, organisational actors tend to form powers of coalition to influence strategy when they lack power (Nutt, 1999). The empirical literature focuses on power and politics to influence organisational strategy in a pluralistic organisation. However, further research is need to understand

the influence of power and politics in socially dynamic project environments. Moreover, studies should consider the use of power by individual actors, especially in a hierarchical structure and in different project environments. Such empirical studies would deepen understanding of the influence power and politics plays in shaping project strategy beyond a typical organisational environment. A further feature that influences the strategic decision making process is information and knowledge. This is a powerful feature, especially for actors with expert and professional knowledge as they have the ability to draw power away from organisations (Mintzberg, 1983). Shrivastava and Grant (1985) conducted an empirical study on the strategic decision making processes and organisational learning of 32 business organisations facing complex environments that revealed knowledge sharing within organisations is influenced by a number of systems, namely, single person, informal personal networks of selected groups, shared values and culture norms, network of organisational working groups, divisional and departmental systems and procedures, and elaborate system of operating procedures and regulations. This paper suggests that organisational actors have the ability to influence the strategic decision making process with their knowledge sharing systems, particularly, the ability to create, share and use strategic information with their environments. Similarly, Williams and Samest (2010) conducted a critical analysis on the importance of the front-end decision making phase of projects that revealed organisational actors have the ability to influence the strategic decision making process by restricting or omitting essential project information. Nutt (1999) conducted a study on 317 strategic decisions in the public, private, and third-sector organisations that indicated decision makers used subjective tactics, namely, omitting persuasive and compelling information to support a strategic choice. He also finds that some decision makers implemented judgmental tactics by using their powers of intuition, prior experience or knowledge, without supporting information to make strategic decisions. In general, the literature views information and knowledge as a powerful factor to influence the strategic decision making process. However, further empirical studies are needed to understand the salient features of information and knowledge to influence project strategies. Research is also needed on the influence of information and knowledge in different project contexts i.e. project alliances and partnerships that may influence project strategies. The culture of an organisation embodies the underlying assumptions of the strategic decision making process (Wilson, 2003). Johnson (1992) argues organisational strategies are configured within a cultural web of behaviours, rituals, stories, language and expressions, and symbols that bond organisational life. Moreover, Wilson (2003) states that ‘strong cultures can be a potent source of competitive advantage since they allow decisions to be made that would be more difficult in other organisations

with less cultural coherence.’ Andersen et al. (2009, p. 479) state that ‘projects are organisations within an organisation.’ The literature implies that organisational culture has a strong influence on the strategic decision making process. Further, Anderson et al. (2009) conducted a study on the organisational culture and project management, and concluded that the behaviour of an individual is affected by the organisational culture including thinking, values, ideas, rules, standards, and procedures that govern decision-making. Hardy (1996) argues that strong cultural norms, traditions, and values have a strong influence on organisational strategy. This suggests that organisational ideologies have a significant influence on shaping the decision making process. Mintzberg (1985) argues that ideologies are development through three stages: the rooting of an ideology in a sense of mission, the development of the ideology through traditions and sags; and the reinforcement of the ideology through identifications. Brunsson (1982, p. 39) conducted a critical analysis on decisions, ideologies and organisational actions and suggests that ‘ideologies can be formed with the direct purpose of avoiding rational decision making.’ It is evident that organisational culture can embody and influence project strategies. However, the literature is silent on the influence of different cultures, or sub-cultures, ideologies on project strategies. For example, the influence of group cultures on shaping project strategies – are individual or group ideologies more influential in shaping project strategy. Governance aims for shaping conduct in organisations (Muller, 2012). Project governance comprises values, responsibilities, processes and policies, and is executed by board of directors, steering groups and sponsors, project management offices, program and portfolio management with the aim to achieve organisational objectives (Muller, 2012). Vuori et al. (2013) study revealed that the internal project governance structure has a major influence on shaping project strategy. Williams and Samset (2010) state as emphasised by Morris (2009) that project governance is a mechanism to ensure that projects deliver strategic value. The strength of this element is that governance sets a perimeter for steering strategic decisions. This view implies that the strategic decision making process for projects are also governed by a set of organisational boundaries. Nutt and Wilson (2010) state that corporate governance presents a mechanism for identifying who is responsible and accountable for decision making. They also argue that attributing formal responsibility for strategic decisions, such as CEO and/or members of a board, and backing this up with sanctions, will encourage these persons to take more care to ensure that their decisions are not based on distorted information of their own self-serving interests’ (Nutt and Wilson, 2010, p. 125). In general, the literature provides a narrow view of project governance. Research is needed to understand the way project governance influences project strategy. Further understanding is also needed on the mechanisms used by actors to influence project governance.

The internal network of influential organisational elements, or shapers, also has the ability to significantly shape project strategy. By using power and politics to influence internal actors, restricting or omitting information, providing expert knowledge, embarrassing cultural ideologies, and working within a robust governance structure, organisational actors or a group of actors, have the ability to influence organisational project strategies. Conceptual model for shaping project strategy Based on the external and internal elements identified in the literature that shape project strategy, a conceptual model is developed and show in Figure 1. The arrows represent the direction of the network of influence. The conceptual model presents an external and internal web of relational frameworks where organisational shapers can either individually, or collectively by forming powers of coalition, and influence project strategies over the life of a project. Moreover, the decision making process occurs incrementally over a period of time – a richly intertwined decision making network (Langley et al., 1995). Project strategies are implemented with continues feedback to ensure they are still achieving organisational objectives and outcomes.

Network of External Organisational Shapers

Power & Politics

Economy

Expert Knowledge

Information & Knowledge

Culture

Internal Webof Relational Frameworks

Political

External Web of Relational Frameworks

Social

Network of Internal Organisational Shapers

Implementation

Feedback

Project Strat egy a Project Strat egy b Project Strat egy c Project Strat egy n

Implementation

Project Feedback

Governance

External Network of Influence Internal Network of Influence

Figure 1: A model of shaping project strategy

CONCLUDING REMARKS Based on the above literature review, a conceptual model of shaping project strategy is developed. The model indicates that project strategies can be influenced by an intertwined web of internal and external organisational shapers. The review also suggests that influencers can take many forms, restraining and enabling projects, presenting favourable and deceptive information; using power and politics, restricting or omitting information, providing expert knowledge, embarrassing cultural ideologies, and working within a robust governance structure to influence organisational project strategies. The above can all be the tribal elements that shape project strategies. This study can be treated as a step forward to understanding the concept of project strategy, and the elements that have a significant influence on

the decision making process. However, it is acknowledged that this study has its own limitations. Firstly, despite being backed up by literature, the conceptual model required to be validated by the use of empirical data. In this aspect, data can be collected through conducting an industry survey or case studies in the near future. Secondly, projects strategies can take a significant period of time to implement and monitor, especially highly political projects of intangible complexity that take up to 10 years to implement. Therefore, the study will focus on the implementation of project strategies over a timeframe of five years. This paper contributes to the existing knowledge of shaping project strategy, and expands on Smith and Winter (2010) research of project formation, particularly, the understanding of the project shaper element of tribal power. Furthermore, our paper complements the current research on organisational strategic decision making and the success of projects.

REFERENCES Allison, G. T. 1971, Essence of decision explaining the Cuban missile crisis, 1st edn, Little, Brown & Company Ltd, Boston. Anderson, E. S., Dysvik, A. & Vaagaasar, A. L. 2009, ‘Organizational rationality and project management’, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 479-498. Artto, K., Kujala, J., Dietrich, P. & Martinsuo, M. 2008a, ‘What is project strategy?’, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 4-12. Artto, K., Martinsuo, M., Dietrich, P. & Kujala, J. 2008b, ‘Project strategy: strategy types and their contents in innovation projects’, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 49-70. Bourne, L & Walker, D. H. T. 2005, ‘Visualising and mapping stakeholder influence’, Management Decision, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 649-660. Bruijm, H. & Leijten, M. 2008, ‘Mega-project and contested information’, in Priemus, H., van Wee, B. & Flyvbjerg, B., Decision-making on MegaProjects: Cost benefit Analysis, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 84-101. Brunsson, N. 1982, ‘The irrationality of action and action rationality: decisions, ideologies and organizational actions’, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 29-44. Buchanan, D. A. & Badham, R. J. 2008, Power, politics an organisational change, 2nd edn, SAGE Publications Ltd, London. Delmas, M. & Toffel, M. W. 2004, ‘Stakeholders and environmental management practices: an institutional framework’, Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 209-222. Eisenhardt, K. M. & Bourgeois III, L. J. 1988, ‘Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments: toward a midrange theory’, The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 737-770. Elbanna, Said. 2006, ‘Strategic decision-making: process perspectives’, International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1-20. Eweje, J., Turner, R. & Muller, R. 2012, ‘Maximizing strategic value from megaprojects: the influence of information-feed on decision making by the project manager’, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 639-651.

Flyvbjerg, B. 2009, ‘Survival of the unfittest: why the worst infrastructure gets built – and what we can do about it’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 344-367. Flyvbjerg, B. 2012, ‘Over budget, over time, over and over again managing major projects’, in Morris, P. W. G., Pinto, J. K. & Soderlund, J., The Oxford Handbook of Project Management, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 321-344. Flyvbjerg, B., Garbuio, M. & Lovallo, D. 2012, ‘Delusion and deception in large infrastructure projects: two models for explaining and preventing executive disaster’, California Management Review, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 170-193. Freeman, R. E. & Reed, D. L. 1983, ‘Stockholders and stakeholders: a new perspective on corporate governance’, California Management Review, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 88-106. Hardy, C. 1996, ‘Understanding power: bringing about strategic change’, British Journal of Management, vol. 7, no. s1, pp. s3-s16. Jabnoun, N., Khalifah, A. & Yusuf, A. 2003, ‘Environmental uncertainty, strategic orientation, and quality management: a contingency model’, The Quality Management Journal, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 17-31. Jarzabkowski, P. 2008, ‘Shaping strategy as a structuration process’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 621-650. Johnson, G. 1992, ‘Managing strategic change – strategy, culture and action’, Long Range Planning, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 28-36. Kerzner, H. 2003, ‘Strategic planning for a project office’, Project Management Journal, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 13-25. Langley, A., Mintzberg, H., Pitcher, P., Posada, E. & Saint-Macary, J. 1995, ‘Opening up decision making: the view from the black stool’, Organization Science, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 260-279. Loch, C. & Kavadias, S. 2012, ‘Implementing strategy through projects’, in Morris, P. W. G., Pinto, J. K. & Soderlund, J., The Oxford Handbook of Project Management, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 224-251. Milosevic, D. & Srivannaboon, S. 2006, ‘A theoretical framework for aligning project management with business strategy’, Project Management Journal, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 98-110.

Morris, P W. G. & Jamieson, A. 2005, ‘Moving from corporate strategy to project strategy’, Project Management Journal, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 4-18. Morris, P. W. G., ‘Implementing strategy the importance of managing the project Samset, K. & Sunnevag, K. J., Making Information Front-End Decision Making MacMillan, Basingstoke, pp. 39-67.

through project management: front-end’, in Williams, T. M., Essential Choices with Scant in Major Projects, Palgrave

Muller, R. 2012, ‘Project governance’, in Morris, P. W. G., Pinto, J. K. & Soderlund, J., The Oxford Handbook of Project Management, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 297-320. Nutt, P. 1999, ‘Public-private differences and the assessment of alternatives for decision making’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 305-349. Nutt, P. & Wilson, D. 2010, Handbook of decision making, 1st edn, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chicester. Pettigrew, A. 2003, ‘Strategy as process, power and change’, in Cummings, S. & Wilson, D., Images of Strategy, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Malden, pp. 301-330. Rumelt R. P., Schendel, D. & Teece, D. J. 1991, ‘Strategic management and economics’, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 5-29. Sallinen, L., Ruuska, I. & Ahola, T. 2013, ‘How governmental stakeholders influence large projects: the case of nuclear power plant project’, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 51-68. Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Milosevic, D., Mulenburg, J., Patanakul, P., Reilly, R., Ryan, M., Sage, A., Sauer, B., Srivannaboon, S., Stefanovic, J. & Thamhain, B. 2005, ‘Toward a NASA-specific project management framework’, Engineering Management Journal, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 8-16. Shrivastava, P. & Grant, J. H. 1985, ‘Empirically derived models of strategic decision-making processes’, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 97-113. Smith, C. & Winter, M. 2010, ‘The craft of project shaping’, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 46-60. Vuori, E., Mutka, S., Aaltonen, P. & Artto, K. 2013, ‘That is not how we brought you up: how is the strategy of a project formed’, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 88-105.

Williams, T. & Samset, K. 2010, ‘Issues in front-end decision making on projects’, Project Management Journal, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 38-49. Wilson, D. 2003, ‘Strategy as decision making’, in Cummings, S. & Wilson, D., Images of Strategy, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Malden, pp. 383410. Winter, M. & Szczepanek, T. 2009, Images of projects, 1st edn, Gower Publishing Limited, Surrey. Young, R., Young, M., Jordan, E., & O’Connor, P. 2012, ‘Is strategy being implemented through projects? Contrary evidence from a leader in New Public Management’, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 887-900.