IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/bushor/v68y2025i1p21-32.html

Seven recommendations for managing projectification

Author

Listed:
  • Lovett, Steve
  • Abraham, Taiwo
  • Jung, Joo

Abstract

Over the past half-century, projects and project-based work have become more and more important to organizations. This may be inevitable due to the increasing volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity of our modern world. Many organizations routinely use project structures to develop new products, enter new markets, or upgrade IT systems, for example. A project is a set of tasks aimed at achieving a specific outcome, and a project structure is a temporary structure within which the tasks are performed. Projectification is a process of change whereby organizations increasingly adopt a project way of work. Hence, a projectified organization becomes a hybrid of temporary structures managed as projects and permanent structures managed as functions or departments. Projectification has many downsides, some of which stem from increased organizational complexity. Still, projectification fosters innovation and change, making it a necessary feature in many modern organizations. Ideally, projectification should be done gradually, and it requires significant changes throughout the organization. In this article, we present seven recommendations for senior managers in projectifying organizations.

Suggested Citation

  • Lovett, Steve & Abraham, Taiwo & Jung, Joo, 2025. "Seven recommendations for managing projectification," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 21-32.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:bushor:v:68:y:2025:i:1:p:21-32
    DOI: 10.1016/j.bushor.2023.10.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007681323001155
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.bushor.2023.10.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Annika Steiber & Sverker Alänge, 2013. "A corporate system for continuous innovation: the case of Google Inc," European Journal of Innovation Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 16(2), pages 243-264, April.
    2. Michael T. Pich & Christoph H. Loch & Arnoud De Meyer, 2002. "On Uncertainty, Ambiguity, and Complexity in Project Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(8), pages 1008-1023, August.
    3. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    4. Turner, J. Rodney & Keegan, Anne, 2001. "Mechanisms of governance in the project-based organization:: Roles of the broker and steward," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 254-267, June.
    5. Rami Alkhudary & Paul Gardiner, 2021. "Stages in project managers’ careers: Learning and growth opportunities," Post-Print hal-04035785, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fox, Kenneth A. & Klassen, Mark, 2025. "Building an innovative sustainability culture through ESG certification," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 719-728.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ferry Koster & Mattijs Lambooij, 2018. "Managing Innovations: A Study of the Implementation of Electronic Medical Records in Dutch Hospitals," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(01), pages 1-23, February.
    2. Nilanjana Dutt & Will Mitchell, 2020. "Searching for knowledge in response to proximate and remote problem sources: Evidence from the U.S. renewable electricity industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(8), pages 1412-1449, August.
    3. David Obstfeld, 2012. "Creative Projects: A Less Routine Approach Toward Getting New Things Done," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(6), pages 1571-1592, December.
    4. Christophe Pennetier & Karan Girotra & Jürgen Mihm, 2019. "R&D Spending: Dynamic or Persistent?," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 636-657, July.
    5. Coccia, Mario, 2023. "New Perspectives in Innovation Failure Analysis: A taxonomy of general errors and strategic management for reducing risks," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    6. Yasser Alizadeh & Antonie J. Jetter, 2019. "Pathways for Balancing Exploration and Exploitation in Innovations: A Review and Expansion of Ambidexterity Theory," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(05), pages 1-33, August.
    7. Pascal Le Masson & Armand Hatchuel & Mario Le Glatin & Benoit Weil, 2018. "Designing Decisions In The Unknown: Towards A Generative Decision Model For Management Science," Post-Print hal-01937103, HAL.
    8. Fons Wijnhoven, 2022. "Organizational Learning for Intelligence Amplification Adoption: Lessons from a Clinical Decision Support System Adoption Project," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 731-744, June.
    9. Svenja C. Sommer & Christoph H. Loch & Jing Dong, 2009. "Managing Complexity and Unforeseeable Uncertainty in Startup Companies: An Empirical Study," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 118-133, February.
    10. Marlen Gabriele Arnold & Kai Hockerts, 2011. "The greening dutchman: Philips' process of green flagging to drive sustainable innovations," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(6), pages 394-407, September.
    11. Hsieh, Chia-Chun & Ma, Zhiming & Novoselov, Kirill E., 2019. "Accounting conservatism, business strategy, and ambiguity," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 41-55.
    12. Xiong, Jiwei & Wang, Tao & Yang, Haibin, 2024. "Innovation search after failure: The role of peers," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    13. Carsten Bergenholtz & Oana Vuculescu & Ali Amidi, 2023. "Microfoundations of Adaptive Search in Complex Tasks: The Role of Cognitive Abilities and Styles," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(6), pages 2043-2063, November.
    14. Arman Avadikyan & Gilles Lambert & Christophe Lerch, 2016. "A Multi-Level Perspective on Ambidexterity: The Case of a Synchrotron Research Facility," Working Papers of BETA 2016-44, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    15. Henri A. Schildt & Markku V.J. Maula & Thomas Keil, 2005. "Explorative and Exploitative Learning from External Corporate Ventures," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 29(4), pages 493-515, July.
    16. Josse Delfgaauw & Otto H. Swank, 2016. "Task‐Specific Human Capital and Organizational Inertia," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3), pages 608-626, September.
    17. Agathe Gilain & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2018. "Managing Learning Curves In The Unknown: From ‘Learning By Doing’ To ‘Learning By Designing’," Post-Print hal-01900961, HAL.
    18. Peixu He & Yana Pei & Chunpei Lin & Di Ye, 2021. "Ambidextrous Marketing Capabilities, Exploratory and Exploitative Market-Based Innovation, and Innovation Performance: An Empirical Study on China’s Manufacturing Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-21, January.
    19. Insoo Cho & Peter F. Orazem, 2021. "How endogenous risk preferences and sample selection affect analysis of firm survival," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1309-1332, April.
    20. Tomasz Helbin & Amy Van Looy, 2021. "Is Business Process Management (BPM) Ready for Ambidexterity? Conceptualization, Implementation Guidelines and Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-25, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:bushor:v:68:y:2025:i:1:p:21-32. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.