In a deliberate attempt to shift the analytical focus away from critical examination of the underlying ideological assumptions of project management standards, this study focuses on the performativity of a specific project life cycle methodology. Through a case study, the article analyzes the effects and usages of the methodology in practice. This article proposes to think of project methodologies as fluid objects, creating shifting and adaptable relationships between methodology and practice.
American National Standards Institute & Project Management Institute. (2008). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide) (4th ed.). Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
2.
BeckK., BeedleM., van BennekumA., CockburnA., CunninghamW., FowlerM., … ThomasD. (2001). Manifesto for agile software development. Retrieved from http://agilemanifesto.org/
3.
CicmilS. (2006). Understanding project management practice through interpretative and critical research perspectives. Project Management Journal, 37(2), 37.
4.
CicmilS., & HodgsonD. (2006). Making projects critical: An introduction. In CicmilS., & HodgsonD. (Eds.), Making projects critical (Paperback ed., pp. 1–29). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
5.
ClarkeA. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
Danish Ministry of Research. (1999). Digital Denmark: conversion to the network society.Copenhagen, Denmark: Statens Publikationer.
7.
De LaetM., & MolA. (2000). The Zimbabwe bush pump: Mechanics of a fluid technology. Social Studies of Science, 30(2), 225–263.
8.
DreyfusS. (2004). The five-stage model of adult skill acquisition. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 24(3), 177–181.
9.
DreyfusH. L., & DreyfusS. E. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer.Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
10.
FlyvbjergB. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
11.
FlyvbjergB. (2004). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. In SealeC., SealeC., GubriumF., & SilvermanD. (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (1st ed., pp. 420–434). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
GadC. (2009). Dokumenter i styring-spraksis: Om læsestrategier og tekster som etnografiske objekter [Documents in control practice: About reading strategies and texts as ethnographic objects]. STS Encounters, 2(1), 36.
13.
HällgrenM., & SöderholmA. (2012). Project-as-practice: New approach, new insights. In MorrisP. W. G., PintoJ. K., & SöderlundJ. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of project management (Paperback ed., pp. 500–516). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
HodgsonD., & CicmilS. (2006). Are projects real? The PMBOK and the legitimation of project management knowledge. In HodgsonD., & CicmilS. (Eds.), Making project critical (1st ed., pp. 29–50). New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
17.
HodgsonD., & CicmilS. (2011). The politics of standards in modern management: Making 'the project' a reality. Journal of Management Studies, 44(3), 431–450.
18.
JensenC. B., & LauritsenP. (2005). Reading “digital Denmark”: IT reports as material-semiotic actors. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30(3), 352–373.
19.
LatourB. (1986). The powers of association. In LawJ. (Ed.), Power, action and belief (pp. 264–280). London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
20.
LatourB. (1994). We have never been modern [Nous n'avons jamais été modernes]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
LatourB. (1999). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers (5th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
LatourB., & WoolgarS. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts (1st paperback ed.). Chichester, West Sussex, England: Princeton University Press.
23.
LawJ. (1986). On the methods of long distance control: Vessels, navigation, and the Portuguese route to India (Paperback ed.). London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
24.
LawJ. (2009). Actor network theory and material semiotics. In TurnerB. S. (Ed.), The new Blackwell companion to social theory (2nd ed., pp. 141–158). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
LindkvistL., SöderlundJ., & TellF. (1998). Managing product development projects: On the significance of fountains and deadlines. Organization Studies, 19(6), 931.
NewellM. W., & GrashinaM. N. (2003). The project management question and answer book.New York, NY: Amacom.
29.
PackendorffJ. (1995). Inquiring into the temporary organization: New directions for project management research. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 319–333. doi: 10.1016/0956-5221(95)00018-Q
30.
SchönD. A. (1995). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (Repr. ed.).Aldershot, England: Arena.
31.
SchwaberK. (2004). Agile project management with scrum.Redmond, WA: Microsoft.
32.
SöderlundJ. (2011). Theoretical foundations of project management: Suggestions for a pluralistic understanding. In MorrisP. W. G., PintoJ. K., & SöderlundJ. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of project management (1st ed., pp. 37–64). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
33.
StraussA. L., & CorbinJ. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory, procedures and techniques.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
34.
StraussA. L., & CorbinJ. M. (1997). Grounded theory in practice.London, England: Sage.
35.
SuchmanL. A. (1994). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human–machine communication (Repr. ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
36.
WeberM. (1989). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (20th impr. ed.). London, England: Unwin Hyman.
37.
WoolgarS., CoopmansC., NeylandD., & SimakovaE. (2009). Does STS mean business?Organization, 16(1), 5–30.
