This exploratory study focuses on the problem of inter-project integration and how the perceived uncertainty and structural complexity affect the importance of different integration mechanisms used. Four case programs from four companies were chosen as a source of empirical data. Data collection in the selected case programs was multifaceted and included in-depth interviews, questionnaires, and documents and archives. Fifteen integration mechanisms were identified and further categorized into five different classes based on the formality of the mechanism and whether the integration mechanism is personalized or impersonalized in nature. This study provides valuable insights for both researchers and program managers challenged to introduce strategic or large-scale changes in organizations. The study demonstrates that proper mechanisms for inter-project integration are dependent on the uncertainty and complexity of the program, and that the proper integration strategy in multi-project programs should allow the use of various alternative mechanisms for information delivery.
AdlerP. S. (1995). Interdepartmental interdependence and coordination: The case of the design/manufacturing interface. Organization Science, 6(2), 147–167.
2.
AlbernathyF. H., DunlopJ. T., HammondJ. H., & WeilD. (1999). A stitch in time: Lean retailing and the transformation of manufacturing—Lessons from the apparel and textile industries.New York: Oxford University Press.
3.
AndresH. P., & ZmudR. W. (2001). A contingency approach to software project coordination. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), 41.
4.
ArgoteL. (1982). Input uncertainty and organizational coordination in hospital emergency units. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(3), 420–434.
5.
ArttoK. A., & DietrichP. H. (2004). Strategic business management through multiple projects. In MorrisP. W. G., & PintoJ. K. (Eds.), The Wiley guide to managing projects.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
6.
ClarkK., & FujimotoT. (1991). Product development performance: Strategy, organization, and management in the world auto industry.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
7.
ClelandD. I. (2002). Project management—Strategic design and implementation.New York: McGraw-Hill.
DaftR. L., & LengelR. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.
10.
DonaldsonL. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
11.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
12.
GareisR. (2004). Management of the project-oriented company. In MorrisP. W. G., & PintoJ. K. (Eds.), The Wiley Guide to Managing Projects.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
13.
GittellJ. H. (2001). Supervisory span, relational coordination and flight departure performance: A reassessment of post-bureaucracy theory. Organization Science, 12(4), 467–482.
14.
GittellJ. H. (2002). Coordinating mechanisms in care provider groups: Relational coordination as a mediator and input uncertainty as a moderator of performance effects. Management Science, 48(11), 1408–1426.
15.
HageJ., AikenM., & MarrettC. B. (1971). Organization structure and communications. American Sociological Review, 36(5), 860–871.
16.
KrautR. E., & StreeterL. A. (1995). Coordination in software development. Communication of the ACM, 38(3), 69–81.
17.
LawrenceP. R., & LorschJ. W. (1967). Organization and environment. Managing differentiation and integration.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
18.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
19.
MilosevicD. Z., & PatanakulP. (2002). The impact of standardized project management: New product development versus software development projects. Proceeding of PMI Research Conference 2002. 14-17 July 2002, Seattle, WA, USA.
20.
MintzbergH. (1979). The structuring of organizations.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
21.
NidumoluS. R. (1996). A comparison of structural contingency and risk-based perspectives on coordination in software-development projects. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(2), 77–113.
22.
PellegrinelliS. (2002). Shaping context. The role and challenge for programmes. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 229–233.
23.
PellegrinelliS. (1997). Programme management: Organizing project-based change. International Journal of Project Management, 15(3), 141–149.
24.
PerlowL. A., GittellJ. H., & KatzN. (2004). Contextualizing patterns of work group interaction: Toward a nested theory of structuration. Organization Science, 15(5), 520–236.
25.
RibbersP. M. A., & SchooK. C. (2002). Program management and complexity of ERP implementations. Engineering Management Journal, 14(2), 45–52.
26.
ShenharA. J. (2001). One size does not fit all projects: Exploring classical contingency domains. Management Science, 47(3), 394–414.
27.
ShenharA. J., & DvirD. (1996). Toward a typological theory of project management. Research Policy, 25(4), 607–632.
28.
TatikondaM. V., & RosenthalS. R. (2000). Technology novelty, project complexity, and product development project execution success: A deeper look at task uncertainty in product innovation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 47(1), 74–87.
29.
ThompsonJ. D. (2003). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory.New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
30.
TsaiW. (2002). Social structure of “coopetion” within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organizational Science, 13(2), 179–190.
31.
Van de VenA. H., DelbecqA. L., & KoenigR. (1976). Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. American Sociological Review, 41(2), 322–338.
32.
VereeckeA., PandelareE., DeschoolmeesterD., & StewensM. (2003). A classification of development programmes and its consequences for programme management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 12(10), 1279–1290.
