Deviations, Ambiguity and Uncertainty in a Project-Intensive Organization

This article analyzes deviations in an automation project. The article develops a more holistic view of the project organization, focusing on how deviations are managed. The case study demonstrates that the tools and methods suggested in the literature are rarelyused, and shows the importance of the context of the project in terms of gathering information and sharing knowledge that is required to manage deviations. Furthermore, the case shows that there are a number of deviation-management tactics that are applied to different deviations, dependent on whether they are uncertain and/or ambiguous.

[1]  Dov Dvir,et al.  Plans are nothing, changing plans is everything: the impact of changes on project success , 2004 .

[2]  S. Gherardi.  Practice-Based Theorizing on Learning and Knowing in Organizations , 2000 .

[3]  Rolf A. Lundin,et al.  Neo-Industrial Organising: Renewal by Action and Knowledge Formation in a Project-intensive Economy , 1999 .

[4]  H. Frank Cervone,et al.  Project risk management , 2006, OCLC Syst. Serv..

[5]  Michael T. Pich,et al.  Managing project uncertainty: from variation to chaos , 2002, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[6]  Kim Wikström,et al.  Proactive schedule management of industrial turnkey projects in developing countries , 2004 .

[7]  J. March.  Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning , 1991, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[8]  Mats Engwall,et al.  Peripety in an R&D Drama: Capturing a Turnaround in Project Dynamics , 2004 .

[9]  Nicholas Walliman,et al.  Social research methods , 2006 .

[10]  Alex Pavlak.  Project Troubleshooting: Tiger Teams for Reactive Risk Management , 2004 .

[11]  S. Newell,et al.  Project-Based Learning and the Role of Learning Boundaries , 2004 .

[12]  Kristian Kreiner.  In search of relevance: Project management in drifting environments , 1995 .

[13]  Svetlana Cicmil.  Chapter 8 – Reflection, participation and learning in project environments: a multiple perspective agenda , 2005 .

[14]  S. Newell,et al.  Networks, Knowledge and Power: Decision Making, Politics and the Process of Innovation , 2000 .

[15]  Steven Pender,et al.  Managing incomplete knowledge: Why risk management is not sufficient , 2001 .

[16]  K. Eisenhardt.  Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.