Aljawder et al.

A Contingent Model of Project Organization and Management

A Contingent Model of Project Organization and

Management
Research-in-Progress
Maan Aljawder
School of Information Technologies
The University of Sydney, Sydney NSW 2006
Australia
malj3220@uni.sydney.edu.au

Joseph G. Davis
School of Information Technologies
The University of Sydney, Sydney NSW 2006
Australia
joseph.davis@sydney.edu.au

ABSTRACT

There is a presumption in project management research and practice that project management follows a one size fits all
model. This is manifested in the introduction of many prescriptive models by project management bodies such as the Project
Management Institute and the Association of Project Management, to name a few. These generic models steer away from the
differences across projects and focus only on the common aspects of projects. However, in many circumstances, the generic
nature of such models renders them poorly equipped to deal with the challenges of organizing and managing complex
projects. In this paper we present a contingent model that has the potential to deal with environmental variability and
constraints. This model is based on two contingent factors: location of work and project complexity. It develops four types of
projects based on two contingent dimensions and proposes a few related hypotheses.
Keywords

Project Organization and Management, Contingent Approach, Dispersed Projects, Co-located Projects.
INTRODUCTION

Instead of classifying projects by the industry they belong to, the contingent approach assembles projects in classes based on
particular project context factors referred to as contingent factors. Each class (type) includes a number of projects that come
from different industries, yet all have one or more common organizational characteristic. The contingent approach was
proposed by several authors (Hanisch and Wald, 2011; Shenhar and Dvir, 2007; Turner, Huemann, Anbari and Bredillet,
2010). Geographical location and dispersion of project work is one critical aspect that was pointed out in some of these works
(Turner et al., 2010). However, this was not systematically addressed in the context of a contingent approach to project
organization and management. In addition, there is a lack of empirical research dealing with geographical location and related
concerns as key contingency variables in project management. This research aims to develop and test a contingent model that
is based on two contingent factors: location of work and project complexity. The argument is that the fit between the
organization of project resources (human and non-human resources) is mediated by the dispersion and co-location of the
projects members and tasks, as well as the levels of project complexity, as they impact on project performance. The
appropriate organization of projects human and technological resources is an essential step in project planning. Project
managers face difficulties in deciding on the selection and organization of people, as well as the amount of investment in
technology for their projects. Thus, the ability to understand the effects of these contingent influences can aid project
managers to achieve greater agility and effectiveness in managing projects. We develop a set of related hypotheses. The next
step of this research is to empirically test the model and the hypotheses.
LITERATURE REVIEW

Twentieth century witnessed the evolution of classical organization theory through the contribution of three main theories:
Taylors scientific management theory, Mooney and Reileys administrative theory and Webers bureaucratic theory (Daft,
Murphy and Willmott, 2010). Classical organization theory was characterized by its mechanistic structure. Its overly rigid
conceptualization of organizations triggered the neoclassical organization theory, which reacted against the classical theory to
direct its concerns to the human needs. However, both theories (classical and neoclassical organization theories) followed a

Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Chicago, Illinois, August 15-17, 2013.

Aljawder et al.

A Contingent Model of Project Organization and Management

universalist approach that tends to apply one set of principles to all organizations. An unfortunate consequence of the
universalist approach was the tendency to underplay the differences among organizations. Contingency theory attempted to
address the critical variations as they impact performance. The idea was that there is no one size fits all and that
effectiveness is achieved through considering the circumstances organizations encounter. The dominant models in project
management emphasize the planning and control dimensions (Howell, Windahl and Seidel, 2010; Winter, Smith, Morris and
Cicmil, 2006). These models follow rational, universal and deterministic approach (Sderlund, 2004). Other models
investigated different aspects of project management and organization such as behavioral (Crawford and Pollack, 2004;
Sderlund, 2004; Turner et al., 2010), technological, and environmental perspectives (Hanisch and Wald, 2011; Shenhar and
Dvir, 2007).
Contingency Theory

The contingency approach is in the midst of two extreme views; a universalistic organization and management approach and
an every-case-is-different approach (Birkinshaw, Nobel and Ridderstrle, 2002; Kast and Rosenzweig, 1973; Schoonhoven,
1981; Zeithaml, Varadarajan and Zeithaml, 1988). It argues that a middle ground exists to identify common recurring settings
and observe and establish how structures and behavioral processes perform in these specific settings.
The contingency approach assumes that there is more than one way to achieve effectiveness in organizations. Each way has
varying effectiveness under all situations, where one way can be more appropriate for a certain situation than another (Kast
and Rosenzweig, 1973; Zeithaml et al., 1988). Thus, the appropriate match of contingency factors with structural factors
(ways) will allow for better response to the environment and achieve higher levels of effectiveness (Lawrence and Lorsch,
1969).
Organizational contingency theory involves three variable types: Contingency/Context Variables, Structure/Organization
Variables, and Performance/Criterion Variables (Umanath, 2003). Theorists have identified a number of contingency
variables such as environmental complexity (Burns and Stalker, 1961; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1969), organizational strategy
(Chandler, 1962; Child, 1972; Hofer, 1975), technology (Thompson, 1967; Woodward, 1965) and organization size
(Hickson, Pugh and Pheysey, 1969), to name a few.
In the contingency fit theme, the relationship is extended to include a conditional association of independent variables with
dependent variables (Umanath, 2003). Contingency theory assumes that the better is the match or fit between the independent
variables, the better their effect on the dependent variable. The focus of contingency theory follows the same focus of
organizational theory; which to explain an organizations success or failure. Success or effectiveness means being able to
achieve defined goals such as efficiency, profitability, employee satisfaction, and/or higher innovation rate. Furthermore,
effectiveness can be attained through being able to function well as a system and being able to satisfy the stakeholders
(Donaldson, 2001).
Contingency theory rests on the fit effect. This effect has to be confirmed empirically through establishing that the fit of
structure to contingency affects performance positively and the misfit of structure to contingency affects performance
negatively (Woodward, 1965).
Approaches and Models in Project Management

The typical life span of organizations tends to be longer than that of most projects. Projects are one form of transitory
organizational setting that undertakes time-bound, well-defined tasks to create a unique product or service
(Association for Project Management, 2006; Lundin and Sderholm, 1995; Project Management Institute, 2004; Sderlund,
2004). Despite the growing diversity of projects, researchers and professional bodies in project management also proposed
models of project organization and management from a one size fits all perspective. Although they recognized the wide
variations across projects, they generally continued to follow the classical organization theory assumption that projects can be
managed with the same or similar explanatory models, methods, and tools (Turner et al., 2010).
Emerging from the field of operations research, project management in the early years was characterized by a set of
optimization tools and techniques that are used to plan and control project delivery such as Gantt charts and Critical Path
Analysis (CPA). These tools used mathematical modeling techniques to optimize the duration of projects, its associated costs
and production scheduling. These are also called hard systems models (Crawford and Pollack, 2004; Turner et al., 2010).
This approach followed the Taylorian school, which tended to view the project in mechanistic terms. This approach is
insufficient to model project organization and management, because it lacked specificity and relevance in certain
environments. In addition, the optimization approach lacked the ability to include behavioral aspects and quality
management, because it dealt with quantitative and not with the key qualitative aspects. Optimization models are limited to

Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Chicago, Illinois, August 15-17, 2013.

Aljawder et al.

A Contingent Model of Project Organization and Management

being low level modeling tools. They do not provide higher conceptual level modeling of project management components
and their relationships. Furthermore, they only provide tools that help in optimizing the triple constraints (time, cost and
quality). Project success is not dependent on these constraints only. Shenhar and Dvir (2007) argued that achieving business
goals and satisfying key stakeholders are more important criteria for project success.
The optimization approach follows the path of standardizing project management practices by eliminating variation of
implementing these practices. The standardizing practice is achieved by establishing predictable and repeatable processes,
which attempt to minimize the variances among project management practices. The standardization approach seeks to
standardize the practices of project structuring (i.e. process, organization, and information technology), project management
systems (i.e. tools, techniques and metrics), and project culture and leadership (Milosevic, Inman and And, 2001). These
limitations led project management researchers to investigate better approaches that consider key behavioral and
environmental sources of variation as dimensions in the modeling of project organization and management.
Application of Contingency Approach in Project Management

The application of a contingent approach in project management can be divided into two approaches: practitioner approach
and research-based approach.
The practitioners approach relied more on models that aim to standardize project management practices and optimize
planning and control factors. Although these models often discuss the behavioral and environmental aspects and recognize
the differences between projects, their discussion is generic, and aimed to define the topics more than showing explicitly how
these aspects relate to each other. This approach is exemplified in project management professional associations, also known
as Bodies of Knowledge (e.g. Project Management Institute (2004) and Association of Project Management (2006)). These
frameworks provided overviews of the topics to guide practitioners in planning and managing a project through its life cycle.
The research-based approach is more based on theoretical concepts of project management. The aim of frameworks
developed under this approach is to achieve fit between the project conditions and organization characteristics (Howell et al.,
2010). Therefore the focus is on studying more parameters related to the project environment. This approach was supported
by empirical work, mostly case studies (Crawford and Pollack, 2004; Shenhar and Dvir, 2007; Turner et al., 2010). This
approach is relatively narrow and is not capable of including a full range of projects (Howell et al., 2010). It is widely
recognized that further quantitative investigations need to be undertaken.
Several frameworks have been proposed in the literature based on the contingent approach. Hanisch and Wald (2011)
presented several influencing factors on project management. They introduced potential research areas around three
fundamental dimensions of contingency theory (design, context and goal). The framework aimed to contribute to project
management research by incorporating literature from different disciplines. The framework needs to be tested empirically by
developing measures and testing relevant hypotheses. Project categorization attempts were introduced in the frameworks of
Crawford and Pollack (2004), Shenhar and Dvir (2007) and van Donk and Mollay (2008). However, some were not
exhaustive enough to include all emerging project types such as the virtual project (Shenhar and Dvir, 2007; van Donk and
Molloy, 2008). Shenhar and Dvir (2007) proposed a graphical tool, so called the Diamond model, which aimed to: (a) permit
project managers to distinguish the type of their project; (b) analyze the fit between an actual style of project management
and a required one; and (c) identify project associated risks and benefits. Crawford and Pollack (2004) used a numerical scale
which allows project managers to categorize projects by interpreting its types in terms of the hard and soft characteristics.
The framework focused on the projects internal environment and did not consider much of the external environment.
Sderlund (2004) extended projects management further to include recent trends by addressing reasons for the existence of
project organizations and their differences, modality of project organization, and factors that determine project organizations
success. Turner and his colleagues (2010) concur with Sderlund (2004) about the insufficiency of optimization tools to
represent a methodology of project management. They stressed that projects differ from an organizations routine operations
and their success depends, additionally, on how well risks, integration and urgency are managed. Their contingency
perspective stressed on the importance of understanding the differences between projects. Geographical location of projects
was addressed as an attribute to categorize projects. The framework did not explain how this attribute affects the project
organization and performance as a contingency factor.
A CONTINGENT MODEL BASED ON LOCATION OF WORK AND PROJECT COMPLEXITY

The proposed contingent model consists of three main project elements: Project context, project organization, and project
performance. It simply postulates that, in a certain way, project context and project organization must fit together to facilitate
project performance (Umanath, 2003). It directs the attention to the effect of the immediate surrounding environment of
projects on organizing resources to achieve better performance. The project context element consists of two dimensions:

Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Chicago, Illinois, August 15-17, 2013.

Aljawder et al.

A Contingent Model of Project Organization and Management

location of work and project complexity. These dimensions (continuums) together form a two-dimension project organization
that divides projects into four types (Type1, Type 2, Type 3, and Type 4). Each type depicted as a quadrant (See Figure 1).
Each quadrant suggests that when a projects location of work and complexity are at certain degrees, its structural and
technological characteristics are manipulated to a certain level that results in a successful project performance. These
characteristics are referred to as project organization in our model. Project organization practice requires the management of
project resources (human and non-human) (Rad, 2003). The model nominates team structure and use of Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) as the most important characteristics that project managers need to consider in organizing
resources in different contexts.
The decision making in typical hierarchical structures is, usually, centralized in the most top positions, and the information
flow tends to be vertical. These types of structures are typical in stable environments (Mintzberg, 1979). Decisions are
delegated to lower positions as the complexity of the environment grows, because the top positions become distanced from
the sharp-end action positions (at the bottom) and cannot understand arising problems or opportunities (Johnson, Scholes
and Whittington, 2005; Mintzberg, 1979; van Donk and Molloy, 2008). The more empowerment given to people in such a
structure, the more decentralized and flat the structure becomes.
The proper use of ICT can offer synergies with other organizational variables to help achieve goals (Drury and Farhoomand,
1999; Mukhopadhyay, Rajiv and Srinivasan, 1997). ICT use contributes to projects by providing better reliability, greater
efficiency, consistency and accuracy (Nielsen, 1998). ICT use is defined in this model as a technology that facilitates the
performing of tasks, sharing of information, and facilitation of communication among project members.

Figure 1. A two-dimension project organization

Location of Work:

The first dimension is the location of work. It represents a continuum of the geographical distribution of projects members
and tasks. At its lower end a project is called co-located; which means that both the team members and tasks are located in
one physical place. At the upper end, the project is called dispersed; which means that majority of members and parts of tasks
are distributed in two or more geographical sites.
The geographical location of work is one of the contingent factors that can influence the projects structure, and eventually its
performance. By many project managers, co-existence of team members in one location to perform tasks is considered as the
ideal situation because of many benefits (Carmel, 1999). However, there are many cases where project tasks have to be
performed from different remote locations (e.g. global software development projects).

Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Chicago, Illinois, August 15-17, 2013.

Aljawder et al.

A Contingent Model of Project Organization and Management

Co-location is the physical proximity of individuals working on a particular task or product; being within easy walking
distances such as being down the corridor, next floor or in a nearby building (Allen, 1977; Carmel, 1999; Rafii, 1995). Tasks
are performed in the same place as well. Co-location and face-to-face interaction in the development of any product, provides
some benefits. Galbraith (1995) confirms, in designing organizations, that co-location increases communication because
physical distance hurdles are eliminated. The increased communication speeds up projects and reduces projects timelines
because communication lines are short and feedback is given quickly (Rafii, 1995). Moreover, increased interaction can
reduce miscommunication and increase trust, Rafii stresses. Other benefits could be the efficient use of resources and
reduction of project costs because fewer support services are needed to support co-located rather than dispersed. Agile
methods, such as Scrum and eXtreme Programming, are two practical examples of enabling team efficacy through face-toface interaction (Hoda, Kruchten, Noble and Marshall, 2010).
The opposite end of co-location is the dispersed location of work when some or most of the projects members or tasks are
geographically distributed. Organizations distribute development processes across different areas to gain reduction in
development costs, access to specialized designers and developers, around-the-clock operation and/or proximity to customers
(Carmel, 1999; Helen and Nahar, 2011). Rafii (1995) argues that for many projects, co-location is often not feasible due to
the globalization of product development. As introduced in OLeary and Cummingss (2007) multi-dimensional conception,
geographic dispersion has three facets: spatial, temporal and configurational. Spatial dispersion is referred to the geographic
distance between individuals, which reduces spontaneous communication (i.e. face-to-face interaction). Temporal dispersion
is referred to the time difference between individuals. The asynchronous interaction caused by these temporal differences
inhibits rich interaction in solving problems (Herbsleb, Mockus, Finholt and Grinter, 2000). Configurational dispersion is
referred to the number of sites that the work takes place in and the distribution of members (evenly or unevenly) between
sites. Configurational dispersion increases the number of dependencies, which increases coordination complexity. In agile
project management practice, dispersed location of work is inconsistent with one of the Agile Manifestos fundamental
principles - the necessity of co-location for team efficacy (Fowler and Highsmith, 2001). This has given rise to suggestions
for modifying agile methods to conform with distributed settings (Agerfalk and Fitzgerald, 2006; Holmstrom, Fitzgerald,
Agerfalk and Conchuir, 2006).
Co-location and dispersion in projects can be viewed as similar to the classic organizational continuum of centralization and
decentralization (Carmel, 1999). On one extreme, team members and tasks are concentrated at a single point in co-located
projects. While on the other extreme, members and tasks are distributed on different points in dispersed projects. It is not
unusual to consider the decision power to be centralized in co-located projects and decentralized in dispersed projects. Project
managers are challenged to find the right balance between central control and local autonomy (Bryde, 2003). They are also
challenged to balance the amount of ICT utilization in a project. Project environment, whether co-located or dispersed,
contribute in determining this balance. On one hand, centralization works better in co-located environments, where the
manager can have a physical, face-to-face contact with the projects team, which allows easier observation and informal
discussions. Therefore, with a complete knowledge of the work in such a case, a manager can give spontaneous confident
decisions or advices. On the other hand, when the work tasks and/or the team members are dispersed across different sites or
countries, a project manager faces lack of some necessary information and knowledge about tasks on remote sites. This
affects his/her ability to make accurate decisions. Therefore, decentralization works better in these situations, where the
decision making power is delegated to remote sites. Considering the location of work dimension, dispersed projects, should
direct more of its technology spending in communication and collaboration technologies. This will enhance team members
connectivity and reduce dispersion obstacles (Davis and Khazanchi, 2007).
Project Complexity:

Second dimension is project complexity. Complexity is the state or quality of being intricate or complicated, according to
the online Oxford Dictionaries (2010). Project complexity is also referred to the nature and amount of subtasks and their
interaction (Tatikonda and Rosenthal, 2000). In a descriptive framework introduced by Geraldi and his colleagues (2011),
they defined complexity in five dimensions: structural, uncertainty, dynamics, pace and socio-political. These dimensions are
interdependent and could exist as a mixture in some projects. Another definition of complexity is the use of system and
subsystem levels (Shenhar and Dvir, 2007), where low complex projects are viewed as subsystems of other higher system
levels. Complications stem from different sources such as the details of projects tasks, ambiguity of events and causality,
inability to pre-evaluate actions (uncertainty), unpredictability of future events or outcome, rapid rate of change, and social
structure (Argote, Turner and Fichman, 1989; Hass, 2009).
Complexity encompasses many aspects related to projects. We direct the attention to some aspects that will form a working
definition to serve the purpose of the proposed model. Project complexity is reflected in uncertainty challenges such as
difficulty to define, understand or perform tasks. In addition, the unpredictability of the solution or end product of the project

Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Chicago, Illinois, August 15-17, 2013.

Aljawder et al.

A Contingent Model of Project Organization and Management

(Hass, 2009). We categorize project complexity degree by its uncertainty and unpredictability. The complexity continuum
suggests that low complexity projects are those which have clear, easy to define, and easy to pre-evaluate tasks. It also
suggests that these projects have low rate of task change and predictable outcome. High complexity projects are those which
are unclear, difficult to define, and difficult to pre-evaluate. They also have high rate of task change and unpredictable
outcome.
Project Performance:

Project performance is deemed to be the result of the influence of context factors on the projects organization design
(Hanisch and Wald, 2011; Umanath, 2003). The model describes four resulting types of project organizations based on the
dimensions of location of work and complexity. Previous research that attempted to study effective organization structures
for successful performance showed that, low complexity is associated with increased centralization, whereas high complexity
tasks are associated with decentralized structures (Ahuja and Carley, 1998; Argote et al., 1989; Johnson et al., 2005;
Mintzberg, 1979; Rulke and Galaskiewicz, 2000; van Donk and Molloy, 2008). This is demonstrated in the centralized
structure of Type 1 projects and the decentralized structures of Type 3 and 4 projects in this model. However, in dispersed
environments low complexity projects require more delegation of power to lower positions, which results in a relatively
decentralized structure (Type 2).
Positive association between ICT use with the performance was evidenced in Aral et al. (2006). This study found support for
a strong association between ICT use and worker productivity. At the communication level, ICT use was deemed as a key
success factor for virtual group communication because it keeps members connected by distributing information among them
(Davis and Khazanchi, 2007). Generally, the lower the complexity of tasks the more the project managers tend to manage it
using conventional project management approaches and task execution methods, that do not depend on electronic
technologies (Hass, 2009; van Donk and Molloy, 2008). Therefore, ICT use for task related work in co-located projects is
limited (Type 1 and 2). However, ICT can facilitate other, relatively, low administrative tasks such as program and meeting
scheduling and record keeping. In dispersed environments the role of technology could extend to facilitate communication
needs due to the lack of face-to-face contact (Type 2 and 3). High complexity projects tend to have high level of ICT use in
both co-located and dispersed environments (Type 3 and 4). This is because information technologys processing power
helps team members to perform difficult and very sophisticated tasks in a fraction of a second. Furthermore, collaboration
tools enable distributed groups of people to access and contribute to tasks or part of it. Therefore, we presume that complex
tasks require a mediating technology that enables the performing of sophisticated tasks and at the same time enables other
dispersed team members to contribute to that task remotely (Type 3). Next we demonstrate some describing examples:

Type 1: A construction project could be an example of type 1 projects. Recall our project complexity continuum,
the task of constructing a building is clear and can be defined and evaluated in terms of cost, time, specifications and
construction techniques. Once the building drawings are approved and construction is started, changes to the task are
low, and they continue to lower the more progress is made. The final built building (outcome of the project) is
predictable and known from the beginning of the project (i.e. its dimensions, shape, color, etc.). Since the work is
performed on one physical site (e.g. a building on a land of 500 m2), communication between project manager,
supervisors and workers is mostly made face-to-face. This suggests that project managers knowledge of the work
and its related problems is more, which results in more confidence to take accurate decisions on his own. And since
physical contact exists, not much use of communication technologies is required. Such construction projects tend to
have a centralized structure; with decision concentrated on the project manager position.

Type 2: Many auditing projects carried out in large organizations falls under this type. It usually involves working
between different locations (audit organization, multiple locations within the client organization and client
warehouses). The complexity of the audit task is considered to be low because it is clearly defined in terms of its
process and outcomes. Auditors follow specific procedures of collecting information and evidences. They also
conclude with a set of pre-designed reports as an outcome of the audit process. Since auditors work between various
sites they need to take decisions based on their own observation and judgment (i.e. judging a process or physical
condition of an asset), they are usually autonomous in such decisions. Although auditors use some diagnostic
software to test the validity of their clients accounting systems, most of their work is done through examining
physical documents and objects, thus, their use of technology is considered low.

Type 3: Global software development projects are good examples of this type. Developing software globally
requires having parts of the software done on remote sites and developers work from different locations. These
projects are deemed to be complex because of the high unpredictability of the final output product. It is not easy to
define the tasks especially when requirements are gathered from different users. It is also difficult to pre-evaluate the

Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Chicago, Illinois, August 15-17, 2013.

Aljawder et al.

A Contingent Model of Project Organization and Management

amount of coding required. Project managers supervision and knowledge of team members and their tasks is less
due to physical distance, which necessitate delegating decisions to subordinates and give them more autonomy. ICT
use in Software development is high because software development relies on technology to exist in the first place.
Furthermore, technology plays the enabling role in coordination and communication due to the dispersed and
complex nature of this type of projects (Carmel, 1999).

Type 4: Aerospace projects, is an example of such type. These projects are very complex in nature where
uncertainty and unpredictability are implicit in its technology, functionality and outcomes. Aerospace project
activities are typically carried out with relatively steady planned time-critical-schedules, and in a single site (i.e. a
base or lab). Team members autonomy is important to allow for making decisions related to complex problems.
High uncertainty, unpredictability and autonomy dictate a decentralized organization of its structure. Technology is
highly used to reduce complexity, especially in enabling or facilitating task performance.

It is essential to note here that the project types used in this model do not represent industries. Some projects may come from
the same industry but may fall in different project type, which is due to the different complexity levels. For instance, a
software development project may fall in Type 3 quadrant, but another software development project may fall in Type 2 or 4,
it is dependent on how its tasks and people are distributed, in addition to how complex its task is.
RESEARCH IN PROGRESS:

Based on the model developed in this research, we propose the following four hypotheses (Table 1). The empirical segment
of this research is currently in progress. Using survey methodology, we have collected data on team structure, ICT use,
commitment to quality, and project performance for two sets of sample projects; one set is from construction projects, which
represents Type1 projects and the other set from global software development projects, which represents Type 3 projects.

Hypothesis

Project type

H1: Low complexity projects operating in a geographically co-located environment tend to

have a high level of centralization in its structure and use low level of ICT.

Type 1

H2: Low complexity projects operating in distributed geographical locations tend to have low
levels of both centralization and ICT use.

Type 2

H3: High complexity projects operating in distributed geographical locations tend to have
low level of centralization and high use of ICT.

Type 3

H4: Projects operating in a geographically co-located space and are high in task complexity
tend to have low level of centralization and high level of ICT use.

Type 4

Table 1. Research Hypotheses

REFERENCES

1.
2.

3.
4.

5.
6.

Agerfalk, P. J. and Fitzgerald, B. (2006) Flexible and Distributed Software Processes: Old Petunias in New Bowls?,
Communications of the ACM 49, 10, 26-34.
Ahuja, M. K. and Carley, K. M. (1998) Network Structure in Virtual Organizations, Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 3, 4, Accessed on: from <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1998.tb00079.x> DOI:
10.1111/j.1083-6101.1998.tb00079.x.
Allen, T. J. (1977) Managing the flow of tehcnology, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England.
Aral, S., Brynjolfsson, E. and Alstyne, M. V. (2006) Information, Technology and Information Worker Productivity:
Task Level Evidence, Proceedings of the 27th Annual International Conference on Information Systems,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin., 0.
Argote, L., Turner, M. E. and Fichman, M. (1989) To centralize or not to centralize: The effects of uncertainty and threat
on group structure and performance, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 43, 1, 58-74.
Association for Project Management (2006) APM body of knowledge 5th ed. Association for Project Management, High
Wycombe, Buckinghamshire.

Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Chicago, Illinois, August 15-17, 2013.

Aljawder et al.

7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.

25.
26.

27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.

A Contingent Model of Project Organization and Management

Birkinshaw, J., Nobel, R. and Ridderstrle, J. (2002) Knowledge as a Contingency Variable: Do the Characteristics of
Knowledge Predict Organization Structure?, Organization Science 13, 3, 274-289.
Bryde, D. J. (2003) Modelling project management performance, The International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management 20, 2/3, 228-253.
Burns, T. and Stalker, G. M. (1961) The Management of Innovation, Tavistock Institute, London, UK.
Carmel, E. (1999) Global software teams: collaborating across borders and time zones, Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Chandler, A. D. (1962) Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise, The MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Child, J. (1972) Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice, Sociology 6, 1,
1-22.
Crawford, L. and Pollack, J. (2004) Hard and soft projects: a framework for analysis, International Journal of Project
Management 22, 8, 645-653.
Daft, R., Murphy, J. and Willmott, H. (2010) Organization: Theory and Design. United Kingdom, Cengage Learning
EMEA.
Accessed
on:
14
July
2011,
from
<http://books.google.com.au/books?id=s6MAkpcuaZQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Organization:+Theory+and+De
sign&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Qf8pUfbAsqrkgWm4YCwDw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Organization%3A%20Theory%20and%20Design&f
=false>.
Davis, A. and Khazanchi, D. (2007) Does Mutual Knowledge Affect Virtual Team Performance? Theoretical Analysis
and Anecdotal Evidence, American Journal of Business 22, 2, 57-65.
Donaldson, L. (2001) The contingency theory of organizations, Sage Publications, London, UK.
Drury, D. H. and Farhoomand, A. (1999) Knowledge Worker Constraints in the Productive use of Information
Technology, ACM SIGCPR Computer Personnel 19/20, 4/1, 21-42.
Fowler, M. and Highsmith, J. (2001) The Agile Manifesto, Accessed on: 8 May 2013, from <http://www.pmpprojects.org/Agile-Manifesto.pdf>.
Galbraith, J. R. (1995) Designing organizations: An executive briefing on strategy, structure, and process, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
Geraldi, J., Maylor, H. and Williams, T. (2011) Now, let's make it really complex (complicated): A systematic review of
the complexities of projects, International Journal of Operations & Production Management 31, 9, 966-990.
Hanisch, B. and Wald, A. (2011) A project management research framework integrating multiple theoretical perspectives
and influencing factors, Project Management Journal 42, 3, 4-22.
Hass, K. B. (2009) Managing Complex Projects: A New Model, Management Concepts, Vienna, VA.
Helen, M. and Nahar, N. (2011) Key barriers of globally distributed software products development, Technology
Management in the Energy Smart World (PICMET), 2011 Proceedings of PICMET '11, 1-13.
Herbsleb, J. D., Mockus, A., Finholt, T. A. and Grinter, R. E. (2000) Distance, dependencies, and delay in a global
collaboration, Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, USA, ACM, 319-328.
Hickson, D. J., Pugh, D. S. and Pheysey, D. C. (1969) Operations Technology and Organization Structure: An Empirical
Reappraisal, Administrative Science Quarterly 14, 3, 378-397.
Hoda, R., Kruchten, P., Noble, J. and Marshall, S. (2010) Agility in context, Proceedings of the ACM international
conference on Object oriented programming systems languages and applications, Reno/Tahoe, Nevada, USA,
ACM, 74-88.
Hofer, C. W. (1975) Toward a Contingecy Theory of Business Strategy, Academy of Management Journal 18, 4, 784784.
Holmstrom, H., Fitzgerald, B., Agerfalk, P. J. and Conchuir, E. O. (2006) Agile Practices Reduce Distance in Global
Software Development, Information Systems Management 23, 3, 7-18.
Howell, D., Windahl, C. and Seidel, R. (2010) A project contingency framework based on uncertainty and its
consequences, International Journal of Project Management 28, 3, 256-264.
Johnson, G., Scholes, K. and Whittington, R. (2005) Exploring corporate strategy, 7th ed. Prentice Hall, Harlow,
England.
Kast, F. E. and Rosenzweig, J. E. (1973) Contingency views of organization and management Science Research
Associates Chicago, USA.
Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsch, J. W. (1969) Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration,
Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, Illinois.

Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Chicago, Illinois, August 15-17, 2013.

Aljawder et al.

A Contingent Model of Project Organization and Management

33. Lundin, R. A. and Sderholm, A. (1995) A theory of the temporary organization, Scandinavian Journal of Management
11, 4, 437-455.
34. Milosevic, D., Inman, L. and And, O. (2001) Impact of project management standardization on project effectiveness,
Engineering Management Journal 13, 4, 9-16.
35. Mintzberg, H. (1979) The structuring of organizations: a synthesis of the research, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
36. Mukhopadhyay, T., Rajiv, S. and Srinivasan, K. (1997) Information Technology Impact on Process Output and Quality,
Management Science 43, 12, 1645-1659.
37. Nielsen, A. (1998) A Study into Levels of, and Attitudes Towards Information Technology in General Practice. Sydney,
Sydney: Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services.
38. O'Leary, M. B. and Cummings, J. N. (2007) The Spatial, Temporal, and Configurational Characteristics of Geographic
Dispersion in Teams, MIS Quarterly 31, 3, 433-452.
39. Oxford Dictionaries (2010) "complexity". Oxford Dictionaries, Oxford University Press.
40. Project Management Institute (2004) A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide),
Project Management Institute, Inc. in Schwalbe, K. (2006). Information Technology Project Management. 3rd ed.
Canada, Thomson Course Technology.
41. Rad, P. F. (2003) Project success attributes, Cost Engineering 45, 4, 23-29.
42. Rafii, F. (1995) How important is physical collocation to product development success?, Business Horizons 38, 1, 78-84.
43. Rulke, D. L. and Galaskiewicz, J. (2000) Distribution of Knowledge, Group Network Structure, and Group Performance,
Management Science 46, 5, 612-625.
44. Schoonhoven, C. B. (1981) Problems with Contingency Theory: Testing Assumptions Hidden within the Language of
Contingency "Theory", Administrative Science Quarterly 26, 3, 349-377.
45. Shenhar, A. and Dvir, D. (2007) Reinventing project management: the diamond approach to successful growth and
innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts.
46. Sderlund, J. (2004) Building theories of project management: past research, questions for the future, International
Journal of Project Management 22, 3, 183-191.
47. Tatikonda, M. V. and Rosenthal, S. 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.
48. Thompson, J. D. (1967) Organization in action, McGraw Hill, New York, USA.
49. Turner, R., Huemann, M., Anbari, F. and Bredillet, C. (2010) Perspectives on Projects, Routledge, Milton Park, UK.
50. Umanath, N. S. (2003) The concept of contingency beyond It depends: illustrations from IS research stream,
Information and Management 40, 6, 551-562.
51. van Donk, D. P. and Molloy, E. (2008) From organising as projects to projects as organisations, International Journal of
Project Management 26, 2, 129-137.
52. Winter, M., Smith, C., Morris, P. and Cicmil, S. (2006) Directions for future research in project management: The main
findings of a UK government-funded research network, International Journal of Project Management 24, 8, 638649.
53. Woodward, J. (1965) Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press, London, UK.
54. Zeithaml, V. A., Varadarajan, P. R. and Zeithaml, C. P. (1988) The Contingency Approach: Its Foundations and
Relevance to Theory Building and Research in Marketing, European Journal of Marketing 22, 7, 37-64.

Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Chicago, Illinois, August 15-17, 2013.