The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

Project-based
Reconceptualising line organisations
management in project-based
organisations
815
The case of competence coaches at Tetra Pak
Received February 2006
Karin Bredin and Jonas Soderlund Revised March 2006
Department of Management and Engineering, Linkoping University, Accepted October 2006
Linkoping, Sweden

Abstract
Purpose The aim of the article is to analyse HR devolution from HR departments to the line. Two
important problems are addressed. The first problem concerns the disregard for the changes in line
management that comes with HR devolution. The second problem addressed deals with the lack of
studies of organisational contingencies.
Design/methodolgy/approach The paper presents and analyses an in-depth case study of a
radically projected firm within the Tetra Park group where a new HR-oriented management role has
been created to replace the traditional line management role. Based on the case study findings, the
paper elaborates on the new approach to line management and how a new management role is
moulded in the context of project-based organisations.
Findings Based on literature studies, the paper identifies four key challenges for HRM in
project-based organisations that are critical for the development of the new approach to line
management in such settings. Based on case study observations, it analyses the creation of a new
management role the so called competence coach in project-based organisation within the Tetra
Park group. It argues that the new approach adopted points to the need of breaking out of traditional
conceptions of line management, and of developing the concept of an HR-oriented management role
that is a legitimate player in the HR organisation of a firm.
Originality/value The paper provides a rich case description of a project-based firm in a HRM
perspective. The descriptions and the analysis give practical as well as theoretical implications of
HRM issues that arise in project-based firms, and of changes in line management as a way of
developing the capabilities to handle these issues.
Keywords Devolution, Human resource development, Human resource management, Line management
Paper type Case study

The devolution of HR responsibilities

A key theme in contemporary research on HRM is the devolution of HR responsibilities
from HR departments to the line (e.g. Cunningham and Hyman, 1999; Currie and
Procter, 2001; Hall and Torrington, 1998; Larsen and Brewster, 2003; Thornhill and
Saunders, 1998; Whittaker and Marchington, 2003). This trend seems to be well
documented and as Hall and Torrington (1998, p. 41) state, it has potential
implications for the role of the line managers at all levels, the role and development of
personnel professionals, the feasibility of establishment-wide HR strategy and Personnel Review
Vol. 36 No. 5, 2007
consistency in the handling of day-to-day people issues. pp. 815-833
We see two important problems in existing research on the devolution of HR q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0048-3486
responsibilities to the line. The first problem concerns the disregard for the changes in DOI 10.1108/00483480710774061
PR line management that comes with devolution; the consequences for HR specialists are
36,5 usually the focus of attention. The second problem concerns the lack of studies taking
contextual contingencies into consideration. In this paper, we suggest that this well
recognised process of devolution highlights the need for a closer analysis of the
changes in line management. Furthermore, based on case study findings, we argue that
organisational structure is a fundamental contextual contingency in the analysis of
816 both contemporary HRM challenges and of the increased HR orientation of line
management. Drawing on recent research on new organisational structures, we
particularly address the project-based organisational context.
The article is structured in the following way. In the next sections, we develop the
discussion of the previously mentioned problems, which together point to the need to
address what is happening to line management in project-based organisations.
Thereafter, we present a single-case study of a company within the Tetra Pak Group.
In the analysis and conclusions sections we concentrate on a few key observations and
avenues for future research.
The empirical case is interesting for several reasons. During a short period of time, the
company under study was drastically changed from being a traditional matrix
organisation into an innovative kind of project-based organisation. The transformation
led to the creation of a new management role the so-called competence coach that
substituted the former line management role. The competence coach role was created to
give HRM issues a higher focus and priority. The new organisational structure at Tetra
Pak gives an interesting example of a new approach to line management, which implies
an increased HR orientation. It also provides insights into processes of HR devolution.
Moreover, the case might offer more general insights into the separation of people
responsibilities and technical responsibilities in project-based contexts. We believe that
this can provide a good ground for elaborating on human resource management in new
organisational forms where projects play key roles. Given our empirical focus, it is worth
taking into account that recent empirical studies into project-based forms of organising
have particularly emphasised their effects on management and HR policies and practices
(see, e.g. Hobday, 2000; Whittington et al., 1999).

Devolution makes line managers key players in the HR organisation

The trend to devolve HR responsibilities to the line has been acknowledged in a
number of recent studies, as indicated above. Clark, (1994, p. 21) argues that Key areas
of personnel activity are increasingly owned by line managers who then assume
greater responsibility for more dynamic human resource issues. Many researchers
suggest that this devolution is problematic for a number of reasons. For example,
Larsen and Brewster (2003) question whether line managers have the time, the ability
and the competencies that are required, or if they even have the wish to take on
responsibility for HR. Similarly, McGovern et al. (1997, p. 26) argue that line managers
have limited incentives to get involved in HR activities and that this often leads to a
short-term focus of managerial activity where people issues get low priority. The
studies by Thornhill and Saunders (1998) and Cunningham and Hyman (1999) come to
similar conclusions. Other studies on the other hand, show that line managers welcome
the increased HR responsibilities and are well prepared to take them on (Whittaker and
Marchington, 2003). It seems clear, however, that the devolution of HR responsibilities
places new demands on line management; the new approach to line management
implies an increased focus on people issues and HRM. Notwithstanding, very few Project-based
studies specifically address the implications that devolution has on line management. organisations
One specific concern for many HRM researchers seems to be the possible threat that
the devolution of HR responsibilities poses to HR specialists. A range of studies argue
that HR specialists should have a paramount role in organisations since, according to
these studies, line managers have a limited strategic focus on HRM as well as
significant shortcomings in HRM competencies (e.g. Cunningham and Hyman, 1999; 817
Thornhill and Saunders, 1998). Others see devolution as an increased partnership
rather than a trade-off between line management and HR specialists, and
concomitantly try to increase the understanding of the structure and process of that
partnership (e.g. Currie and Procter, 2001; Renwick, 2003). In both cases, however, the
issue addressed is usually the implication for HR specialists rather than the changing
approach to line management. As expressed by McGovern et al. (1997, p. 13):
While there is of course a vast literature on managers jobs and managerial behaviour /. . ./
there is still a remarkable lack of empirical material on the role of line managers within HRM
in comparison with other HR areas, such as the link with business strategy.
One exception is the study by McConville and Holden (1999, p. 420) of middle managers at
two hospitals where these managers had taken on an increased responsibility for HRM.
The authors describe a difficult situation for the managers who are said to have an
impotent responsibility, which means that they are accountable for HRM issues that
they in reality have very little authority to influence. Moreover, McConville and Holden
(1999, p. 420) report that the responsibility for HRM or liability as they express it
just adds to an already substantial workload in which technical work needs to be
prioritised. The authors conclude that HRM is at risk of becoming a casualty to other
pressures; to be dealt with on an ad hoc, rather than a planned and systematic basis. The
study is a valuable contribution to the discussion about devolution, particularly because
of its focus on the implications for line managers.
However, we argue that the increased HR orientation of line management needs to be
discussed in a wider perspective taking both management roles and organisational
contingencies into account. Existing studies typically point to general constraints that
make it difficult for line managers to assume HR responsibilities. We suggest that
devolution of HRM implies a new approach to line management, which also should affect
its structure and content as well as the fundamental role of line managers. If line
management is becoming more concerned with HRM, then line managers also have to be
acknowledged as increasingly important players in the firms organisation of HRM. We
therefore suggest that it is more fruitful to talk about firms HR organisation, which
includes more players than solely the HR department (see also Bredin and Soderlund,
2005). While HR organisation refers to the way a firm chooses to structure the
performance of HRM activities and processes, HR department refers to the unit that
hosts the HR specialists. The wider term HR organisation accentuates that HRM is a
shared responsibility among various players within the firm, where both the HR
department and line managers normally hold important positions. However, depending on
the structural characteristics of the firm, they might not be the only players, and their
responsibilities and cooperation will most probably take different forms in different
organisations.
PR This brings us to the second problem with current research on devolution of HR
36,5 responsibilities to the line organisation: the disregard of organisational contingencies.

The project-based organisation as empirical context

Existing studies on the devolution of HR responsibilities often present case studies of
firms and organisational units where devolution has taken place (Cunningham and
818 Hyman, 1999; Currie and Procter, 2001; McConville and Holden, 1999; McGovern et al.,
1997; Thornhill and Saunders, 1998; Whittaker and Marchington, 2003). These case
studies give several insights into the complexity of devolution processes, the reactions
from HR specialists and line managers, and, moreover, the constraints and obstacles that
make the processes more difficult. However, in these studies the organisational context is
seldom brought up for detailed discussion or analysis. This is analytically problematic,
since the organisational contexts are likely to have considerable impact on the role that
line management actually takes in the HR organisation of the firm. For example, in the
hospital cases discussed by McConvill and Holden (1999) the organisational context
required that line managers also had important individual functions as working
members of their teams. Their technical and professional expertise was the core of their
management work. Hence, they often neither had the time nor the adequate training for
the amount and type of HRM responsibilities that they were assigned, despite their
willingness to take them on. The role of line managers should presumably take different
forms depending on the objectives and features of the functional departments and people
that they are set to manage and for which they are responsible.
As recognised by a number of researchers, one of the most significant organisational
changes that has taken place over the recent decades is the increased use of flexible
organisational forms and project-based structures (e.g. Ekstedt et al., 1999; Packendorff,
2002; Whittington et al., 1999). The devolution of HR responsibilities to the line is, we
submit, especially interesting in project-based organisations, since the project-based way
of working per se changes the role and function of line management. For example, in the
classic heavyweight team structure discussed by Clark and Wheelwright (1992), line
managers are no longer the technical experts but rather responsible for the competencies
going into the projects and for the long-term career development of individual project
workers. Project-based structures seem to favour an increasingly HR-oriented line
management function since line managers can be seen to a greater extent as managers of
a pool of project workers, with responsibilities for their allocation in projects,
competence development, appraisal and long-term career development.
Research on various forms of project-based organisation has, so far, mainly focused
on the project dimension of such organisations, including coordination and cooperation
in project teams, the act of project management and role of the project manager (e.g.
Engwall and Jerbrant, 2003; Hobday, 2000; Lindkvist, 2004; Soderlund, 2005). Less
attention has been paid to the changes in line management in firms moving towards
project-based structures, even if a number of studies have emphasised the importance
of such changes (e.g. Engwall and Jerbrant, 2003; Soderlund, 2005). Larsen and
Brewster (2003, p. 230) argue, for instance, that:
[. . .] the line manager roles in organisations become increasingly complex because new
organisational structures (e.g. virtual and network organisations) have less well-defined line
manager roles than the traditional hierarchical, bureaucratic organisation which moulded the
line manager role in the first place.
The move towards an increased use of project-based structures has been studied by, Project-based
e.g. Midler (1995) and Lindkvist (2004). Midler (1995) argues that the empowerment of organisations
project structures eventually leads to a number of important effects on the permanent
structures and processes of the firm; for example, whether or not skill-based functional
units are going to disappear, dispersed into different project teams, and if it is possible
to maintain long-term technical learning processes. Midler also discusses the future
need for changes in career management, in assessment tools, and in delegation between 819
project workers and department managers. Similar observations have been made by
other researchers (e.g. Hobday, 2000). Lindkvist (2004, p. 10) describes the
transformation process of an R&D organisation where the skill-based departmental
units were abolished, leaving individuals without a home base or superiors in a
traditional line-of-command sense. Instead, the individuals wandered from project to
project and belonged to competence networks with a chosen leader who had no
formal authority or accountability. The studies of Midler (1995) and Lindkvist (2004)
both point to important implications for HRM in project-based organisations as well as
to changes in management structures, particularly regarding line management.
However, as pointed out by Clark and Colling (2005), there is a lack of engagement
between project management literatures and HRM literatures, even if researchers from
both fields emphasise the usefulness of such an engagement.
In the following section, we highlight some of the challenges that an increased use of
project-based structures, often referred to as projectification, poses for HRM. We
focus particularly on the challenges that are important in an analysis of a new
approach to line management in project-based organisations.

Moving forward: addressing the challenges for HRM in project-based

organisations
While the organisational setting and the individuals work situation are altered when
an organisation moves towards project-based structures, there are signs that the issues
of HRM are being downplayed. Packendorff (2002, p. 46) points out that most HRM
procedures have been designed for permanent organisations where each individual has
a position, not for project-based organisations where positions are non-existent or are
changed all the time. An increasing amount of studies stress the need for research on
the human side of project organisation (e.g. Brewster and Larsen, 2000; Huemann et al.,
2004; Packendorff, 2002). In the following, we identify four key challenges observed in
the literature that need further empirical investigation. We also believe that these
challenges are closely linked to the changes in line management in project-based
organisations.
First, previous studies have argued that project-based organisational contexts
imply increased requirements on the individual employee. For instance, Grabher (2002)
shows that in a project-based context, a career is built on a series of projects.
Accordingly, the individual needs to keep up a reputation and build on relationships in
their project networks in order to ensure interesting future assignments. Also, as stated
by Huemann et al. (2004, p. 1062), an individual in a project-based setting has to take
on the responsibility for the acquisition of the competencies demanded and of his or her
professional development to keep employable. These particular developments of
individual responsibilities should influence the role of the line management function in
PR managing the relationship to these professional project workers with greater
36,5 responsibility for their own development, competence and employability.
Second, projectification tends to create an organisation with a more short-term horizon
where action focus is emphasised. This aspect of projectification has, according to
previous studies, several implications for HRM. The development towards project-based
organisations affects the possibilities to handle long-term development of individuals or
820 deal with other people issues (Bredin and Soderlund, 2006; Hobday, 2000; Larsen and
Brewster, 2003). Following the statement by Huemann et al. (2004) above, it seems that the
responsibility for long-term development is more or less left up to the individuals to
handle. Indeed, in a project-based setting, the only people with a full overview of the
individuals work and development possibilities on a long-term basis are most likely the
individuals themselves. This should, among other things, affect the possibilities of a
project-based firm to handle and control the development of strategic competencies in
order to stay competitive (DeFillippi and Arthur, 1998).
Third, projects rarely take into consideration the workload for the project workers
in previous projects, leading to continuously high levels of work intensity among
project workers (Packendorff, 2002). This, in combination with the increased
responsibilities placed on the individuals to keep themselves employable and stay
competitive in the market-like organisation, as proposed by Lindkvist (2004), might
create a stressful work environment for people working in a project context. Other
studies have pointed at the need for support mechanisms to handle long-term work
situation and balance periods of intensive work with periods of low-intensive work
appears to be difficult in projectified firms (e.g. Packendorff, 2002).
Fourth, and finally, previous research has pointed to the difficulties in handling
compensation and evaluation in project-based environments (Bredin and Soderlund,
2006; Midler, 1995). In other words, projectification tends to separate performance from
evaluation. Most of the work performed by the employees is within project operations,
but usually the line manager is the one who evaluates the performance. In an
organisation such as the one analysed by Lindkvist (2004), where project workers do
not have functional home bases but are individual agents on the internal market, the
evaluation of performance seems to be difficult to handle.
In sum, increased requirements on individual employees, handling long-term
competence development, continuously high levels of work intensity and handling
compensation/evaluation seem to be critical HRM challenges for project-based firms.
These challenges are not to be seen as altogether separate but are interrelated and
influence each other in many ways. However, we believe that they are essential to
understanding what is happening to line management in organisations where projects are
becoming increasingly important. Bearing this in mind, it seems important to design an
HR organisation with roles that are adapted to handle the special demands and
requirements of a project-based organisation and its members. The approach to line
management seems to be evolving into an HR-oriented approach, which presumably
makes line managers crucial players in the HR organisation of the project-based firm.
The purpose of this paper is, given the four challenges discussed above, to increase
the understanding of this new HR-oriented approach to line management, by focusing
on the project-based organisational context and the particular challenges that this
context poses to HRM. The case study presented in the paper illustrates the creation of
a new, HR-oriented management role, which replaced the former line manager role in
order to better meet the demands of the project-based organisational context and its Project-based
members. We believe that the observations in our case study in several ways reflect organisations
measures taken to handle the four previously mentioned challenges.

Research methodology
This paper reports on a single-case study of Plant Engineering and Automation (from
here on PE&A), a unit at Tetra Pak Processing Systems (henceforth TPPS). The unit 821
drastically changed its organisation in order to reinforce and improve its efficiency in
project operations. We heard about the current transformation of the units project
operations through previous research projects at Tetra Pak, and thought it would
provide an interesting case for analysis. In that sense, we relied on a strategic case
sampling (Flyvbjerg, 2006). Our research project was guided by an explorative
approach to gain an improved understanding of the challenges and changes of HRM in
a project-based setting. The chosen setting is however both unique and common. By
comparing this with previous research on project-based organising (e.g. Lindkvist,
2004; Midler, 1995), we wanted a case that was unique in its attempts to reform its
organisational structure and the role of line managers, while at the same time, we also
wanted our case to be common as a case of project-based organisation, to allow for
comparisons with other project-based settings. In order to arrange for such
comparisons of experiences and to gain theoretical insights (Dyer and Wilkins,
1991), we present the background to the change efforts and the experience of various
actors within the organisation.
By conducting a single case study, we believe it is possible to generate new insights
into the current practice of HRM. Such insights might have both the possibility of
questioning current thinking and of generating new hypotheses for future research (see
Keating, 1995). In this paper, we concentrate on four challenges that emerged
throughout the research process in a dialogue between readings of scholarly literature
and analysis of empirical observations. Moreover, the ideas or fragments of theory that
emerge from our analysis shed light on what we argue are two important problems
with current research. Our single case study would then have the possibility to
question current research and, in addition, to generate ideas and hypotheses that may
be important to future research on HRM, particularly in empirical settings similar to
the one we have studied.
The data that we rely on are primarily gathered through interviews with key actors
in the organisation. In the research project, we have interviewed project managers,
project directors, competence coaches and a number of senior managers. In total, seven
interviews with key actors were conducted. We have also had repeated contacts with
the organisation to be able to also study the organisation longitudinally. In addition,
we have had access to internal documents and the minutes of meetings. The present
paper primarily focuses on one of the aspects studied, namely the new organisational
structure and the subsequent changes in the line management role.
The starting point of our research was to discuss the research design with a group
of managers from the company and decide on which of the managers and project
directors to interview. We decided to conduct the study in three phases. In the first
interview phase, we interviewed the HR manager, the managing director, a project
director and one of the competence coaches. We spent one day at the company
conducting these interviews, and each interview lasted approximately two hours. After
PR this first day of interviews, we transcribed the interviews and started our analysis
36,5 work. At this stage, we also analysed internal documents, such as job descriptions and
project manuals. After the first day of interviews, we had a fairly good view of the
structure of the company, its history and the way projects were organised. We then
decided to focus more specifically on the role of the competence coaches. In the next
round of interviews, we therefore interviewed two competence coaches and one top HR
822 manager of Tetra Pak. We also maintained contact with one of the competence coaches
and asked her to write a diary for a number of weeks so that we could get an overview
of the typical tasks and working days of a competence coach.
A first draft of the case description was sent to the interviewees in order to check the
accuracy of our text, to sort out any misunderstandings, and to allow for additional
information gathering. After this followed a brief conversation with the interviewees,
where we also had the chance to ask follow-up questions and discuss certain matters in
greater detail. These conversations have largely added to our empirical material but, in
some parts, it also made it possible for us to try out the context-specific validity of our
analysis.

The case of plant engineering and automation

Introduction
Tetra Pak Processing Systems (TPPS) is one of three business areas within the Tetra
Pak group and it focuses on the preparation and processing of liquid foodstuffs.
Computerised automation systems for the control and monitoring of the processing
systems is one of the fastest growing areas within food processing. TPPSs business is
to offer the customers everything from processing components such as pumps, valves,
pipes and flow metres, to the development, installation and servicing of equipment and
complete production lines.
The company has a global organisation with market companies located all over the
world and the head office located in Lund, Sweden. PE&A consists of two sub units;
Plant engineering and plant automation. Plant engineering manages the customer
projects together with the market companies:
Plant engineering is a pure project-based organisation that supports the market companies
with the resources and competencies that they do not possess. It has become the centre of
expertise when it comes to advanced plant operations. It has project directors, site managers,
purchasing managers, engineers, automation expertise, start-up support. Everything you
need to deliver a complete plant (Managing Director, PE&A).
Plant automation develops new automation solutions for the processing systems. The
unit develops solutions for the rest of Tetra Paks companies, but Plant engineering is
one of the most important clients. PE&A employs about 155 people, most them
engineers working in a project-based setting.

Need for changes

The market for TPPS has changed significantly during the last 20 years; the systems
required today are much more complex and integrated and include more of computer
software. This evolution has led to an increased importance of knowledge in relation to
materials, which indicates that the people and their competencies within the projects
are more important than ever before.
 At the end of the 1990s, Plant engineering suffered from low profitability and Project-based
several members of the top management team identified the need for drastic and organisations
fundamental organisational changes. Most of all, there was a need for more efficient
working routines, both within the department, and between PE&A and the market
companies.
Before 1998, the organisation of PE&A was a classical matrix organisation. A
number of departments were responsible for different functions within the company, 823
including for example purchasing, processing engineering, automation engineering,
assembling and start-up. Line managers, who were responsible for monitoring the
work, for developing the technology and for developing the competencies, managed
these functions. The line managers were the technical specialists, but also the owners
of the resources within their function. When starting a new project, the project director
would ask the line managers for resources to work in the project:
All the time there was a conflict about who was going to get what. The line manager was
supposed to manage the competencies. He owned the resources. It was his responsibility to
supervise the work and develop the competencies. It usually ended up being all about
supervising the work and handling prioritisation. In addition, the functions had their own
responsibility; they were measured on their own performance, so they had no interest in
helping the others. This was a problematic conflict (Managing Director, PE&A).
Another problem identified by top management was the different working methods
used by line managers and project directors. This caused confusion among the project
workers who, besides their line manager, also worked with different project directors,
all of whom had different ideas about how to work and how to manage a project.
During the 1990s, the need for change became more and more obvious, and in 1998 the
idea of creating a new, process-oriented organisation started to take form in the minds
of the top management team.
The change process started in the summer of 1999. The functions were broken up
and cross-functional teams were set up as physical organisational units in order to
enhance the creation of more permanent and efficient project teams. The teams were
composed to include all the competencies necessary to carry through a project
project directors, project managers, automation engineers, process engineers, site
managers, etc.
Competence centres, managed by competence coaches, replaced the functional units
and constituted the base for day-to-day personnel issues such as competence
development, assessment, work environment and assignment of projects. The
competence centres were similar to networks that ensured that projects would get the
right competencies, and that these competencies were further developed.

A new role the competence coach

In the new organisation, each member of a cross-functional team also belonged to a
competence centre managed by a competence coach. PE&As formal description of
the competence coach was:
Competence coach Focus on the competence. Provide the process with the right resources;
responsible for the personnel within the competence centre; competence mapping;
competence development; tools and procedures, application; support the process; resource
and competence planning (Internal information documents, PE&A).
PR The driving force was to diminish many of the problems related to the line manager
36,5 role in the matrix organisation. By separating the personnel responsibilities from the
more technical management responsibilities, the personnel issues would get more
attention. The managing director explained his thoughts in the following way:
Before, when we got a project, the project director picked resources from the different line units
that were involved in the project. But the resources was owned by the line manager, who himself
824 was never involved in the project. Their role was to be responsible for the personnel, but also for
the knowledge. They were experts. They became managers as the carpenter became a foreman.
The ones supervising the work were also the ones with the most knowledge. When we changed
the organisation, we said that this is one [cross-functional] team and this is another team, and
your job is to be coach and nothing else. You should care for competence development, nothing
else. /. . ./ Today, no coach can be better than their co-workers. Technology develops so fast that
it is impossible for us managers to keep up with it. We have to trust that they can do the work.
We can direct how they should do the work, we can ensure that we have competence
development, we can measure what they know and what they dont know, but we cannot do it
better than them! Thats what makes the whole difference. The manager knew everything
before, but today he doesnt (Managing Director, PE&A).
The message in the new organisation was that there would no longer exist line
managers, and there would no longer exist line functions. The new competence
centres and their competence coaches would focus on people issues and competence,
not on technology and supervision:
The advantage of being a competence coach in this type of organisation is that I no longer
have to be responsible for the project finances and everything that comes with that. I can burn
my calories on people issues instead (Competence coach).
The difference between a competence coach and a traditional line manager is the supervising
feature. You are not supervising the work anymore (Process owner).
There has been a lot of discussions about the role of the competence coach. Some think that they
should be responsible for technology, and some think that it is about pure personnel
responsibilities. We gathered many people for discussions, and we agreed that the best
description is that they are the HR departments extended arm. They should care for the
development of the employees. It is much more about soft issues (Managing Director, PE&A).
In the organisation, the competence coach role would be at the same hierarchical level
as the former line manager role. The competence coaches were to be coached by the
so-called process owner; the manager responsible for the design and development of
the business process. The decision to not formally include the competence coach role in
the HR department, reporting to the HR manager despite the view of the coaches as
the HR departments extended arm was a deliberate way of highlighting the
closeness of the competence coaches to the employees and the business operations:
I thought about letting the HR manager be the coaches manager. But, had we done that, it
would have given the wrong signals. That would have told the employees that it is an HR
function. Instead, we now have a coach function that is only for the well-being of the
employees. Kind of like a filter between them and the HR department. Its a balancing act
(Managing Director PE&A).
Indeed, the creation of the competence coach role was not altogether easy. The first
challenge was to find the right people for the job. The HR manager and one of the
senior managers at PE&A worked together intensely for a period of time to find a good Project-based
solution. At first, many of the existing line managers became competence coaches. It organisations
seemed logical not to waste the competencies of the experienced managers already
working in the organisation. However, it soon became obvious that for many of them,
the adaptation to the new role was too difficult. The qualities that had made them
successful line managers were not the same as the qualities needed to be successful
competence coaches. This competence required the right mix of technical expertise, 825
leadership skills, and personnel administrative skills. Even if the competence coach
was supposed to emphasise the soft issues, and not the hard, technical issues, the
coaches also needed technical competencies in order to stay close to the actual work,
understand the co-workers situation and speak the same language as them. On the
other hand, there was an obvious risk that the experience of being technical
supervisors would make it hard for the coaches to not get involved in the technical
development process:
As a coach, you have to leave the technical operations behind, but many of them kept that as
sort of a side activity. Many didnt want to give that part up; they wanted to fiddle with
everything that had to do with the technology (HR manager, PE&A).
Thats a big dilemma when making a change process, I guess. You have the people you have.
You cant just retrain them, and you cant let them go just because they might not fit into the
new role. You have to give people the chance to grow into the new role /. . ./ you should at
least get the opportunity to try it. It is not an easy conversion; you need to change your
mindset (Competence coach).
Consequently, the HR manager advertised for people with a technical background that
were genuinely interested in people with a focus on competence development and
with good teamwork abilities (Internal documents, Tetra Pak). Moreover, the people
applying should have experience from project management and from working with
integrated engineering instruments. Interestingly, it seems that the new role opened up
the possibility for more women to enter the otherwise quite male dominated
organisation. While there were no women holding line management positions in the
former organisation, today five out of eight competence coaches are women.
A second challenge was to find suitable competence development programmes for
the competence coaches. Of the new roles in the organisation, this was the one hardest
to define and there were no training programmes available for this kind of position.

The competence coaches and their work

Each competence coach is responsible for a competence centre of about 20-30
employees. The work of the competence coaches varies to some extent, depending on
which competence centre they coach. Common responsibilities for all of them are to
provide the projects with competencies and to plan the project participation of the
project workers over time. They are also the ones in charge of performing competence
mapping and performance reviews. In addition, they are responsible for the overall
work situation of the individuals within their competence centre.
Normally, the coaches gather all the members of their competence centres once a
week, providing a platform for informal discussions and enhancing the exchange of
experiences within the same competence area. Occasionally, the coach invites a guest
to give a presentation or a lecture on subjects that are relevant for the members of the
PR competence centre. These competence meetings are also an opportunity for the coach to
36,5 inform the members of the competence centre about, for instance, new work processes
or system updates, and to get information about the present working situation of the
co-workers belong to his or her competence centre.
For many of the coaches, resource planning and allocation is the single most time
consuming part of their work. As mentioned, the individuals in each competence centre
826 belong to different cross-functional teams. Each time that a new project is assigned to a
project director in one of the teams, the project director has to design a project team
with suitable competencies for the project. He then turns to the competence coaches for
resources. As explained by one of the competence coaches:
Besides competence development, resource planning for different kinds of projects takes up a
large amount of our time. Things like who is the best man for the project, and who belongs to
which [cross-functional] team. You always wish that you were entirely free when composing
the [project] teams, but you never are. It is mostly about who is available. It takes a lot of time!
/. . ./ Even if you try to stick to your own plan, that is no guarantee. /. . ./ You might have
counted on that [a certain person] would be available a certain date, and it turns out he is not.
Then we have to make a new plan, which might affect other projects (Competence coach).
Competence development is another area of responsibility that takes up a significant
part of the coaches time. This includes competence mapping, competence planning,
identifying the competence gaps in the competence centre, and working to fill these
gaps. It also includes discussing possible development plans together with the
members of the competence centre. One important task is here to try to satisfy the
co-workers needs and wishes for development. The coach is also responsible for the
long-term development of the competencies in the competence centre, ensuring that
these competencies will meet the future demand for competencies in the projects:
We focus more on competence issues now than we did before. We ensure that every
individual has a personal development plan. It is not necessarily all about attending courses;
it is also about planning what kind of project an individual should work in next time in order
to develop in the right way. /. . ./ This might be our greatest challenge. I do believe that we
have become better at planning competence development, we put more time and effort into it,
but we need to improve even more. But the problem is to carry it through because usually you
plan for an individual to follow a certain course at a certain time, and very often they call from
the project and say no, he cant go away then! He cant attend a course that week, he has to be
here! So, very often we have to postpone it, or make some other changes (Competence coach).
The coach also makes performance reviews based on a three-party evaluation by the
co-worker him/herself, the coach and a third party (usually a project director or
someone else that can make a well-founded evaluation of the individuals performance).
The three-party evaluation was an instrument implemented by the HR manager and
the process owner as a response to worries expressed by some employees with regard
to the coaches possibility to make a fair evaluation:
Our employees work in quite long projects, from six months up to a couple of years. We have
project workers that have worked in England for 112 years, they come home once every eight
weeks, and they dont stay for very long. They wondered how do you [the competence coach]
know how I work? Have you even spoken to my project director? So we developed this
instrument, a performance review meeting that should precede every salary negotiation,
where the individual, the coach and a third party evaluate the individual concerning a set of
items (HR manager, PE&A).
In order to follow up and improve every individuals work situation and the work Project-based
environment, the coach also meets every individual in the competence centre once a organisations
year for a conversation about well-being and efficiency. These meetings are open
discussions about the individuals situation, colleagues, problems, work-life balance,
etc. Looking after the co-workers well-being and life-situation are fundamental parts of
the work of a competence coach:
At these meetings we ventilate all kinds of things. We have templates and checklists to 827
follow, so that we dont forget to talk about anything important, but other than that, I let them
speak freely. If they want to speak about their private lives, I let them. Even if their private
life is none of my business, I want them to know that I am there for them. And if I see that a
person is not feeling well, it would be professional misconduct not to ask about it. /. . ./ We can
talk about anything they want to talk about, Ive had everything from one and a half hours
sessions to eight hour sessions. Even if we speak on an every-day basis, it feels good to know
that we have that time. After the sessions, I make an evaluation where I try to find if there are
special problematic areas that I need to deal with. It can be everything from a broken chair to
much more serious problems (Competence coach).
On a day-to-day basis, the coaches are involved in everything that has to do with the
individuals work situation. Among other things, the coaches are involved in conflict
solving in the project teams, there are always practical problems to be solved and the
weekly meetings give them input to discuss working conditions and other important
issues with the project directors and the management team. One of the most frequently
discussed questions is the planning of the projects. Bad planning creates a stressful
work situation, and it is up to the coach to listen to the warning signals, if the project
director does not, and to bring them up for discussion.
Another concern for many of the coaches is the overtime rates. Even if they are not
alarming, people tend to work rather too much than too little. Generally, the
competence coaches feel that they need to hold the employees back to some extent, to
keep them from rushing too fast. The projects are many, the schedules are tight, and
the employees want to keep up their good reputation as project workers in order to be
wanted in challenging future assignments.
The competence coaches are formally coached by the process owner, but they also
attend monthly coach meetings called by the HR manager. This is a forum where the
coaches can meet, share experiences, develop a common ground for their work and ask
the HR manager or the other coaches for advice. Moreover, the HR manager uses these
meetings as an opportunity to keep the coaches informed and updated on HR policies,
new systems and other issues that are important for the coaches daily work.

Future challenges
Generally, the new organisation with its competence coaches has been accepted and
(after some initial confusion) well received by most of the employees. The new
organisation focuses on the importance of well functioning project teams and project
operations, and the roles surrounding the cross-functional teams are there to support
the project operations and the project workers. Nevertheless, the people we have talked
to also see some challenges with the competence coach role. The main problems raised
were related to the actual possibilities to take on the responsibility for each individuals
competence development and work situation, both in the short-term and in the
long-term. The managing director expressed the problem in the following words:
PR What possibilities does the coach really have to do that? Say that Mr Johnson works in a
project in England and spends half of his time there. He works in that project team, so the one
36,5 knowing the most about his performance in the project is his project director. The coach is not
with him! It is enormously difficult for the coach to evaluate his performance, handle the
competence mapping and identify gaps (Managing Director, PE&A).
Moreover, the competence coaches say that the every-day problems, and putting out
828 fires, together with resource planning for the projects takes up a large amount of their
time, which makes it hard to find the time for strategic competence planning.
Another interesting observation is that both managers and coaches have noticed the
decreasing status level of the competence coaches. Starting at the level of a former line
manager, internal studies now show that the competence coach has the status level of a
group coordinator. On the other hand, this was an entirely new career path, which
suited certain kinds of people with the right background and the right competencies:
As an experienced engineer, I have an understanding of the different kinds of problems that the
co-workers bring up as reasons for needing more resources or more competencies. I know
nothing of bits and bytes, but I know the competencies. /. . ./ I like staying close to the
down-to-earth, practical operations. I feel that Ive found the right job. /. . ./ I was always hesitant
towards the idea of becoming an HR manager; it is too far from where it all happens. Being a
competence coach is just right. Im close to the technology, but Im not responsible for which
technology to use. My job is to provide the right competencies and to work with people issues
(Competence coach).

Meeting the challenges of projectification

The case of PE&A illustrates the adaptation of the line manager role to meet the
requirements of the project-based organisation. This adaptation essentially concerned a
move from supervision and functional responsibilities to focusing on HRM. The features
of the competence coach role seem especially promising for developing our understanding
of an increased HR orientation of line management, and of the organisational
contingencies that mould this new approach to line management in project-based
organisations. In the following analysis, we will continue the discussion introduced in the
first section of the paper. We believe that this particular firm and its attempts to improve
HRM illustrate the need for breaking out of traditional conceptions of HRM and line
management. As stated earlier, we argue that the new approach to line management is
crucial for improving our understanding about what is happening to HRM. We
furthermore argue it is important to consider organisational contingencies and various
forms of organisation when outlining a theory of HRM that takes context into account. In
our conception, project-based organisations provide us with an interesting case in point
for elaborating on such a theory. In the following, we explain our arguments in further
detail.

Breaking out of traditional conceptions

The case of PE&A can help us to start moving beyond the traditional conceptions of line
management. Here, an important statement in the new organisation was that line
managers no longer existed, and that the new role was exclusively about managing
competencies and the relationship between the employees and their organisational
context. The competence coaches were not supervising the work in projects. Instead, they
were to stay away from everyday technological problem solving and more look upon their
work as the extended arm of the HR department. To use the terminology that we Project-based
suggested in the introduction of the paper, they were perceived as an important part of the organisations
HR organisation of PE&A, even if they were not HR specialists. It is not possible to label
this new role as either HR specialist or line manager; it is rather a role operating in the
intersection between the HR department and the firms operations. As one of the coaches
expressed it, a coach has to stay close to the down-to-earth, hands-on operations,
understand the technology and have experience of the field of competence that they are 829
coaching, in order to understand the needs and requirements of the project workers. The
people required to fill the positions should be engineers rather than HR specialists. This
profile was even more emphasised through the decision to let the process owner, not the
HR manager, be the formal coach of the coaches. In practice, however, in many ways the
HR manager could be seen as the de facto coach of the competence coaches. This
highlights the difficulties in defining the new management role according to traditional
conceptions of line management and HR management. The case rather suggests that this
is actually a new career path that demands competencies and skills that integrate HRM
and functional expertise in a more elaborate way than traditional, more
technology-oriented, line management roles have required. Obviously, this has
implications for the training and competence development needed for this role. The HR
manager at PE&A talked about the difficulties in finding the right people for the job, and
also in finding adequate training programs and courses.
As pointed out earlier, previous studies into the devolution of HR responsibilities to
the line organisation tend to focus on the shortcomings of existing line managers who
take on these responsibilities. If we acknowledge that the devolution instead implies a
new approach to line management and creates new career paths, then we could break
out of traditional conceptions of the line manager role. That could also enhance the idea
that this HR-oriented manager is a legitimate player in the HR organisation.

The impact of the project-based organisational context

The case highlights several of the challenges for HRM in project-based organisations that
we identified in previous sections. The project workers are taking on more responsibility,
their work is difficult to track and assess, the high levels of work intensity and important
project deadlines make it difficult to plan and arrange for formal competence development
programs. Moreover, the stress levels and overtime rates are important issues, due to the
increased individual responsibility in combination with the continuous pressure of
meeting project deadlines. These contextual contingencies seem to be crucial for the
decision to change the line management function into a new one that would prioritise HR
issues above anything else. Moreover, the devolution of HR responsibilities to line
managers is, in a way, naturally embedded in the projectification process, since the role of
the functions changes into competence layers (Lindkvist, 2004) and pools (Midler,
1995) of project workers.
The challenges of project-based organising also seem to have important effects on
the features of the new management role. The responsibilities that emerged as core
responsibilities for the competence coaches were supporting individual project workers
and planning their project participation, long-term competence development,
performance reviews and assessment, and work-life balance issues.
When it concerns supporting the individual project workers, the role of the line
manager seems to become more about being an agent for the project workers rather
PR than about being a supervisor. An analogy could be that of an artist agent, who
36,5 supports, promotes and finds gigs for the artists in their agency. The line manager in
this conception helps the project worker to pick the projects that are right for their
career and to decide when it is time to take some time off to reflect or to slow down after
a period of intense project work. For the competence coaches at PE&A, an important
part of the work is to constrain the work intensity of ambitious and popular project
830 workers, and to support them in finding work-life balance.
With regards to the difficulties of handling compensation and evaluation in
project-based organisations, the case suggests that the line manager role moves from
direct assessment to that of acting as an assessment hub. Since the coaches do not
directly see the performance of the project workers, their role becomes to gather
information from project managers and other colleagues in order to make a well-founded
assessment and performance review.
The case also suggests that line management in project-based organisations moves
away from managing and supervising functional activities to managing competencies
and people. The increased responsibility that the competence coaches take on for
long-term competence planning and for the building of core competencies makes them
strategically important players in the HR organisation of the firm. However, the
project-based context also complicates the task, given the distance that project work
creates between the project workers and their coach, and the difficulties involved in
finding the time for competence development programs.

Concluding remarks
In this article, we have addressed important aspects of HRM in contemporary
organisations, focusing on the devolution of HR responsibilities to line managers. We
argued for the need of in-depth analyses of the transformation of the role and practice of
line managers, and the need for such studies to take organisational contingencies into
account. Based on research on modern organisational forms, we argued that project-based
organisation is a particularly interesting context for such analyses. The case study
presented illuminates that project-based organisation has important effects on HRM in
many new organisational contexts. The case study also shows that the transformation of
line management is closely linked to the improvement of new forms of organisation and
the role played by HRM in such settings. For instance, in the case study firm the line
management function was transformed into a network of competence coaches that
assumed an important role in the firms HR organisation. The work of the competence
coaches was directed particularly towards handling some of the critical HRM challenges
that come with the projectification of the firm: higher requirements on individuals,
long-term competence development, increased work intensity and difficulties with
evaluation and assessment.
Compared to previous research on HRM, this paper has argued:
.
for the importance of breaking out of the traditional conceptions of line
management, and paying attention to the new HR-oriented management role
that is emerging; and
.
for the importance of integrating the work of this new management role into the
HR organisation.
The competence coach role or similar ideas of line management seem to be Project-based
particularly important in project-based organisations. It seems that this role will organisations
continue to be important, not only for regular employees but also for other project
workers doing important work in the firm. The case study also touched upon the
possibility that projectification offers for operating on a more fluid and open labour
market, which would certainly have an important effect on the responsibilities of the
competence coach. It would then not be enough for the coaches to look only at the 831
internal labour market and the management of flexibility and project assignments but
also for them to look at the external sourcing of resources and competencies. In several
ways, the competence coach would then be critical for handling the liminality of
project workers (Garsten, 1999), in being situated betwixt and between
organisational contexts. Such liminality problems, we believe, are important in
many project environments where people move to a greater extent from project to
project, from company to company. We also believe that such studies may contribute
generally to our understanding of the management of people and personnel in
professional and knowledge-intensive industries.
Compared to previous studies on project-based structures and project-based
organising, this study emphasises the importance of not only looking at organisational
forms and structures, but also at issues of HRM and the change of the HR organisation.
In many ways, as the case study clearly documents, the role of HRM is critical for
well-crafted project-based organisations and for providing the necessary permanent
glue in a temporary organisational setting (Whittington et al., 1999). At the same time,
the interplay between temporary processes, such as projects and project teams, and the
permanent processes of the firm, such as HRM, constitute an important challenge for
project-based organisations aiming at achieving a competitive advantage in a
high-velocity competitive context. Even though many researchers have argued for the
need to study HRM in project-based organisations, little empirical research has been
reported. This paper offers some ideas about the contribution of such studies.
More empirical research and insights are needed and, we believe, the new approach
to line management and the role-played by competence coaches or similar roles are
particularly interesting for the future prospects of project-based organisations. Based
on the observations in, and analysis of the case study presented here, we want to point
out three possible avenues for future research. The first one revolves around the
hierarchical and status aspects of new approaches to line management. As shown in
our empirical study, there were a number of problems that concerned sustaining the
hierarchical status of the new management role when technology and everyday
problem solving activities, were primarily supervised by others. An important area of
research would then be to analyse the long-term consequences for these new line
managers, focusing on status as well as on gender issues and perhaps the relations
between these issues. A second interesting area is associated with technological
problem solving and the consequences for the development of technological
capabilities. An overall question could be: What consequences does this new,
HR-oriented approach to line management have for the development of technological
capabilities of the firm? Our study also illuminated a third avenue for future research,
namely the challenges in transforming line management, for instance, how to design
competence development programs for the new HR-oriented management roles, how to
find people with adequate background and training, and how to coordinate their work.
PR These three areas of research would then not only contribute to our understanding of
36,5 new ways of developing HRM in project-based organisations but also to the knowledge
on how to build sustainable and competitive project-based firms. Finally, given the fact
that we have only looked at one company in one industry and one country, we welcome
studies that elaborate on more structured comparisons, for example by analysing
different types of project-based organisations, in different industries and with different
832 engineering logics.

References
Bredin, K. and Soderlund, J. (2006), HRM and Project Intensification in R&D Based Companies: A
Study of Volvo Car Corporation and AstraZeneca, R&D Management.
Brewster, C. and Larsen, H.H. (Eds) (2000), Human Resource Management in Northern Europe:
Trends, Dilemmas and Strategy, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford.
Clark, I. and HRM, . (1994), the reinvention of modern management, Personnel Review, Vol. 23
No. 5, pp. 15-24.
Clark, I. and Colling, T. (2005), The management of human resources in project management-led
organizations, Personnel Review, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 178-91.
Clark, K.B. and Wheelwright, S.C. (1992), Organizing and leading heavyweight development
teams, California Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 9-28.
Cunningham, I. and Hyman, J. (1999), Devolving human resource responsibilities to the line,
Personnel Review, Vol. 28 Nos 1/2, pp. 9-27.
Currie, G. and Procter, S. (2001), Exploring the relationship between HR and middle managers,
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 53-69.
DeFillippi, R.J. and Arthur, M.B. (1998), Paradox in project-based enterprise: the case of film
making, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 125-40.
Dyer, G. and Wilkins, A.L. (1991), Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better theory:
a rejoinder to Eisenhardt, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 613-9.
Ekstedt, E., Lundin, R.A., Soderholm, A. and Wirdenius, H. (1999), Neo-Industrial Organising:
Renewal by Action and Knowledge Formation in a Project-Intensive Economy, Routledge,
London.
Engwall, M. and Jerbrant, A. (2003), The resource allocation syndrome: the prime challenge of
multi-project management?, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 6,
pp. 403-9.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006), Five misunderstandings about case study research, Qualitative Inquiry,
Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 219-45.
Garsten, C. (1999), Betwixt and between: temporary employees as liminal subjects in flexible
organization, Organization Studies, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 601-17.
Grabher, G. (2002), Cool projects, boring institutions: temporary collaboration in social context,
Regional Studies, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 205-14.
Hall, L. and Torrington, D. (1998), Letting go or holding on the devolution of operational
activities, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 41-55.
Hobday, M. (2000), The project-based organisation: an ideal form for managing complex
products and systems?, Research Policy, Vol. 29 Nos 7/8, pp. 871-94.
Huemann, M., Turner, R. and Keegan, A.E. (2004), Managing human resources in the
project-oriented company, in Morris, P.W.G. and Pinto, J.K. (Eds), The Wiley Guide to
Managing Projects, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, pp. 1061-86.
Keating, P.J. (1995), A framework for classifying and evaluating the theoretical contributions of Project-based
case research in management accounting, Journal of Accounting Research, Fall, pp. 66-86.
Larsen, H.H. and Brewster, C. (2003), Line management responsibility for HRM: what is
organisations
happening in Europe?, Employee Relations, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 228-44.
Lindkvist, L. (2004), Governing project-based firms: promoting market-like processes within
hierarchies, Journal of Management and Governance, Vol. 8, pp. 3-25.
McConville, T. and Holden, L. (1999), The filling in the sandwich: HRM and middle managers in 833
the health sector, Personnel Review, Vol. 28 Nos 5/6, pp. 406-24.
McGovern, P., Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., Stiles, P. and Truss, C. (1997), Human resource
management on the line, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 12-29.
Midler, C. (1995), Projectification of the firm: the Renault case, Scandinavian Journal of
Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 363-75.
Packendorff, J. (2002), The temporary society and its enemies: projects from an individual
perspective, in Sahlin-Andersson, K. and Soderholm, A. (Eds), Beyond Project
Management: New Perspectives on the TemporaryPermanent Dilemma, Copenhagen
Business School Press, Copenhagen, pp. 39-58.
Renwick, D. (2003), Line manager involvement in HRM: an inside view, Employee Relations,
Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 262-80.
Soderlund, J. (2005), Developing project competence: empirical regularities in competitive
project operations, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 451-80.
Thornhill, A. and Saunders, M.N.K. (1998), What if line managers dont realise theyre
responsible for HR?, Personnel Review, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 460-76.
Whittaker, S., Marchington, M. and Devolving, H.R. (2003), Devolving HR responsibility to the
line: threat, opportunity or partnership, Employee Relations, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 245-61.
Whittington, R., Pettigrew, A., Peck, S., Fenton, E. and Conyon, M. (1999), Change and
complementarities in the new competitive landscape: a European panel study, 1992-1996,
Organization Science: A Journal of the Institute of Management Sciences, Vol. 10 No. 5,
pp. 583-600.

Further reading
Legge, K. (1999), Representing people at work, Organization, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 247-365.

About the authors

Karin Bredin is a PhD student in Business Administration at the Department of Management
and Engineering, Linkoping University. Her research deals primarily with changes and
development in HRM, HR departments and management roles in project-based firms. Karin
Bredin is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: karin.bredin@liu.se
Jonas Soderlund holds a PhD, and is Professor at BI Norwegian School of Management and
Senior Research Fellow at the Department of Management and Engineering, Linkoping
University. His current research is primarily focused on project competence and project-based
firms.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints