Book contents
- Cambridge Handbook of Organizational Project Management
- Cambridge Handbook of Organizational Project Management
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Strategy
- Part II Organizations
- Part III People
- Introduction to Part III
- Chapter 11 Human Resource Management in Organizational Project Management
- Chapter 12 Stakeholders
- Chapter 13 Balanced Leadership
- Chapter 14 Project Teams and Their Role in Organizational Project Management
- Chapter 15 REAL Knowledge at NASA
- Chapter 16 Change Management as an Organizational and Project Capability
- Chapter 17 The Behavioral “Glue” in OPM
- Chapter 18 Developing Organizational Project Management Competencies through Industry Clusters
- Part IV New Directions
- Conclusions
- Index
- References
Chapter 12 - Stakeholders
from Part III - People
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 June 2017
Book contents
- Cambridge Handbook of Organizational Project Management
- Cambridge Handbook of Organizational Project Management
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Strategy
- Part II Organizations
- Part III People
- Introduction to Part III
- Chapter 11 Human Resource Management in Organizational Project Management
- Chapter 12 Stakeholders
- Chapter 13 Balanced Leadership
- Chapter 14 Project Teams and Their Role in Organizational Project Management
- Chapter 15 REAL Knowledge at NASA
- Chapter 16 Change Management as an Organizational and Project Capability
- Chapter 17 The Behavioral “Glue” in OPM
- Chapter 18 Developing Organizational Project Management Competencies through Industry Clusters
- Part IV New Directions
- Conclusions
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Cambridge Handbook of Organizational Project Management , pp. 172 - 185Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J., Havela, L., & Savage, G. (2015). Stakeholder dynamics during the project front-end: The case of nuclear waste repository projects. Project Management Journal, 46(6), 15–41.Google Scholar
Andersen, E. S. & Jessen, S. A. (2003). Project maturity in organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 457–461.Google Scholar
Ang, K. & Killen, C. (2016). Multi-stakeholder perspectives of value in project portfolios. EURAM 2016. Paris, France, 1–4 June.Google Scholar
Aubry, M., Hobbs, B., & Thuillier, D. (2007). A new framework for understanding organisational project management through PMO. International Journal of Project Management, 25(4), 328–336.Google Scholar
Barnard, C. I. (1938/1974), The Functions of the Executive, 30th anniversary edition, 1974 ed., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Beringer, C., Jonas, D., & Kock, A. (2013). Behavior of internal stakeholders in project portfolio management and its impact on success. International Journal of Project Management, 31, 830–846.Google Scholar
Blichfeldt, B. S. & Eskerod, P. (2008). Project portfolio management – There’s more to it than what management enacts. International Journal of Project Management, 26(4), 357–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blomquist, T. & Packendorff, J. (1998). Learning from renewal projects: content, context, and embeddedness. In Lundin, R., & Midler, C. (Eds.), Projects as Arenas for Renewal and Learning Processes. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 37–46.Google Scholar
Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2009). Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 447–456.Google Scholar
Checkland, P. (1999). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester.Google Scholar
Checkland, P. & Winter, M. (2006). Process and content: Two ways of using SSM. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(12), 1435–1441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chia, R. (2013). Paradigms and perspectives on organizational project management research: Implications for knowledge-creation. In Drouin, N., Müller, R., & Sankaran, S. (Eds.). Novel Approaches to Organizational Project Management Research: Translational and Transformational. Copenhagen Business School Press, Copenhagen, Denmark, 33–55.Google Scholar
Cleland, D. I. (1985). A strategy for ongoing project evaluation. Project Management Journal, 16(3), 11–17.Google Scholar
Cleland, D. I. (1986). Project stakeholder management. Project Management Journal, 17(4), 36–44.Google Scholar
Cooke-Davies, T. J., Schlichter, J., & Bredillet, C. N. (2001). Beyond the PMBOK Guide, Project Management Institute (PMI) conference, First to the Future, Nashville, 1–10 November.Google Scholar
Cyert, R. M. & March, J. G. (1992). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Blackwell, London, UK.Google Scholar
Davis, K. (2014). Different stakeholder groups and their perceptions of project success. International Journal of Project Management, 32(2), 189–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, K. (2016). A method to measure success dimensions relating to individual stakeholder groups. International Journal of Project Management, 34(3), 480–493.Google Scholar
Deng, X., Kang, J., & Low, B. S. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder value maximization: Evidence from mergers. Journal of Financial Economics, 110(1), 87–109.Google Scholar
Engwall, M. (1995). Jakten på det Effektiva Projektet. Nerenius & Santérus, Stockholm, Sweden (in Swedish).Google Scholar
Engwall, M. (2003). No project is an island: linking projects to history and context, Research Policy, 32, 789–808.Google Scholar
Eskerod, P. (2014). Stakeholder understanding and perception of fairness: Enriching project management with strategy concepts. In Lundin, R. A. & Hällgren, M. (Eds.), Advancing Research on Projects and Temporary Organizations, Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press, 39–51.Google Scholar
Eskerod, P., Huemann, M., & Ringhofer, C. (2015a). Stakeholder inclusiveness – Enriching project management with general stakeholder theory. Project Management Journal, 46(6), 42–53.Google Scholar
Eskerod, P., Huemann, M. & Savage, G. (2015b). Project stakeholder management – Past and present. Project Management Journal, 46(6), 6–14.Google Scholar
Eskerod, P. & Jepsen, A.L. (2013). Project Stakeholder Management. Gower, Aldershot, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Eskerod, P. & Larsen, T. (2016) Advancing theorizing about project stakeholders by the concept ‘Shadows of the Context’. EURAM 2016. Paris, France, 1–4 June.Google Scholar
Fearon, J. D. (1998). Bargaining, enforcement, and international cooperation. International Organization, 52(2), 269–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman/Ballinger, Boston.Google Scholar
Gemünden, H. G. (2015). Foundations of project management research: Stakeholders and agile. Project Management Journal, 46(6), 3–5.Google Scholar
Huemann, M., Eskerod, P., & Ringhofer, C. (2016). RETHINK! Project Stakeholder Management. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.Google Scholar
Littau, P., Jujagiri, N.J., & Adlbrecht, G. (2010). 25 years of stakeholder theory in project management literature (1984–2009). Project Management Journal, 41(4), 17–29.Google Scholar
March, J. G. & Heath, C. (1994). A primer on decision making: How decisions happen, The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.Google Scholar
van Offenbeek, M. A. G. & Vos, J. F. J. (2016). An integrative framework for managing project issues across stakeholder groups. International Journal of Project Management, 34(1), 44–57.Google Scholar
PMI (Project Management Institute) (2013). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), 5th ed., Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.Google Scholar
Purvis, R. L., Zagenczyk, T. J., & McCray, G. E. (2015). What’s in it for me? Using expectancy theory and climate to explain stakeholder participation, its direction and intensity. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 3–14.Google Scholar
Rhenman, E. (1964). Företagsdemokrati och företagsorganisation. Thule, Stockholm, Sweden. (in Swedish).Google Scholar
Rowley, T. J. & Moldoveanu, M. (2003). When will stakeholder groups act? An interest- and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization, Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 204–219.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment, Psychological Review, 63(2), 129–138.Google Scholar
Slatter, S. S. P. (1980). Strategic Planning for Public Relations, Long Range Planning, 13(3): 57–60.Google Scholar
Smith, A. (2008). Wealth of Nations. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations: A Selected Edition, 2008 edition, edited by Sutherland, K.. Oxford: Oxford Paperbacks. Originally published in 1776.Google Scholar
Steinfort, P. (2010). Understanding the antecedents of project management best practice-lessons to be learned from aid relief projects. PhD thesis, School of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Steinfort, P. & Walker, D. H. T. (2011). What Enables Project Success: Lessons from Aid Relief Projects. Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.Google Scholar
Strong, K. C., Ringer, R. C., & Taylor, S. A. (2001). THE* rules of stakeholder satisfaction (*timeliness, honesty, empathy). Journal of Business Ethics, 32(3), 219–230.Google Scholar
Walker, D., Steinfort, P., & Maqsood, R. S. T. (2014). Stakeholder voices through rich pictures. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 7(3), 342–361.Google Scholar
Walker, D. H. T. & Steinfort, P. (2013). Using an improved rich pictures approach to improve project situational analysis in complex aid reconstruction development projects. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 4(2), 182–198.Google Scholar
- 3
- Cited by