ArticlePDF Available

The history and future of projects as a transition innovation: Towards a sustainable project management framework

Authors:

Abstract

Project management practices have evolved as the discipline grew from managing defence and engineering projects to delivering information systems, supporting organizational transformation, and managing megaprojects supporting national infrastructure needs. Thus, from starting as a tactical tool, project management grew to deliver organizational and national strategies. The next challenge for project management is to support the achievement of sustainable development goals to tackle societal challenges. How can it do this? In this article, we chart a way forward for project management to contribute to global sustainability by tracing the history of projects from prehistoric times to the 21st. We outline the development using the lens of socio‐technical transitions to analyse technological niches developed to advance the field, and socio‐technical regimes that have supported the development of project management to adopt these technological niches to meet changes that appear at the landscape level. By analysing the history of projects and project management, we argue that the discipline has continuously evolved as a transition innovation that can meet the challenges posed by sustainable development. However, further investigation is required. A sustainable development framework has been proposed in this article to enable project management researchers and managers to achieve this transition.
RESEARCH PAPER
The history and future of projects as a transition
innovation: Towards a sustainable project management
framework
Shankar Sankaran
1
| Mattias Jacobsson
2,3
| Tomas Blomquist
4
1
School of the Built Environment,
University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo,
New South Wales, Australia
2
Umeå School of Business, Economics and
Statistics, Umeå University, Umeå,
Sweden
3
School of Engineering, Jönköping
University, Jönköping, Sweden
4
Umeå School of Business, Umeå
University, Umeå, Sweden
Correspondence
Shankar Sankaran, School of the Built
Environment, University of Technology
Sydney, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia.
Email: shankar.sankaran@uts.edu.au
Abstract
Project management practices have evolved as the discipline grew from
managing defence and engineering projects to delivering information systems,
supporting organizational transformation, and managing megaprojects
supporting national infrastructure needs. Thus, from starting as a tactical tool,
project management grew to deliver organizational and national strategies.
The next challenge for project management is to support the achievement of
sustainable development goals to tackle societal challenges. How can it do
this? In this article, we chart a way forward for project management to contrib-
ute to global sustainability by tracing the history of projects from prehistoric
times to the 21st. We outline the development using the lens of socio-technical
transitions to analyse technological niches developed to advance the field, and
socio-technical regimes that have supported the development of project man-
agement to adopt these technological niches to meet changes that appear at
the landscape level. By analysing the history of projects and project manage-
ment, we argue that the discipline has continuously evolved as a transition
innovation that can meet the challenges posed by sustainable development.
However, further investigation is required. A sustainable development frame-
work has been proposed in this article to enable project management
researchers and managers to achieve this transition.
KEYWORDS
project management, sociotechnical transitions, sustainable development, sustainable
project management, transitions innovation
1|INTRODUCTION
In a paper presented at the 33rd EGOS Colloquium titled
Sustainability Transitions: Exploring the emerging
research field and its contribution to management
studies, Jochen Markard traced the emerging field of
sustainability transitions where he brought together
ideas from scholars from various disciplines. Among
others, Markard (2017, p. 4) compared the problem
characteristics, scope and solutions of historical project
endeavours, like fly to the moonwith the contemporary
complex challenges like climate change. Using this com-
parison, we propose that project management, which
originated from aiding scientific and technological
endeavours (such as building massive structures and
lunar travel), should now also endeavour to deliver on
complex issues facing our society such as global sustain-
ability and climate change. How the project management
DOI: 10.1002/sres.2814
696 © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Syst Res Behav Sci. 2021;38:696714.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/sres
discipline would meet these expectations is, however, still
somewhat of a mystery.
The aim of the paper is therefore to review the history
of projects and project management as a transition
innovation and propose a sustainable project manage-
ment framework that could point to how project
management can transition further to meet the expecta-
tions of global sustainability. To fulfil this aim, we will
first outline and analyse the historical trajectory of pro-
jects and project management. Our analysis will be based
on a multilevel perspective on transitions (see,
e.g., Geels, 2002; Rip & Kemp, 1998; Smith et al., 2010),
which we will use to illustrate how and why project man-
agement transitioned in the past to meet with the
changes in societal demand. We will then present the
challenges project management faces today to transition
to meet the challenges of sustainable development and
suggest a way forward. We are using a pathway suggested
by systems scholars (Ackoff et al., 2006; Weisbord &
Janoff, 1996) to present our argument by studying where
we came from (our history), where we are heading
(the future) and how to get there from where we are now
(the transition).
The article is structured as follows. We start with a
review of the perspectives on sustainable transitions and
explain why we chose the multilevel perspective for our
analysis. Thereafter, we outline the method we have used
to explain the development of project management using
three levels of analysis (landscape, sociotechnical regimes
and technological niches). We then provide a history of
projects from prehistoric times until project management
was recognized as a profession (referred to as premodern
projects), followed by the history of modern project man-
agement. After analysing the history during these two
periods, we will visually present how project manage-
ment evolved due to the changes at the landscape level
by developing niches that were supported by socio-
technical regimes to respond to societal changes. We will
then discuss the challenges project management is facing
in transitioning from its current state to meet the changes
of sustainable development and encapsulate these
challenges in a framework that can help us to carry out
further research to transition to meet the new challenge.
We conclude that by using this model as a starting point,
project management researchers and practitioners could
move forward to lead project management's transition
towards sustainable project management.
2|BACKGROUND
The background consists of two parts. First, we will
outline perspectives on sustainable transitions and then
present three levels of technological transition that will
be used as the analytical framework to reflect on the his-
torical trajectory of project management.
2.1 |Perspectives on sustainable
transitions
Although there are multiple perspectives on sustainable
transitions, Markard (2017) suggests that, in general, they
1. include the role of technology and technological
innovation that transform sectors or industries
(e.g., Building Information Models in construction)
2. work with systems frameworks that look at strong
interdependencies of technological, organizational
and institutional changes(p. 13) (e.g., sustainable
development)
3. pay attention to public policies (e.g., impact of
digitization)
4. include a broad range of actors and their interplay
(e.g., the introduction of electric cars)
5. include context dependency (e.g., energy transitions
across countries around the world)
Several scholars have developed frameworks to
explain how sustainable transitions take place in practice
and by addressing the aspects pointed out by Mark-
ard (2017). We will briefly review those frameworks and
explain why we selected the multilevel perspective to
investigate the evolution of premodern projects and mod-
ern project management. We will comment on how the
multilevel perspective might play out in project manage-
ment addressing the challenges posed by the need for
sustainable development.
Some key frameworks used by transition scholars
(Köhler et al., 2019) are as follows:
Multilevel perspective used to describe dynamics of tran-
sitions (Geels, 2002; Rip & Kemp, 1998; Smith et al., 2010).
This perspective combines ideas from evolutionary
economics, the sociology of innovation and institutional
theory(Köhler et al., 2019, p. 4). It attempts to explain
transitions at the interplay of dynamics at three distinct
levels: niches, regimes, and landscapes(Geels, 2002).
Transition innovation systems (TIS) framework that
explores the emergence of novel technologies together
with associated institutional and organizational changes
(Bergek et al., 2008; Carlsson & Stankiewicz, 1991;
Markard et al., 2015). It uses ideas from innovation
systems theory and industrial economics (Köhler
et al., 2019, p. 4).
Strategic niche management (SNM) (Rip &
Kemp, 1998; Schot & Geels, 2008) combines ideas from
SANKARAN ET AL.697
sociology of innovations and evolutionary economics
(Köhler et al., 2019 p. 4) that emerge from spaces that
shield them from market selection and are more
deliberate.
Transition management (Loorbach, 2010; Rotmans
et al., 2001) combines ideas from complexity science
and governance studies(p. 4) and proposes that
policymakers shape transitions.
We propose using the multilevel perspective in our
article as it looks beyond institutions and organizations
to societal changes. It is also based on institutional theory
that has gained more attention in project management
research recently (Biesenthal et al., 2018). We consider
sustainable development as a societal change promul-
gated by the General Assembly of the United Nations,
which agreed on resolution A/RES/70/1 called Trans-
forming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development(United Nations, 2015). This is an aspira-
tional agreement among world leaders for a better and
more sustainable world by 2030, which will have an
impact on project management practices at a global level.
2.2 |Three levels of transition
The literature on technological transitions has proposed
ways in which such transitions take place through influ-
ences at multiple levels. These studies have investigated
how technological changes have, over the long term, con-
tributed to fulfilling societal needs by transformations
influencing how technologies evolve due to societal
pressures (Geels, 2002, 2004). Recently, researchers from
the Sustainable Transitions Research Network (STRN)
have urged that management scholars need to start
studying technological transitions from the management
perspective (Markard, 2017). The notion that project-
based management can be considered as an innovation
that may influence both the technical and social system
of the organization through new structures, methods,
technical systems, and behavioural patterns(Martinsuo
et al., 2006, p. 87) has been explored by project manage-
ment researchers.
In this article, we want to examine project manage-
ment as a management innovation that was driven by
technological needs (e.g., building weapons using com-
plex technologies during World War II) and has been
progressively reconfigured due to external pressures to
play a sociotechnical role by paying more attention
to people-oriented factors in managing both technical as
well as non-technical aspect of projects. To do so, we
will use a multilevel perspective on technological
transition (see, e.g., Geels, 2002, 2004). The three levels
proposed are landscape level, sociotechnical regimes and
technological niche based on similar frameworks used by
scholars writing about sustainability transitions.
Based on how sustainable transactions have been
depicted by scholars (Geels, 2002), the transition of inno-
vation starts when innovators sense that these changes
are taking place at the landscape level, and they need to
develop technological niches to cope with these chal-
lenges. However, these innovations need the support of
sociotechnical regimes (markets, policies and political
support) for the technological niches to be recognized as
able to provide stable solutions to meet the challenges of
the landscape level. Thus, there is a lag between when
the technological niches start reacting to landscape-level
changes followed by sociotechnical regimes to address
the demands of these changes.
2.2.1 | Landscape level
At the highest level (i.e., landscape), we look at how
changes in the landscape have influenced or have been
influencing project management as an innovation.
According to Geels (2002, pp. 12611262), transitions at
niche level happen at a microlevel through innovations
while the mesolevel sociotechnical regimes offer some
stability and provide gradients for trajectories(p. 1261).
The macrolevel landscape items are slow changing exter-
nal factorsthat influence the sociotechnical regimes. In
our evaluation of the trajectory of the project domain, we
will thus look at how the landscape factors triggered
microlevel improvements in project management tech-
niques or routines that needed the support of socio-
technical regimes to improve project management
practices.
2.2.2 | Sociotechnical regimes
At the second level, we want to study how sociotechnical
regimes have influenced the evolution of project
management. Geels (2002) builds up the concept of socio-
technical regimes based on Nelson and Winter's (1982)
definition of technological regime, mentioned in the
previous section, and Rip and Kemp's (1998) elaboration
of the concept to complex engineering practices,
production technologies, process technologies, product
characteristics, skills, and procedures(p. 340).
Geels (2002, p. 1260) argues that there is a social element
to it as technical trajectories are not influenced by engi-
neers, but also by users, policy makers, societal groups,
suppliers, scientists, capital banks etc.. So in our evalua-
tion of sociotechnical regimes, we will look broadly at
external influences that have had an impact on how
698 SANKARAN ET AL.
project management transitioned over time to deal with
societal-level demands.
2.2.3 | Technological niches
The bottom level is that of technological niches or inno-
vations introduced to the management field that are
more technical. We use a broad definition of technology
here to embrace techniques. This level is thus called tech-
nological niches to include innovations introduced. A
question could be raised as to whether project manage-
ment is a niche like the niches used in technology
transitions. While niches are usually portrayed as new
technologies, we argue that new routines can also be
considered as niches. This is in line with Nelson and
Winter's (1982) work on evolutionary theory of economic
change where business practices (such as the ones used
in project management) tend to be routines(p. 267).
Nelson and Nelson (2002, p. 26) define routines as a col-
lection of procedures which, taken together, result in a
predictable and specific outcome. Nelson and Nel-
son (2002) also propose that we often associate social
technologiesrather than physical technologieswith
institutions. So we would like to consider project man-
agement techniques (or routines) as social technologies
from an institutional theory perspective in constructing
our multilevel analysis.
3|METHOD
A previously mentioned, we base this article on
reviewing how project management has developed over
centuries but with a focus on the past 60 years when it
started becoming recognized as a distinct profession on
its own. With this historical overview as a basis, we will
map the developments and trajectory along the three
levels described above. To do this, we will list the signifi-
cant events that have shaped the way project manage-
ment evolved during the two periods (premodern and
modern). We have used the literature to trace these
events to develop a visual representation of events that
explain the sociotechnical transition of project
management over time. We then explore why project
management needs to transition further due to the chal-
lenges posed by sustainable development as the current
methods used in projects will not take it there. Three
questions we have focused on when reviewing the
literature are the following:
1. How have authors who have studied the evolution of
projects before the development of modern project
management divided the periods of development of
projects and depicted their development during the
premodern period?
2. How have authors who have looked at the history of
modern project management divided the periods
of the development of project management and
depicted its development during the period?
3. What are some future trends predicted by scholars
and practitioners that are likely to require modern
project management to transition further?
Focusing on the needs of sustainable development
(which is the theme of this special issue), we have further
considered the following two questions:
4. How have scholars and practitioners described project
management's response to the need for sustainable
development so far?
5. How can modern project management overcome
some of the difficulties expressed by scholars and
practitioners to respond effectively to the need for sus-
tainable development?
We have used different sources of literature to answer
Questions 1 and 2. For the premodern projects, we have
used two contemporary books (Chiu, 2010) and (Kozak-
Holland, 2011), which have described and evaluated the
evolution of project management during that period.
Table 1 provides the chronology of projects according to
these sources. We have then used the analysis carried out
by Chia (2010) to create Figure 1, which shows the multi-
level analysis of the transition of premodern projects.
Table 2 explains how we have segregated the periods of
modern project management based on several key
sources of literature from books and journal articles.
Figure 2 shows the multilevel analysis of modern project
management. The method we have used for the analysis
of the transition to identify items under the three levels
of analysis (landscape, sociotechnical regime and techno-
logical niche) is explained in Section 5.
To answer Questions 3 to 5, we have reviewed the
recent literature on predictions about the future of
project management and then looked specifically at the
literature on how scholars expect project management to
transition further to the answer the call for sustainable
development as it is the focus of the special issue in
which this article is being published. Based on the analy-
sis of the literature on sustainable project management,
we have proposed a model/framework shown in Figure 3
to carry out research to answer Question 5 while also
anticipating how technological niches and sociotechnical
regimes that are observed now can pave the way to this
transition.
SANKARAN ET AL.699
4|A BRIEF HISTORICAL
OVERVIEW OF PROJECTS AND
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The history of projects and project management has been
divided into premodern projects, before project manage-
ment became known as a profession, and the develop-
ment of modern project management, starting around
1940. Based on a review of literature of project history,
we will, in the following sections, outline some of the
important historical events and projects.
4.1 |Project management before it
became known as a profession
We all know that large-scale endeavours such as the
building of the pyramids must have used processes, tools
and techniques to get the job done. Time and cost may
not have been the driving force for these endeavours, but
they were considered politically important to the spon-
sors or champions who financed and resourced them.
Although there have been historical accounts of how
such endeavours came about, we look at two recent
works that have explored the history of project manage-
ment. The first is an account by an architect and project
manager who has traced the history of project manage-
ment from earliest time to 1900 AD (Chiu, 2010). The sec-
ond account is by a consultant who has been publishing
a series of books on lessons learned from history and has
consulted on managing projects to Fortune 500 firms
(Kozak-Holland, 2011).
Chiu (2010) classifies his research into the following
areas (p. 11): project environment (divided into historical
and cultural environment and knowledge and scientific
environment), management ( general management and
interpersonal skills), knowledge of application area
(divided into construction technology and master builder
tradition) and application of expertise areas to project
activities. The period over which projects have been
investigated by Chiu (2010) range from 30th century BC
to 19th century AD. He highlights 20 prominent buildings
that have been built from early times in Mesopotamia in
south-west Asia until the Industrial Revolution.
Kozak-Holland (2011) covers the history of projects
from village to the city, from 2550 BC to the 20th century,
when the Second Industrial Revolution, or Technological
Revolution, took place. While both accounts cover simi-
lar projects, Kozak-Holland (2011) explores these projects
using the processes and knowledge areas included in the
Project Management Body of Knowledge or PMBOK
(Project Management Institute [PMI], 2017) whereas
Chiu (2010) does not use the PMBOK to analyse the
projects as he felt that it was a 20th century event. How-
ever, Chiu (2010) uses a broader definition of project
management as the application of knowledge, skills,
tools and techniques to project activities to meet project
requirements(p. 207), which is a definition that PMBOK
uses as well. Kirk-Holland's book also lists many projects
in China such as the Terracotta Warriors, as well as
Angkor Wat in Cambodia, and some significant voyages.
TABLE 1 Chronology of projects from 2100 BC to 1940 AD
Projects
Time
(Chiu, 2010)
Time (Kozak-
Holland, 2011)
Great Ziggurat of Ur 2100 BC
Tower of Babylon Around 600 BC
Hanging Gardens Around 600 BC 604652 BC
Giza Pyramid (Egypt) 25802560 BC 25802560 BC
Parthenon (Greece) 477438 BC 447438 AD
Caesar's Rhine Bridge 55 BC
Colosseum (Rome) 7082 AD 7080 AD
Parthenon (Rome) 118126 AD 118125 AD
Hagia Sophia 532537 AD 532537 AD
Grand Mosque of
Damascus
706715 AD
Krak des Chevaliers,
Syria
11441250 AD
Pisa Cathedral 10631180 AD
Notre Dame de Paris 11631145 AD Gothic cathedrals
Dome of Florence
Cathedral
14201436 AD 14171436 AD
Santa Maria Novella 14561470 AD
Columbus Voyage 14921493 AD
Ferdinand Magellan's
Voyage around the
world
15191522 AD
St Peter's Basilica 15061626 AD 15061626 AD
Taj Mahal 16311648 AD
St Paul's Cathedral 16681697 AD
Palace of Versailles 16611720 AD
Iron Bridge Project 17751781 AD
Railway Projects 18121825 AD
Menai Straits
Suspension Bridge
18191826 AD 18191824 AD
Crystal Palace Mid-1850 to
May 1851 AD
Eiffel Tower 18871889 AD
Panama Canal 19041914 AD
Empire State Building 19291931 AD
Hoover Dam Project 19311935 AD
700 SANKARAN ET AL.
We may be familiar with most of these projects as
tourists and have learned about their history from travel
books or brochures, often embellished by local tourist
guides. In this article, we will look at them as premodern
projects that laid the foundation for the birth and evolu-
tion of modern project management. Table 1 shows the
chronology of projects during this period.
4.2 |The development of modern project
management
The development of modern project management has been
discussed widely in the literature from a variety of perspec-
tives: using history (Garel, 2013; Jacobsson & Wilson,
2018; Kwak, 2005; Morris, 1994, 2011, 2013; Stretton,
2007; Weaver, 2007), trends (Crawford et al., 2006), trends
in research (Biedenbach & Jacobsson, 2016; Gauthier &
Ika, 2012; Kloppenborg et al., 2000; Söderlund, 2004;
Turner et al., 2011), perspectives or schools (Jacobsson &
Söderholm, 2011; Söderlund, 2002; Turner et al., 2010)
and advances in education (Wirth, 1992). Some scholars
have also predicted how project management might
change in the future (Gauthier & Ika, 2012; Kloppenborg
et al., 2000; Morris, 2013; Walker & Lloyd-Walker, 2019).
Additionally, the key project management associations
have made predictions about the trends in project manage-
ment. From the PMI, we have looked at an article publi-
shed in the PM Network by Guarino (2014) and the recent
Pulse of the Profession Reports, and from International
Project Management Association (IPMA), we have looked
at their report that predicts 15 future trends. Professor
Peter Morris has been writing about the history of project
management since the 1990s. He has also selected different
periods for analysis in his works. Table 2 compares the seg-
regation of the history of project management in terms of
time periods and concepts or events that have influenced
the development of project management.
TABLE 2 History of modern project management
Author Periods Classifications
Morris (1994) Prior to 1940; 1950s; 1960s; 1970s; 1980s;
Management of Projects: And now
Second World War; development of systems
management; Apollo spacecraft and the decade of
management systems; expansion of project
management; expansion of strategic perspectives of
management of managing projects; new model of
the management of projects
Morris (2011) Early history; 1950s and 1960s; 1970s to
1990s; 1990s and early 21st century
Systems development; wider applications; new
strands and ontological divergence; enterprise-wide
project management
Morris (2013) 19001970s; 1953+; 1960+; 1970s;
1990+; 1995+; 2000+; 2005+;
relevance today
Planning and control; engineering complexity and
urgency; organizational theorists starting to take an
interest in project management; environmental
awareness; front-end definition; lean management
and relationships; enterprise-wide PM; governance;
agility
Stretton (2007) 1950; 1960; 1970; 1980 and early 1990 Various headings but no major classifications
Kwak (2005) Prior to 1958; 19581979; 19801994;
1995 to present
Craft system to human relations administration;
application of management science; production
centre: human resources; creating a new
environment
Garel (2013) Not very specific on periods Management models; premodels of PM; from
rationalization to standardization of PM
Weaver (2007) No classification of periods but covers
changes from the 1700s to 2007
Developing the technology; management history;
creating the profession of modern project
management
Blomquist and
Söderholm (2002)
1960s; 1990; 2000 (no demarcation for
second phase)
Within industries; among industries through
consultants; volume through professional
associations; long-term survival through
standardization bodies; scientific research and
university training
SANKARAN ET AL.701
5|ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Having outlined a historical account of premodern
projects and modern project management, we will now
analyse the trajectory of project management using the
multilevel perspective described in the background earlier.
While our focus is the transition of modern project man-
agement, the transition of premodern projects also has an
influence on some aspects of modern project management.
5.1 |Premodern projects
Figure 1 shows our multilevel analysis premodern projects.
Our multilevel analysis, based Chiu's (2010) review of pro-
ject management history, is classified under four headings:
historical and cultural environment
knowledge and scientific environment
general management
construction technology
The master builder tradition
Items at the landscape level were drawn from the dis-
cussion on historical and scientific environment. Items at
the sociotechnical regime have been drawn from the dis-
cussions on knowledge and scientific environment, gen-
eral management and master builder tradition. Items at
the technological niche level have been drawn from con-
struction technology, general management and knowl-
edge and scientific environment. The itemization is based
on our judgement of what we identified as belonging to
the three levels.
We supplemented the analysis by Chiu (2010)
using Kozak-Holland's (2011) book and the following
categorization.
trends and changes (landscape)
impact of changes (sociotechnical regime)
new tools techniques and breakthroughs (niches)
The reason for relying mainly on Chiu's (2010) work
is because Kirk-Holland used the PMBOK to analyse the
projects, which is a standard developed during the mod-
ern project management period in the 1970s.
5.1.1 | The period from 2100 BC to 500 AD
(antiquity)
This period covers the historical period from the estab-
lishment of Mesopotamia through to ancient Egypt,
ancient Greece and the Roman empire.
Landscape level
The world moved from being a hunter gatherer society
to become an agricultural society during the Sumerian
period, which led to the development of cities as people
moved from forests to urban areas with farms. This created
the need for social structures resulting in hierarchical
societies ruled by royalty and priests. The Egyptians
enhanced the legal and social systems developed by the
Sumerians. The Greeks introduced democracy. The
Romans used knowledge developed by past cultures to
build an extensive empire that led to colonization.
Sociotechnical regimes
The Sumerians under Hammurabi established the means
to manage people and introduced managerial controls
and demanded that transactions be recorded creating a
system of checks. The Egyptians developed goals and
tasks for managers to build ambitious structures like the
pyramids under the leadership of the pharaohs. The
Greeks added to the concept of leadership through the
treatise of Thucydides and emphasized the need to pay
attention to human behaviour. The Romans developed
strategies to manage their vast empire including develop-
ing alliances to delegate control. The separation of man-
agement and leadership was further strengthened by
Julius Caesar, as the Roman Empire created a system of
distributing power between the executive, legislative and
judiciary. During this period, the need for advanced
design and construction skills such as the building of the
ziggurat created the need for complex skills to build tun-
nels and operate machinery like levers, pulley, winches
and cranes. Master builders emerged as the need for
people to design and construct complex structures arose,
and they also needed skilful apprentices to work under
them to carry out specific tasks under their mentorship.
The rise of the master builder is the first sign that people
with project management skills were required.
Technological niches
Religious and social concerns led to the development of
construction techniques to build dwellings and temples.
As more permanent buildings were needed tools such as
the Archimedes screw and wheel to act as a pump for
water were invented. Egyptians started working with bet-
ter materials such as stone, wood and copper and are
believed to have used levers in the building of the pyra-
mids as well as ramps, scaffolding and cranes. Surveying
tools helped Egyptians to align pyramids symmetrically.
Greeks developed construction tools further by building a
complex crane and introduced hydropower. Romans
added concrete to building materials as well as chalk and
sand. They also added new machinery such as water
mills and the use of pneumatics.
702 SANKARAN ET AL.
5.1.2 | The period from 600 to 1500 AD
(medieval period)
This covers the historical periods starting from the
Byzantine Empire, through to the Islamic Age, Crusades,
Romanesque and Gothic Age.
Landscape level
During this period, art and architecture developed
resulting in taller, more elegant and decorative buildings.
The Roman Empire fell and the development of culture
shifted to the East while Europe faced the dark ages. The
Crusades were launched by the Vatican to stop the
Muslim armies from invading Europe and slowly Europe
recovered. As trade and diplomacy advanced Islam rose
creating cultural consequences. The Catholic Church
reacted to the rise of Islam setting the scene for the
Renaissance.
Sociotechnical regime
The Islamic Golden Age was responsible for the advance-
ment of social knowledge and science. It also created
important institutions including a public library. The
European university systems were established during this
FIGURE 1 Multilevel analysis of transitions in project management (before 1940s)
SANKARAN ET AL.703
period. Cottage industries were created with groups
working together to produce products. As Gothic cathe-
drals required decades to build, long-range planning and
governance structures were introduced. While buildings
were based on the vision of a master builder, artisans
were needed to support the construction who advanced
their craft through artisan guilds.
Technological niches
Monuments like the Hagia Sophia continued to use
several new tools, but the major advances were domes
that had to be supported. While the Byzantine Empire
started building domes and arches, the Islamic mosques
added ornamental workmanship to mosques being built
at this time. The buildings of the Islamic Age became
artistic masterpieces resulting in an aesthetic drive to
render beautiful buildings such as the Dome of the
Rock in Jerusalem. During the Gothic period, pointed
arches influenced by the Islamic architecture appeared.
Decorative carved screens also were influenced by
the ornamental workmanship that developed in the
mosques. Thus, a blending of Western and Eastern
practices developed in the construction of religious
buildings.
5.1.3 | The period from 1500 AD to 1940
(renaissance to industrial revolution)
This covers the historical periods covering the
Renaissance, Baroque and the Industrial Revolution.
Landscape level
During this period, rational thinking came to the fore
despite religion continuing to be important, and that
paved the way for the Industrial Revolution. During the
Renaissance, the world began to move away from
the Catholic Church providing an opportunity for Protes-
tantism to rise and the transition from Church to State
began. The introduction of steam power helped create
machines that could replace manual labour. People
started living in cities contributing to urbanization as
they moved away from an agrarian life.
Sociotechnical regime
During this period, management ideas began to be
adopted. Leadership moved away from someone who
was justified as a moral exemplar to one who possessed
manipulative skills and used violent tactics. Reformation
gave support to the rise of capitalism and scientific rules
FIGURE 2 Multilevel analysis of transitions in project management (post-1940s)
704 SANKARAN ET AL.
for reasoning influenced management. The Industrial
Revolution created the need for mechanization and
stressed efficiency and productivity. Standardization,
development of routines and quality control became
important, and Frederick Taylor's experiments with sci-
entific management investigated ways to improve pro-
ductivity. The status of the master builder started to
decline as general contractors started building structures
designed by architects thus creating a division of work.
Technological niches
The introduction of steam power introduced during the
Renaissance made further inroads. The process of design
and construction changed, and demand for buildings
exploded creating the need for mass production to keep
up with the demand. Metals became used more in con-
struction as they were now more freely available. The
introduction of electricity and locomotives aided in
the rapid development of manufacturing and the rate of
innovations increased.
In summary, our general observation from the multi-
level analysis of the premodern period is that this period
was mainly concerned with improvements in construction
and not on management which seem to have found its
importance from 1000 AD to 1940 with the Industrial Rev-
olution. While master builders in the premodern period
oversaw projects, they also designed and engineered them
like modern day architects like Frank Gehry, who also
tend to project manage their creations (Korody, 2015).
5.2 |Modern project management
Figure 2 shows our multilevel analysis of modern project
management.
The landscape level shows our classification of changes
at industry, organizations and project levels ending in
sustainability. This classification was arrived at from the
views expressed by prominent project management
researchers (listed in Table 2) as well as our own general
awareness of the trends at the global level that have
influenced sociotechnical regimes. We have also taken
note of the classification of the turning points in the evolu-
tion of project management by Peter Morris (2011, 2013).
Under sociotechnical regimes, we have also included
movements like Rethinking Project Management and
Making Projects Critical as turning points in project
management. Conferences like International Research
Network on Organizing by Projects (IRNOP), PMI
Research Conference, European Academy of Manage-
ment (EURAM) and European Group of Organisation
Studies (EGOS) where Project Organizing Special Interest
Groups (PO SIGs) were established as well as journals
that had an influence to steer the field in its research
endeavours have been included. These may not be obvi-
ous to people who are not familiar with project manage-
ment research.
For the niche level, the literature reviewed on the
history of project management contributed to their itemi-
zation. However, some judgement has been exercised in
positioning a technique to where it became more impor-
tant than when it was first used. For example, while risk
management was used much earlier in projects it became
more prominent after the global recessions from 1970
to 1990.
5.2.1 | The period from before 1950s
Although project management started being recognized
as a discipline after 1950s, we have included a short
period before 1950 as some key tools used in modern
project management evolved then and can be considered
as technological niches contributing to the development
of modern project management.
Landscape level
During the period before 1950, the world was engaged in
World War II when defence took priority.
Sociotechnical regime
The Manhattan Project to develop an atomic weapon pro-
vided the place for collaboration between government
and scientists that helped project management to be
identified as something unique and complex that had to
be completed on time with severe constraints.
Technological niche
Gantt charts developed in 1910 and are still used in
project scheduling. Flowline scheduling was introduced
in 1930 followed by the line of balance technique in 1940
and milestone charts in 1940s.
In summary, this period mainly contributed to
technological niches that were adopted by the project
management profession as it developed in the next period
in project scheduling.
5.2.2 | The period from 1950s to 1970
Landscape level
With the end of World War II, post-war reconstruction
started with large pipelines such as the Alaska Pipeline,
and transport infrastructure was created to help economic
renewal. US President Eisenhower signed the Federal
Highway Act in 1956 authorizing the construction of
SANKARAN ET AL.705
highways. Similar development of roadways also started
in Europe. Large investments were also made in Aero-
space during this time to bolster defence due to the Soviet
Union developing nuclear missiles after World War II
resulting in the Cold War.
Sociotechnical regime
While the Manhattan Project has been often cited as the
project that gave rise to project management, there has
been some recent debate about whether it really did that
(Lenfle & Loch, 2010). However, we retained it as a
regime as major defence projects did give the impetus to
identify project management as being different form
general management. Between the 1950s and 1970s, pro-
ject management became recognized as a profession with
the establishment of peak bodies, such as PMI and IPMA.
Paul Gaddis's (Gaddis, 1959) article about the project
manager in the Harvard Business Review of 1959 explained
the role of a different type of manager who used a particu-
lar process to create a product in a specific way. During
this period, project management was influenced by sys-
tems theories and practices due to its application in
defence systems. The concept of the iron trianglebecame
established as a way of determining project success using
time cost and quality as measures. While the Project
Management Journal was started during this period, it
focused primarily on project management practices.
Technological niches
This period resulted in the development of several
technological niches as the application of project man-
agement spread to cover a variety of industry sectors. The
critical path method was developed to ensure that activi-
ties on the critical path in a schedule, that could delay a
project, received due importance. Due to the uncertainty
in estimating duration in schedules, programme
evaluation and review technique (PERT) analysis was
introduced, based on three times estimates (optimistic,
pessimistic and most likely) for every activity. The
precedence diagramming method was developed, using
nodes to represent activities leading to a project schedule
network diagram, which allowed project managers to
decide when to start activities so as not to cause delays in
projects. Cost/schedule control systems were developed
to relate cost and time to manage overruns, which later
became known as earned value management. Work
breakdown structures were introduced to break down the
project into manageable parts. Value engineering to
analyse how costs can be reduced and configuration
management to keep track of changes were developed.
With the publication of the first PMBOK, the profession-
alization of project management was established. As
projects expanded into delivering initiatives within
organizations, the sharing of resources between the func-
tional and project parts of the organization gave rise to
matrix organizations, where people from the functional
parts of the organization were assigned to work in pro-
jects for specific durations. The drive to improve the
management of procuring materials and services resulted
in the development of procurement management, which
later grew into the discipline of supply chain manage-
ment. Graphical techniques were developed to manage
scheduling visually as graphical evaluation and review
technique (GERT). Programme management became rec-
ognized as a way of aligning projects working towards a
common goal to share resources and pacing of projects.
In summary, the landscape-level changes pointed to
the importance of post-war reconstruction, which
included building large pipelines to transport oil. The
technological niches supported the evolution of tools and
techniques to improve the project management pro-
cesses. At the sociotechnical regime-level project manage-
ment was supported by its recognition as a new way of
managing supported by the establishment of peak bodies
that contributed to its acceptance as a new profession.
5.2.3 | The period from 1970 to 1990
Landscape level
The recognition of effects of complexity such as Chaos
Theory and the Butterfly Effect (Gleick, 1987; Lorenz,
1995) became important to project management practice
as projects started facing uncertainty and complexity that
led to major failures of projects. The development of
information and communication technologies led to
software to support projects as well as facilitating easier
collaboration with partners and outsourcing. The impor-
tance of corporate strategy promoted by scholars like
Michael Porter (1980) provided an opportunity for
projects to become important to deliver organizational
strategies instead of merely being used as tactical tools.
Sociotechnical regime
The period from the 1970s to 1990s saw project manage-
ment applied to large-scale construction projects such as
the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. These projects used some of
the experiences gained from large-scale defence projects.
The bodies of knowledge to guide project management
started appearing in 1980s. Different forms of contracting
appeared during this period, which became the
forerunners of public-private partnerships that enabled
developing countries to undertake large-scale projects
urgently needed for the development of basic needs. As
projects became bigger, they triggered environmental
issues that created an awareness of the environmental
706 SANKARAN ET AL.
impact of projects. The dynamic systems development
method (DSDM) added foundations of governance to
agile methods and aided continuous customer involve-
ment. Computer-aided design took over from producing
drawings manually. The certification of project managers
was introduced, adding to the professionalization of
project management. Complex projects began to be
recognized as wicked problems as urban development
projects often did not produce solutions to address the
problems they were meant to address (Rittel &
Webber, 1973). Project management researchers recog-
nized the need for more theoretical inputs into project
management and this triggered the setting up of the
International Journal of Project Management, which is
now the highest ranked project management journal.
Technological niches
Although time and cost were important to manage, it
became clear that resources also need consideration espe-
cially where they are scarce and expensive. This led to the
need for resource management techniques (1970). Risk
also became an important aspect of projects to manage
and risk management techniques such as the risk matrix
and risk breakdown structure developed (1980). As the
contribution of people and team gained prominence, the
performance of teams became critical. Work done on high
performance teams in organizational research became rel-
evant to projects. In addition to work breakdown struc-
ture, organizational breakdown structure became critical
for project control and delegation of authority. This led to
the development of the role and responsibility matrix or
responsible, accountable, consulted and informed (RACI)
charts (1980). Due to the need for regular review of pro-
jects to make go/no go decisions, stage breakdown struc-
tures came into play, which later became the Stage-Gate
Approach to governance. A broader view of project
management using the term management of projects
was conceived to move the field's attention from an inter-
nal focus on the iron triangle to an external focus on
stakeholder satisfaction (Morris, 1994, p. 63). The role of
project owner or project champion became prominent as
projects needed organizational support and had to deal
with organizational politics to be successful. The use of
agile project management methods such as Scrum was
adopted by software projects to improve project success.
In summary, the landscape level pointed out the
recognition of complexity theories on management, the
influence of the Information Age and the need for
organizations to have a strategic view. The technological
niche level responded with more sophisticated tools to
improve project management processes, recognizing the
importance of projects to organizations and introducing
new ways to manage the increase in IT projects. At the
sociotechnical regime level, support was provided by the
need for accrediting project managers, identifying ways
to address complexity in projects and adopting a business
orientation of projects. The need for theoretical support
to advance project management paved the way for more
research in project management.
5.2.4 | The period from 1990 to 2010
Landscape level
As projects became larger in size and created social issues
such as land acquisition and ecological damage, the focus
on megaprojects (Flyvbjerg et al., 2003) and their impact
on sustainable development became important. The
ethical and social responsibilities of project managers and
leaders became important as projects became increas-
ingly used to contribute to international development
through aid projects.
Sociotechnical regime
The period between the 1990s and 2010 made the project
management profession realize that projects should be stra-
tegic tools, and this led to the development of project port-
folio management, project management offices and project
governance. Nevertheless, projects were failing measured
by conventional project management metrics and a rethink
on how to manage projects was required (Williams, 2005).
This led to the ESPRC-sponsored research programme
on Rethinking Project Management (Winter et al., 2006).
Special conferences and SIGs were organized such as
IRNOP, PMI Research Conference and PO SIGs in promi-
nent management conferences that further emphasized the
need for applying organizational theories to projects.
Meanwhile, Scandinavian scholars continued to
conceptualize projects as temporary organizations (Lundin
& Söderholm, 1995), and the term projectificationwas
coined in a study of how Renault improved the efficiency
of its product development process by moving from a clas-
sical functional organization to a project-based organiza-
tion and using powerful project teams (Midler, 1995).
Some scholars who were involved with the Rethinking
Project Management Network started looking at a critical
theory perspective of projects, giving rise to the Making
Projects Critical movement (Hodgson & Cicmil, 2006;
Jacobsson et al., 2016). As projects became larger and
more complex, ways to deal with complexity in projects
were developed (Remington & Pollack, 2008; Maylor &
Turner, 2017) and organizations such as the International
Centre for Complex Project Management were set up to
bring together scholars and practitioners to improve the
management of large-scale complex defence projects
which also benefited other sectors.
SANKARAN ET AL.707
The need for an organizational perspective of projects
intensified and project leadership came into prominence
as it was felt that project managers who managed large
complex projects needed to change from being transac-
tional leaders to becoming transformational leaders.
Some scholars started promoting the notion that projects
are a business in themselves (Artto & Wikström, 2005).
The International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business was started, to signify the importance of projects
to businesses.
Technological niches
The organizational perspective on project management
resulted in the need for strategies and tools to support
Organizational Project Management (Müller et al., 2019).
As agile project management, which was mainly used in
IT projects became more popular, it started spreading to
other projects, and organizations adopted hybrid methods
to deliver projects successfully.
In summary, the landscape level demanded that more
attention be paid to societal responsibilities and the
protection of the environment. The rise of megaprojects
further exacerbated the concerns for society and the
environment. The technological level responded by rec-
ognizing that prescriptive ways of managing projects had
to change and methodologies needed to be carefully
selected to respond to landscape-level needs. The need
for an organizational view of project management also
received more attention. The sociotechnical regime
responded by establishing special forums and initiatives
to support research and improvements in project man-
agement practice to meet the needs felt at the landscape
level. The link between business and projects was
enhanced by the introduction of a journal linking the
two. The need of leadership responsibilities of project
managers to address complex issues was recognized. It
also became evident that projects were expanding in
scope and variety and pervading the society, and a new
term projectificationbecame used in practice.
5.2.5 | The period beyond 2010
Landscape level
There are two major changes at the landscape level that
will impact the development of project management. The
growing concerns about making our planet sustainable
are one of those. Recent dramatic climate changes in
Europe and the United States are making politicians even
more concerned about setting zero emission targets. It is
also clear that project management will face technologi-
cal disruption with advances in artificial intelligence,
robotics and data science.
Sociotechnical regime
In 2018, Scandinavian scholars led by Geraldi and
Söderlund (2018) suggested that project management
research could use project studiesas an umbrella term
for studies in, on and around projects(p. 55). PMI also
made a radical change to the PMBOK in its seventh edi-
tion, which has moved away from processes to principles
so that practitioners can identify the right delivery
approach (predictive, agile or hybrid) to complete the
project as well as deliver value (DePrisco, 2020). A new
open-source journal, Project Leadership and Society,
focused on the societal responsibilities of project manage-
ment, is being published. Another open-source journal,
Project Management Research and Practice, has also
decided to focus on societal problems and socially respon-
sible project management. IPMA has declared year 2021
as the year of responsible project management. At
EURAM 2021, project management scholars were urged
to investigate projects using processual studies to advance
project organizing (Sergi et al., 2020).
Technological niches
The main innovations that are observed are the move
towards principle-based approaches and AI-based tech-
niques to enhance project management processes and the
increased use of robotics and the application of Internet
of Things (IoT) in managing projects.
In summary, the landscape level showed increasing
concerns for the protection of the planet and the re-
emergence of artificial intelligence, after it went through
a dark period called AI-winter in the 1980s that resulted
in reduced funding due to several failures (Haenlein &
Kaplan, 2019) that could have an its impact on the soci-
ety. The technological niche level has just started
responding to the landscape level by further relaxing pre-
scriptive ways of managing projects.
The analysis of premodern and modern project man-
agement and an explanation on how items were arrived
at in the landscape, sociotechnical regime and technolog-
ical niche levels shows that project management itself
can be viewed a management innovation that has suc-
cessfully transitioned to meet the needs at the landscape
level supported by sociotechnical regimes to be relevant
to society. To continue to do this, project management
needs to innovate to meet the future needs, which we
address next.
5.3 |The future of project management
We will now discuss a sample of the literature on trends
that are expected to affect project management focusing
on sustainable development, which is the focus of this
708 SANKARAN ET AL.
paper. We start with the work of the Rethinking Project
Management Network, which predicted that in the future
projects are unlikely to be predefined but will be
multidisciplinary permeable, contestable and open to
negotiation throughout. Gauthier and Ika (2012) point
out that in the postmodern world, where discourse and
rhetoric take precedence, a project will become a
discourse of legitimation, and an area of social and
power plays(p. 12) and multiplicity, ambivalence and
fragmentation/pluralism [will] characterize project man-
agement(p. 12). They add that in the hypermodern
social world the project is a network of actors embedded
in a social context and in constant transformation
(p. 12). Both the postmodern and hypermodern views of
project management predicted by Gauthier and
Ika (2012) show how projects may have to change the
way they are managed to align closely with sustainable
development. Morris (2013) urges us to reconstruct pro-
ject management by referring to Geels's (2004) multilevel
perspective as an effective way to move portfolio, pro-
gramme and project management to address sustainable
development. This supports the use of the multilevel
perspective presented by Geels (2004) for the analysis of
the transition of project management in this article.
From a project management practice perspective,
peak bodies have been active in pointing out to a need to
rethink project management to meet sustainable develop-
ment. At the IPMA's international expert seminar held in
Zurich in February 2016, 15 future trends were presented
by Professor Yvonne Schoper, who identified sustainabil-
ity of projects as one of the important trends. According
to a paper presented at this seminar by Schoper and
Gemünden (2016, p. 32), the sustainability of projects
and project management implies that the ethical, envi-
ronmental, social and life-cycle aspects of projects need
to be taken into consideration in the formulation of pro-
jects. It also suggested that The implication of the trend
[sustainability] is that it will increase the accountability
of organizations contracting a project beyond their own
risks and benefits towards the risks and benefits of exter-
nal stakeholders who are affected by their project. It will
transform the role of project management by challenging
if they do the right things right(p. 33).
PMI's Pulse of the Profession Report 2018 (PMI, 2018)
found that sustainable development, climate change
and renewable energy were affecting businesses as a
disruptive trend that needs to be dealt with by project
management professionals. On its 50th anniversary in
2019, PMI reinforced its commitment to being part of the
United Nation's Global Compact, whose partners
align their strategies and operations with universal
principles of human rights, labour, environment and
anti-corruption and commit to actions to advance
societal goals (https://www.pmi.org/anniversary/pmi-un-
partnership). The Association of Project Management's
(APM's) Vice President Mary McKinlay (2008) urged that
the further development of project management profes-
sion requires project managers to take responsibility for
sustainabilityat the IPMA World Congress 2008
(Silvius & Schipper, 2014). IPMA has also dedicated 2021
as the International Year of Responsible Project
Management, calling for project professionals to deliver
better outcomes for society and the environment
(https://www.ipma.world/2021-is-international-year-of-
responsible-project-management).
These trends in managing projects predicted by peak
bodies as well as their commitments to support the well-
being of the environment confirm that there is a growing
recognition in project management practice that sustain-
able development is a challenge we cannot afford to
ignore. We next discuss how the need for meeting the
requirements for sustainable development has featured
in the project management literature.
5.4 |Sustainability and project
management
The role of project management to support sustainable
development has gained momentum since 2009 (Cerne &
Jansson, 2019; de Toledo et al., 2021; Garies et al., 2013;
Silvius et al., 2009). Marcelino-Sadaba et al. (2015), who
carried out a comprehensive review of sustainability
assessment in various applications of project manage-
ment, have pointed out that sustainability has been rec-
ognized as a challenge for project management in the
construction, infrastructure, mining, energy and new
product development sectors. In the past 15 years, several
industry sectors have expressed concerns about the need
to incorporate sustainability in project management. In a
recent paper, Silvius (2017) predicts that sustainability
could even become a new school of thought in project
management, in addition to the nine schoolsoptimiza-
tion, modelling, governance, behaviour, success, decision,
process, contingency and marketingproposed by
Turner et al. (2010). In a guest editorial of papers
published under the title Projects to create the future:
Managing projects meets sustainable development,
Huemann and Silvius (2017, p. 1066) argue that project
management has a vital role in contributing to sustain-
able development of organizations and society, raising
the issue of societal responsibility of the profession.
However, despite the growing awareness of the
importance of the role of project management for sus-
tainable development, it seems ill prepared to deal with
sustainability. Silvius (2017) laments that integrating
SANKARAN ET AL.709
sustainability is a stretch for project management.
According to Martens and Cavalho (2017, p. 24), there is
a gap between perception of importance and the actual
use of sustainability in project management (SPM) prac-
tice. de Toledo et al. (2021) add that while the United
Nations Sustainable Development Goals should be
included in the critical success factors of projects, this
will require future project professionals to be trained in
sustainable methodologies.
From an organizational theory perspective, sustain-
able development seems a bridge too far for both the orga-
nization and the projects it carries out. Projects are often
constrained by time, cost, scope and quality and consid-
ered as temporary with a finite end, thus decoupling them
from permanent structures to achieve changes (Jones &
Lichtenstein, 2008). This poses a conundrum as sustain-
ability challenges are rarely time limited, decoupled from
the context or easily predictable. There is limited research
to show that wider organizational aspects are being
considered to support projects delivering sustainable out-
comes by balancing social, environmental and economic
issues (Silvius & Schipper, 2014). In addition, paying
attention to sustainability may interfere with the over-
arching ends of an organization such as, for example, core
strategy or business model. Despite attempts to develop a
business case for including sustainability issues, such an
attempt is perceived as paradoxical in setting corporate
goals (Hahn et al., 2015). Therefore, adding sustainability
as a requirement to projects could pose several challenges
to organizations (Bromley & Powell, 2012), hindering the
ability to achieve sustainable development (Wijen, 2014).
Thus, it looks like project management faces several
challenges in closing the knowing and doing gap
between the importance of sustainable development and
ways in which the field will have to change to deal with
this increased awareness of its societal and environmen-
tal responsibilities.
6|DISCUSSION
How do we envision project management will transition
towards sustainability? At the technological level, we
expect that tools to include sustainable project manage-
ment will be introduced by project management
researchers and professional bodies. At the sociotechnical
regime level, we expect peak bodies in project manage-
ment to produce guidelines for the practice of sustainable
project management like the change management
guides published because of the emphasis on benefits
management. PMI has already adopted the UN SDGs as
part of its strategy, while IPMA has declared the year of
responsible project management. The construction indus-
try (Sanchez & Haas, 2018) is already promoting the idea
of a circular economy, and this will spread to other sec-
tors in which project management is used.
While these steps are encouraging signs, more needs
to be done. We have used some key literature published
since 2010 by scholars who have proposed a way forward
to suggest further research into how sustainable develop-
ment could become adopted into current project manage-
ment practices. Silvius et al. (2012) suggested that we
need to develop new principles to govern projects if
we want to move from traditional to sustainable project
management. A systematic literature review carried out
by Aarseth et al. (2017) found that it is not enough if only
the project organization adopted sustainability strategies.
It also requires the host organization authorizing projects
to provide guidelines so that the project organization can
be motivated to adopt sustainable strategies.
Based on a review of the literature on sustainable
project management, we would like to propose a model
or framework of on how the transition to sustainable pro-
ject management could take place. After reviewing some
key literature and research carried out by scholars to pro-
pose models based on various aspects of SPM: success
FIGURE 3 Sustainable project management framework
710 SANKARAN ET AL.
(Martens & Cavalho, 2017), maturity model (Silvius &
Schipper, 2015) and SPM framework (Armenia et al.,
2019), we conclude that a model that links sustainable
project management to benefits (organizational, ecologi-
cal and societal) is missing. Figure 3 shows our proposed
model that could help with further investigation into
how SPM can be achieved in practice.
We start with sustainability principles as the over-
arching guideline to move towards SPM which has been
discussed in the literature (Agarwal & Kalm
ar, 2015;
Gareis et al., 2013; Goedknegt & Silvius, 2012;
Labuschagne & Brent, 2004; Turner, 2010). If these prin-
ciples can be incorporated into the governance of projects
(Bekker & Steyn, 2009; Müller, 2016), they could become
embedded in the processes, roles and policies governing
the projects. As Aarseth et al. (2017) has pointed out, the
host organization authorizing projects should also adopt
guidelines to inform the project organization to adopt
sustainable strategies. This is also necessary as supporting
sustainability from an organizational perspective might
bring politics and power into play (Scherer et al., 2016;
Smith, 2009). Thus, both corporate governance in the
form of corporate social responsibility and principles of
governance discussed in project management literature
should guide project governance. Such guidance could
assist in influencing sustainable behaviour in projects
(Silvius & de Graaf, 2019; Silvius & Schipper, 2014),
which can drive SPM. According to Huemann and
Silvius (2017), sustainable project management involves
both the product or deliverable of the project(p. 1066)
and the process or delivery of the project(p. 1066). This
is echoed by Jacobsson and Lundin (2019) in their com-
ment on an article on projectification of sustainable
development (Cerne & Jansson, 2019), stating that pro-
jects/project management constituting both a means and
an end in sustainable development practice(p. 240). In
other words, both sustainable development through pro-
jects and sustainability of projects should be considered.
The two blocks emanating from SPM in the model repre-
sents these two aspects. Finally, SPM should lead to bene-
fits that are economic, ecological and societal (Gareis
et al., 2013).
7|CONCLUSIONS
In this article, we have attempted to use a multilevel
perspective to understand project management as a
sustainable management innovation, emphasizing the
importance of moving with the times by being conscious
of events that are happening at the horizon (or landscape
level) and be relevant to deliver outcomes. One challenge
that project management will face in the post-Covid-19
world is the increasing importance of sustainable devel-
opment (Tollefson, 2020). Therefore, the project manage-
ment community needs to evolve as it has done so well
in the past to embrace the societal demand to take
sustainably into account while delivering projects and
implement projects that are established towards sustain-
able development. These could be projects that strive
towards reducing the carbon footprint or deal with
climate change, which may require considerations differ-
ent to conventional projects. Based on recent literature,
this article concludes with a model that could be used as
a framework for further evolution of project management
towards sustainable project management.
While we have carried out our own analysis of how
project management has transitioned as an innovation,
this article has also some limitations that can be
addressed by project management researchers in the
future. First it has only considered sustainable develop-
ment as a challenge project management faces, while
ignoring how project management will transition to han-
dle digital disruption. This is because the focus of this
special issue is on sustainable development. The second,
as one of the reviewers, has pointed out that focusing
only on project management could be a partial view from
a systemic perspective but should also embrace an orga-
nizational development perspective with bureaucratic
control and power relationships. These issues are dis-
cussed in part in the project management literature in
dealing with stakeholders but would require further
investigation that is beyond the scope of this article.
REFERENCES
Aarseth, W., Ahola, T., Aaltonen, K., Økland, A., & Andersen, B.
(2017). Project sustainability strategies. International Journal of
Project Management,35(6), 10711083. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijproman.2016.11.006
Ackoff, R. L., Magidson, J., & Addison, H. J. (2006). Idealized design:
Creating an organization's future. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Agarwal, S. R. & Kalm
ar, T. (2015). Sustainability in project man-
agement; Eight principles in practice, MSc Thesis, Umeå School
of Business and Economics, Umeå, Sweden.
Armenia, S., Dangelico, R. M., Nonino, F., & Pompei, A. (2019).
Sustainable project management: A conceptualization-oriented
review and framework proposal for future studies. Sustainabil-
ity,11(2664), 116. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092664
Artto, K. A., & Wikström, K. (2005). What is project business? Inter-
national Journal of Project Management,23(5), 343353.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.03.005
Bekker, M. C., & Steyn, H. (2009). Project governance: Definition
and framework. Journal of Contemporary Management,6(1),
214228. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC51052
Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S., & Rickne, A.
(2008). Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological
innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. Research Policy,
37(3), 407429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.003
SANKARAN ET AL.711
Biedenbach, T., & Jacobsson, M. (2016). The open secret of values:
The roles of values and axiology in project research. Project
Management Journal,47(3), 139155. https://doi.org/10.1177/
875697281604700312
Biesenthal, C., Clegg, S., Mahalingam, A., & Sankaran, S. (2018).
Applying institutional theories to managing megaprojects.
International Journal of Project Management,36(1), 4354.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.06.006
Blomquist, T., & Söderholm, A. (2002). How project management
got carried away. In K. Sahlin-Anderson & A. Söderholm
(Eds.), Beyond project management: New perspectives on the tem-
porary permanent dilemma (pp. 2538). Malmö: Liber.
Bromley, P., & Powell, W. W. (2012). From smoke and mirrors to
walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. The
Academy of Management Annals,6(1), 483550. https://doi.
org/10.5465/19416520.2012.684462
Carlsson, B., & Stankiewicz, R. (1991). On the nature, function and
composition of technological systems. Evolutionary Economics,
1,93118. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01224915
Cerne, A., & Jansson, J. (2019). Projectification of sustainable devel-
opment: Implications from a critical review. International Jour-
nal of Managing Projects in Business,12(2), 365376. https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-04-2018-0079
Chiu, Y. C. (2010). An introduction to the history of project manage-
ment: From the earliest time to A.D. 1900. Delft: Eburon Aca-
demic Publishers.
Crawford, L., Pollack, J., & England, D. (2006). Uncovering the
trends in project management: Journal emphases over the last
ten years. International Journal of Project Management,24(2),
175184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.10.005
de Toledo, R. F., de Farias Filho, J. R., de Castro, H. C. G. A.,
Putnik, G. D., & da Silva, L. E. (2021). Is the incorporation of
sustainability issues and sustainable development goals in pro-
ject management a catalyst for sustainable project delivery?
International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecol-
ogy. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2021.1888816
DePrisco, M. (2020) A first look under the hood of the PMBOK
®
guide, The Official PMI Blog, October 5, 2020, Available at
https://community.pmi.org/t5/the-official-pmi-blog/a-first-
look-under-the-hood-of-the-pmbok-guide-seventh-edition/ba-
p/46#_=_
Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., & Rothengatter, W. (2003). Megaproj-
ects and risk: An anatomy of ambition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107050891
Gaddis, P. O. (1959). The project manager, Harvard Business
Review, MayJune, 8997.
Gareis, R., Huemann, M., & Martinuzzi, A. (2013). Project
management and sustainability principles. Newtown Square,
PA: Project Management Institute.
Garel, G. (2013). A history of project management models: From
pre-models to the standard model. International Journal of Pro-
ject Management,31(5), 663669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2012.12.011
Gauthier, J.-B., & Ika, L. A. (2012). Foundations of project manage-
ment research: An explicit and six-facet ontological framework.
Project Management Journal,43(5), 523. https://doi.org/10.
1002/pmj.21288
Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary
reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case
study. Research Policy,31(89), 12571274. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8
Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-
technical systems insights about dynamics and change from
sociology to institutional theory. Research Policy,33(67),
897920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015
Geraldi, J., & Söderlund, J. (2018). Project studies: Where it is,
where it is going. International Journal of Project Management,
36(1), 5570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.06.004
Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos. New York: Viking.
Goedknegt, D., & Silvius, A. J. G. (2012). The implementation of
sustainability principles in project management. Proceedings of
the 26th IPMA World Congress, Crete, Greece, October 2931,
875882.
Guarino, M. (2014). Looking forward. PM Network,28(1), 3644.
Haenlein, M., & Kaplan, A. (2019). A brief history of artificial intel-
ligence: On the past, present, and future of artificial intelli-
gence. California Management Review,61(4), 514. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0008125619864295
Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., & Figge, F. (2015). Tensions in cor-
porate sustainability: Towards an integrative framework. Jour-
nal of Business Ethics,127(2), 297316. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-014-2047-5
Hodgson, D., & Cicmil, S. (Eds.) (2006). Making projects critical.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-
230-20929-9
Huemann, M., & Silvius, G. (2017). Editorial: Projects to create the
future: Managing projects meets sustainable development.
International Journal of Project Management,35(6), 10661070.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.121
Jacobsson, M., & Lundin, R. A. (2019). World views on projects and
society: Introduction to the special issue. International Journal
of Managing Projects in Business,12(2), 238240. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IJMPB-06-2019-285
Jacobsson, M., Lundin, R. A., & Söderholm, A. (2016). Towards a
multi-perspective research program on projects and temporary
organizations: Analyzing the Scandinavian turn and the
rethinking effort. International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business,9(4), 752766. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-10-2015-
0100
Jacobsson, M., & Söderholm, A. (2011). Breaking out of the strait-
jacket of project research: In search of contribution. Interna-
tional Journal of Managing Projects in Business,4(3), 378388.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371111144139
Jacobsson, M., & Wilson, T. L. (2018). Revisiting the construction of
the Empire State Building: Have we forgotten something? Busi-
ness Horizons,61(1), 4757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.
2017.09.004
Jones, C., & Lichtenstein, B. B. (2008). Temporary inter-
organizational projects: How temporal and social
embeddedness enhance coordination and manage uncertainty.
In S. Cropper, M. Ebers, C. Huxham, & P. Smith Ring (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of inter-organizational relations (pp. 231
255). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kloppenborg, T. J., Opfer, W. A., & Bycio, P. (2000). Forty years of
project management research: Trends interpretations and pre-
dictions, Project Management Research at the Turn of the Mil-
lennium. Proceedings of the PMI Research Conference 2000,
Paris, June 2124, 4159.
712 SANKARAN ET AL.
Köhler, J., Geels, F. G., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E.,
Wieczorek, A., Alkemade, F., Avelino, F., Bergek, A.,
Boons, F., & Fünfschilling, L. (2019). An agenda for sustainabil-
ity transitions research: State of the art and future directions.
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,31,132.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004
Korody, N. (2015) How Frnak Gehry helped create the era of tech-
nological constructionArchinect News, May 13. Available at
https://archinect.com/news/article/127241362/how-frank-
gehry-helped-create-the-era-of-technological-construction
Kozak-Holland, M. (2011). The history of project management.
Ontario: Multi-Media.
Kwak, Y.-H. (2005). A brief history of project management. In E. G.
Caryannis, Y.-H. Kwak, & F. Anbari (Eds.), The story of manag-
ing projects: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 110). Westport,
Connecticut: Praeger.
Labuschagne, C., & Brent, A. C. (2004). Sustainable project life
cycle management: Aligning project management methodolo-
gies with the principles of sustainable development. Proceedings
of the 2004 PMSA International Conference, Johannesburg,
South Africa.1012 May (pp. 104115).
Lenfle, S., & Loch, C. (2010). Lost roots: How project management
came to emphasize control over flexibility and novelty. Califor-
nia Management Review,53(1), 3255. https://doi.org/10.1525/
cmr.2010.53.1.32
Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition management for sustainable devel-
opment. A prescriptive, complexity-based governance frame-
work. Governance,23(1), 161183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1468-0491.2009.01471.x
Lorenz, E. N. (1995). The essence of chaos. Washington: University
of Washington Press.
Lundin, R. A., & Söderholm, A. (1995). A theory of temporary orga-
nization. Scandinavian Journal of Management,11(4), 437455.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0956-5221(95)00036-U
Marcelino-Sadaba, S., Gonzalez-Jaen, L. F., & Perez-Ezcurdia, A.
(2015). Using project management as a way to sustainability:
From a comprehensive review to a framework definition. Jour-
nal of Cleaner Production,99,116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.03.020
Markard, J. (2017). Sustainability transitions: Exploring the emerg-
ing research field and its contribution to management studies.
33rd EGOS Colloquium, Copenhagen. July 68
Markard, J., Hekkert, M., & Jacobsson, S. (2015). The technological
innovation systems framework. Response to six criticisms. Envi-
ronmental Innovations and Societal Transitions,16,7686.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.07.006
Martens, M. L., & Cavalho, M. M. (2017). Sustainability and success
variables in the project management context: An expert panel.
Project Management Journal,47(6), 2443. https://doi.org/10.
1177/875697281604700603
Martinsuo, M., Hensman, N., Artto, K., Kujala, J., & Jaafari, A.
(2006). Project-based management as an organizational innova-
tion: Drivers, changes, and benefits in adopting project-based
management. Project Management Journal,36(3), 8797.
https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280603700309
Maylor, H., & Turner, N. (2017). Understand, reduce, respond pro-
ject complexity management theory and practice. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management,37(8),
10761093. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-05-2016-0263
McKinlay, M. (2008). Where is project management running to?
Keynote Speech, IPMA World Congress, Rome, Italy, Nov 911.
Midler, C. (1995). Projectificationof the firm: The Renault case.
Scandinavian Journal of Management,11(4), 363375. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0956-5221(95)00035-T
Morris, P. W. G. (1994). The management of projects. London:
Thomas Telford. https://doi.org/10.1680/mop.16934
Morris, P. W. G. (2011). A brief history of project management. In
P. W. G. Morris, J. K. Pinto, & J. Söderlund (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of project management (pp. 1536). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Morris, P. W. G. (2013). Reconstructing project management. Chich-
ester: John Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118536698
Müller, R. (2016). Governance and governmentality for projects:
Enablers, practices and consequences. Florence: Taylor &
Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315683294
Müller, R., Drouin, N., & Sankaran, S. (2019). Organizational pro-
ject management: Theory and implementation. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788110976
Nelson, R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of
economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nelson, R. R., & Nelson, K. (2002). Technology, institutions, and
innovation systems. Research Policy,31(2), 265272. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00140-8
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing
industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.
Project Management Institute. (2017). A guide to the project
management body of knowledge (6th ed.). Newtown Square,
PA: PMI.
Project Management Institute. (2018). PMI's pulse of the profession
report. Newtown Square, PA: PMI.
Remington, K., & Pollack, J. (2008). Tools for complex projects.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Rip, A., & Kemp, R. (1998). Technological change. In L. Rayner &
E. L. Malone (Eds.), Human choice and climate change
Resources and technology (pp. 327399). Columbus: Batelle Press.
Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general the-
ory of planning. Policy Sciences,4(2), 155169. https://doi.org/
10.1007/BF01405730
Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & van Asselt, M. (2001). More than revolu-
tion: Transition management in public policy. Foresight,3(1),
1531. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680110803003
Sanchez, B., & Haas, C. (2018). Capital project planning for a
circular economy. Construction Management and Economics,
36(6), 303312. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2018.1435895
Scherer, A. G., Rasche, A., Palazzo, G., & Spicer, A. (2016). Manag-
ing for political corporate social responsibility: New challenges
and directions for PCSR 2.0. Journal of Management Studies,
53(3), 273298. https://doi.org/10.0111/joms.12203
Schoper, Y. G., & Gemünden, H. (2016). Fifteen future trends of
project management in 2025. IPMA Expert Seminar, Zurich.
February 1819
Schot, J., & Geels, F. W. (2008). Strategic niche management and
sustainable innovation journeys: Theory, findings and research
agenda and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,
20(5), 537554. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320802292651
Sergi, V., Crevani, L., & Aubry, M. (2020). Process studies of project
organizing. Project Management Journal,51(1), 310. https://
doi.org/10.1177/8756972819896482
SANKARAN ET AL.713
Silvius, A. J. G., Brink, J., & Kohler, A. (2009). Views on sustainable
project management. In K. Kahkohnen, A. S. Kazi, & M.
Rekola (Eds.), Human side of projects in modern business. IPMA
Scientific Research Paper Series. Helsinki, Finland: Project
Management Association.
Silvius, A. J. G., & de Graaf, M. (2019). Exploring the project man-
ager's intention to address sustainability in the project board.
Journal of Cleaner Production,208, 12261240. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.115
Silvius, A. J. G., & Schipper, R. (2014). Taking responsibility: The
integration of sustainability and project management. In D.
Dalcher (Ed.), Advances in project management: Narrated jour-
neys in unchartered territory (pp. 137144). Aldershot: Gower.
Silvius, G. (2017). Sustainability as a new school of project manage-
ment. Journal of Cleaner Production,166, 14791493. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.121
Silvius, G., & Schipper, R. (2015). Developing a maturity model for
assessing sustainable project management. The Journal of Mod-
ern Project Management,3(1). https://www.journalmodernpm.
com/index.php/jmpm/article/view/112
Silvius, G., Schipper, R., Planko, J., van den Brink, J., & Kohler, A.
(2012). Sustainability in Project Management. Aldershot:
Gower.
Smith, A., Voß, J.-P., & Grin, J. (2010). Innovation studies and sus-
tainability transitions: The allure of multi-level perspective and
its challenges. Research Policy,39(4), 435448. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.023
Smith, W. E. (2009). The creative power: Transforming ourselves, our
organizations and our world. New York: Routledge.
Söderlund, J. (2002). On the development of project management
research: Schools of thought and critique. International Project
Management Journal,8(1), 2031. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0263-7863(03)00070-X
Söderlund, J. (2004). Building theories of project management; past
research, questions for the future. International Journal of Pro-
ject Management,22(3), 183191. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0263-7863(03)00070-X
Stretton, A. (2007). A short history of project management. PM
World Today,9(10), 118.
Tollefson, J. (2020). Why deforestation and extinction make pan-
demics more likely. Nature,584, 176178. https://media.nature.
com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-020-02341-1/d41586-020-
02341-1.pdf
Turner, J. R. (2010). Responsibilities for sustainable development in
project and program management. In H. Knoepfel (Ed.), Survival
and sustainability as challenges for projects (pp. 161170). IPMA.
Turner, R., Huemann, M., Anbari, F., & Bredillet, C. (2010).
Perspectives on projects. New York: Routledge.
Turner, R., Pinto, J., & Bredillet, C. (2011). The evolution of project
management research: The evidence from the journals. In
P. W. G. Morris, J. K. Pinto, & J. Söderlund (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of project management (pp. 65106). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development. Geneva: United Nations.
Walker, D., & Lloyd-Walker, B. (2019). The future of the manage-
ment of projects in the 2030's. International Journal of Manag-
ing Projects in Business,12(2), 242266. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJMPB-02-2018-0034
Weaver, P. (2007). The origins of modern project management.
4th Annual PMI College of Scheduling Conference, Vancouver.
April 1518
Weisbord, M. R., & Janoff, S. (1996). Future search: Finding
common ground in organizations and communities. Systemic
Practice and Action Research,9(1), 7184.
Wijen, F. (2014). Means versus ends in opaque institutional fields:
Trading off compliance and achievement in sustainability
standard adoption. Academy of Management Review,39(3),
302323. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0218
Williams, T. (2005). Assessing and moving from the dominant
project management discourse in light of project overruns.
IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management,52(4), 497508.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2005.856572
Winter, M., Smith, C., Morris, P., & Cicmil, S. (2006). Directions for
future research in project management: The main findings of a
UK government-funded research network. International Jour-
nal of Project Management,24, 638649. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijproman.2006.08.009
Wirth, I. (1992). Project management education: Current issues and
future trends. International Journal of Project Management,
10(1), 4954. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(92)90074-J
How to cite this article: Sankaran, S., Jacobsson,
M., & Blomquist, T. (2021). The history and future
of projects as a transition innovation: Towards a
sustainable project management framework.
Systems Research and Behavioral Science,38(5),
696714. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2814
714 SANKARAN ET AL.
... Scandinavian work cultures are characterized by a high degree of employee influence (Lundahl et al., 2023), which makes is less meaningful to assign full responsibility for the project's overall sustainability results to a single project manager. Concluding that project sustainability relies solely on the project manager also contradicts the notion that sustainability requires a joint and coordinated organizational effort, where all stakeholders are co-responsible for achieving goals (Bulmer et al., 2022;Favari, 2020;Sankaran et al., 2021). ...
... But their model is also based on others' experiences and is not empirically validated. The best model we have found is published by Sankaran et al. (2021). This model proposes a path for sustainable project management, starting with organizational-level policies and governance principles, considerations of process and product sustainability, as documented by impacts to the three bottom lines. ...
... Therefore, we cannot draw on project managers' real-life experiences to conceptualize or describe sustainable project management. As Sankaran et al. (2021) points out, there is growing attention to sustainability in organizations, but project managers are often poorly prepared to handle sustainability-related tasks. Projects have traditionally been defined as time-bound initiatives with fixed ...
Article
Project managers play a key role in the implementation of change pro-cesses, including the transition to sustainable business practices. De-spite the mandate to integrate sustainability into organizational practic-es in both public and private enterprises, many Danish project manag-ers either do not view sustainability as relevant to their practice, or do not possess the necessary knowledge to implement sustainability in their practice. Scandinavian studies with specific recommendations on how to apply sustainability goals to projects currently do not exist. On the other hand, a fair amount of English-language literature on the sub-ject has been published. To better understand if international research can be applied to Danish project management practice, we conducted a scoping review to answer two research questions: 1. How is sustain-able project management conceptualized in the literature? 2. What themes exist in the literature regarding sustainable project manage-ment practice? Based on the answers to these two questions, we de-veloped a set of recommendations for how Danish project-based or-ganizations can conceptualize and implement sustainable project management. Initially, we collected 188 articles and reports on the subject. The number of materials was then reduced after applying sev-eral quality criteria, and the remaining 84 articles were thematically an-alyzed. We identified five commonly used definitions of sustainable project management and can conclude that although the concept has evolved, we cannot discern a precise and usable definition. We there-fore propose a new definition of sustainable project management in this article. Based on the literature, we identified six organizational ar-eas where sustainable project management is meaningful. On this ba-sis, we present a series of recommendations on how project managers in Denmark and other countries can understand and tackle sustainabil-ity in a practice-oriented and meaningful way, both in relation to steer-ing groups, their own work as project managers, project management methods, and the establishment of measurable sustainability indicators in projects.
... Ahmad et al. (2021) and Micale et al. (2021) emphasized the importance of project managers comprehending stakeholder interactions, legislation, and sustainability principles. Sankaran et al. (2021) and Woźniak (2021) assert that sustainable project management necessitates addressing both social and environmental implications, emphasizing smart long-term planning and proactive mitigation. Irfan et al. (2021) underscores the importance of considering financial, environmental, and social aspects throughout project initiation, planning, and execution, requiring rigorous sustainability, social impact, and green procurement assessments. ...
... Past empirical research has delved into project managers' well-being, sustainable planning, and project completion success. Sankaran et al. (2021) investigated the influence of project managers' satisfaction on these variables, finding that their views, attitudes, and job satisfaction impact sustainable project management. Magano et al. (2021) linked project manager enjoyment to success, revealing that unhappy project managers tend to be more focused, determined, and critical when facing challenges. ...
Article
Full-text available
The primary objective of this study is to investigate the extant correlation among sustainable project planning, the utilization of project management information, and project success. Furthermore, the research employs the deployment of project management information as a mediating variable, while project manager satisfaction serves as a moderating variable in delineating the connection between the utilization of project management information and project success. This study gathered data from 239 employees in the interior design and construction industry in Saudi Arabia. The research utilized Partial Least Squares (PLS) software with a Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) approach to accomplish its objectives. The research reveals a notable correlation between sustainable project planning and project success, as well as between sustainable project planning and the utilization of project management information. Furthermore, the study confirms that project manager satisfaction moderates the relationship between sustainable project planning and the use of project management information. Additionally, the use of the project management information system significantly serves as a mediator in the association between sustainable project planning and project success. This research contributes to the scholarly discourse by establishing connections among technology utilization, project manager satisfaction, sustainable project management, and the success of interior design and construction projects in Saudi Arabia. The results underscore the imperative of incorporating sustainability considerations into project design and leveraging technology to enhance sustainability outcomes. These insights have implications for interior design and construction enterprises striving for both project success and sustainability. Driving Project Success Through Sustainable Planning and Technology Utilization socialspacejournal.eu 276
... Project scholars are expressing an increasing interest in grand challenges including low-carbon transitions in energy, mobility, agri-food, and industrial systems, which are needed to mitigate climate change (Daniel, 2022;Gasparro et al., 2022;Ika & Munro, 2022;Ika et al., 2024;Koch-Ørvad et al., 2019;Morris, 2017;Sankaran et al., 2021;Winch, 2022). This poses a new challenge for project scholars because although there is relevant tradition and research on the sustainability of projects, often focused on integrating sustainability aspects during project delivery (Huemann & Silvius, 2017;Sabini et al., 2019), there is less research on sustainability by projects, i.e. the contribution of projects outcomes to large-scale system changes (Terenzi et al., 2024). ...
... These innovations are implemented through sociotechnology based project management practices. Today another key issue in the development of these technologies is how project management can support the sustainable future of organizations (Sankaran et al., 2021). In other words, project management does not offer different solutions focused on the lifetime of a project but optimizes solutions to support organizational vision. ...
Article
Purpose This study aims to answer the question of what characterizes organizations with future-potential, and with the help of a model introduced in this study, the authors propose what interventions can be identified and which improvements need to be made in traditional organizations so that they meet the requirements of future-potentiality. Design/methodology/approach A systematic literature review was conducted to identify management interventions. Citation and co-word analyses were also performed. Content analysis of 311 journal articles from the past five years was performed taking into account relevant keywords, and disciplinary narrowing was also applied. These articles were used to identify knowledge that could be used to suggest micro-, meso- and macro-level changes. Findings To develop the future potential of organizations, three organizational levels must be separated. The first is the micro level of relations between leaders and employees, where equity is a key value for future potentiality. It should be emphasized that not all employees’ organizational commitment is equally important for organizations with future potential, and leaders should strengthen their commitment according to individual needs and opportunities. The second is the meso level, where the decisive value is organizational moderation, and this suggests that a careful and restrained development is needed both in satisfying consumer needs and in innovation. The third is the macro level, where the defining value is responsibility and sustainability, which are necessary for achieving a state where the active development of national culture becomes possible. Originality/value Contrary to the authors’ expectations, it has been found that there are only a few studies dealing with change management for the purpose of achieving a future potential mode of organizational operation; thus, the results can be considered new and will contribute to the development of a cross-section of change management and future studies.
... Próba podkreślania 2 W oryginale: Sustainable Project Management is the planning, monitoring and controlling of project delivery and support processes, with consideration of the environmental, economical and social aspects of the life-cycle of the project's resources, processes, deliverables and effects, aimed at realising benefits for stakeholders, and performed in a transparent, fair and ethical way that includes proactive stakeholder participation (Silvius i Schipper, 2014b, s. 79). przyszłej perspektywy poprzez medium projektów staje się więc, paradoksalnie, doskonałym nośnikiem idei zrównoważonego rozwoju (Sankaran i in., 2021). Logika projektów, obejmująca zdefiniowane kroki, przybliża w wyznaczonym momencie interesariuszy skupionych wokół potrzeby osiągnięcia zakładanych rezultatów, a także osoby zaangażowane w proces zarządzania projektami do zrealizowania konkretnej wizji, ambicji albo misji. ...
Article
Full-text available
Artykuł w formie krytycznego przeglądu literatury pokazuje ewolucję dyskusji naukowej na temat zrównoważonego zarządzania projektami. Na podstawie 129 anglojęzycznych artykułów naukowych przeprowadzono analizę opisową i tematyczną tego trendu, który wzbudza duże zainteresowanie badaczy. W ten sposób wyodrębniono dominujące narracje dotyczące prób określenia definicji i zakresu zrównoważonego zarządzania projektami, szukania argumentów przemawiających za wdrażaniem zrównoważonych praktyk, wpływu na tradycyjne sposoby zarządzania projektami, łączenia praktyki projektowej z logiką zrównoważonego rozwoju. Dodatkowo także podkreślono rolę menedżera projektów, interesariuszy oraz całych organizacji. Zwrócono również uwagę na dysproporcję między zainteresowaniem zrównoważonym zarządzaniem projektami a rolą i znaczeniem projektów w czasie kryzysu klimatyczno-ekologicznego. Wnioski z literatury wskazują, że zrównoważone zarządzanie projektami jest koncepcją, która ma potencjał dalszej eksploracji w nowatorskich przedsięwzięciach badawczych, choć nie jest wolna od ograniczeń.
... Sustainable Project Management Framework(Jacobsson et al., 2021) ...
Thesis
Full-text available
The purpose of conducting this research is to explore how Artificial Intelligence (AI) might augment the profession of project management, especially in the context of Agile project management. This study is motivated by the burgeoning presence of AI as a game-changer technology that warrants a compelling investigation into its implications on the future of Agile methodologies. During this research, a total of 5 project management experts with extensive backgrounds in Agile project management and IT/software development were asked to share their vision for the future of Agile project management in an era where AI has been taking organizations and industries by the storm. The results obtained from the interviews conducted would seem to suggest that the advent of AI could lead to certain modifications and ramifications in Agile practices and dynamics within scrum teams. While certain roles might be subject to automation in the next decade, the extent of these changes varies considerably. What is certain is that a lot of Agile tools could benefit from the incorporation of AI integration, as it has been proven to significantly minimize the occurrence of human errors and maximize efficiency. This optimization enables scrum teams to divert their efforts from mundane tasks to areas where the human touch adds substantial value to projects. However, with great efficiency comes great responsibility, and careful ethical considerations must be taken to prevent the overreliance on Artificial Intelligence. The efficiency of automation, while promising, carries inherent disruptive potential, particularly with its implications for society, the environment, and job markets. Nevertheless, the future of AI integration within project management holds promise, envisioning a landscape where certain roles transform while novel opportunities emerge. In the face of these multidisciplinary challenges, project managers, product owners, scrum masters, designers, developers, and QAspecialists must adapt to the evolving landscape. Through a sustainable project management paradigm, these professionals can navigate the complexities of AI integration while harnessing its transformative potential. Collaboration with AI-powered tools liberates crucial time, enabling teams to focus on intricate problem-solving, strategic decision-making, and higher-order creative thinking. This dissertation provides an exhaustive exploration of sustainable project management within the AI era, investigating its potential impacts on Agile team dynamics, job roles, and project practices. Employing meticulous analysis, real-world cases, and empirical research, this study aspires to offer actionable insights and strategies to Agile practitioners, enabling them to embrace the possibilities of AI while safeguarding their crucial roles in shaping the trajectory of project management's future. Furthermore, considering the ongoing evolution of Agile and its potential for breakthroughs, the exploration also contemplates the possibility of an “Agile renaissance”, suggesting that the full extent of AI's transformative power on Agile methodologies might still be on the horizon.
... It involves the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to achieve project objectives efficiently and effectively. Project management has a rich history that has evolved from simple organizational structures in ancient times to a highly specialized and structured discipline in the modern era (Sankaran et al., 2021). Its principles and practices have become indispensable for efficiently executing projects of varying complexity and scale in today's global economy. ...
Article
Purpose: The main goal of this manuscript is to evaluate the impact of technology adoption and integration on project management practices, identify challenges and solutions, and explore the potential of emerging technologies for enhancing project management efficiency and effectiveness. Scope: The study takes a global approach to assess how technology impacts project management across various industries and organizations, mainly focusing on technology adoption trends in different sectors and advanced solutions. Conclusions: The manuscript details how automation and software improve project efficiency and predictability, discusses limitations, including software glitches and downtime necessitating backup systems, and identifies AI (Artificial Intelligence) as the most prominent emerging technology.
... Regarding technological advances, contemporary society has tried to incorporate digital technologies such as Artificial Intelligence, Digital Twin, Internet of Things, Blockchain, among other technologies related to Industry 4.0 in a more natural way (Sankaran, Jacobsson, & Blomquist, 2021). In this sense, we can highlight in 2023 the democratization of Generative ...
Article
Full-text available
A pretensão de predizer ou antecipar o futuro sobre os negócios motivou consultorias, gestores e pesquisadores ao longo do tempo. Esse foi o desafio de especialistas e pesquisadores em diversos assuntos como John Naisbitt, que escreveu sobre “Magatências” na década de noventa (Naisbitt, 1982), bem como Slaughter (2002), que com seu artigo apresentou vários trabalhos que tratavam de questões como tecnologia, sustentabilidade, entre outros, que impactarão a sociedade no futuro. No campo do gerenciamento de projetos essa discussão pode ser vista em Morris (2010), Padalkar e Gopinath (2016), Wawak e Woźniak (2020), Alshaikhi e Khayyat (2021), March e Dalcher (2022) e Locatelli et al. (2023). Estes autores trataram de questões como o desenvolvimento de novas competências para profissionais que trabalham com projetos, mudanças para lidar com o uso intensivo de tecnologias da Indústria 4.0, além do desafio de incorporar à sustentabilidade nas suas dimensões sociais, ambientais e econômicas em todo o ciclo de vida de um projeto. Com relação aos avanços tecnológicos, a sociedade contemporânea tem tentado incorporar de forma mais natural tecnologias digitais como a Inteligência Artificial, Digital Twin, Internet das Coisas, Blockchain, entre outras tecnologias relacionadas à Indústria 4.0 (Sankaran, Jacobsson, & Blomquist, 2021). Neste sentido, nós podemos evidenciar neste ano de 2023 a democratização da Inteligência Artificial Generativa, como ChatGPT, BARD, entre outros, que estão influenciando processos de trabalho e a forma como entregamos valor aos clientes. Um exemplo das mudanças que podem se tornar cada vez mais comuns é tornar uma aplicação de Inteligência Artificial membro da equipe de um projeto (Marnewick & Marnewick, 2019), o que pode se tornar uma tendência dentro e fora de ambientes de trabalho. Não obstante as questões relacionadas à evolução tecnológica, ainda é preciso lidar com as barreiras organizacionais para incorporar a sustentabilidade nos diversos contextos de produção e consumo (Martens & Carvalho, 2016; Toljaga-Nikolić et al., 2020), o que se torna um desafio para a área de projetos de qualquer organização. Apesar dos desafios, estudiosos e praticantes da gestão de projetos tem discutido intensivamente em como gerar sustentabilidade a partir dos projetos e com os projetos (Stanitsas, Kirytopoulos, & Leopoulos, 2021; Ma et al., 2020). Embora sejam evidentes os desafios supracitados, muitas outras questões surgem ao adaptar as estruturas organizacionais e sociais a fim de resolver problemas na alocação de recursos, no desenho de novos processos e no desenvolvimento de novas competências. Neste sentido, podemos dizer que um projeto constitui a forma pela qual a transformação de organizações, cidades, ou mesmo de um país acontece, sendo que o gerenciamento de projetos teve e ainda tem um papel fundamental para lidar com as mudanças advindas do processo de evolução da sociedade (Marnewick & Marnewick, 2019). Com relação às organizações de modo geral, nós podemos dizer que sua capacidade de competir está diretamente relacionada à capacidade de criar e gerir projetos. Portanto, o gerenciamento de projetos não fornece somente práticas de gestão, mas também orienta mudanças nas estruturas organizacionais para a projetização de suas atividades a fim de lidar com as mudanças em seu ambiente interno e externo (Lundin et al., 2015). Assim, estruturas temporárias permitem uma melhor utilização dos recursos para alcance dos objetivos organizacionais, sejam eles da iniciativa privada ou do setor público, o que também aumenta a capacidade de adaptação frente as adversidades das organizações (Dalcher, 2022). Com relação às abordagens de gerenciamento de projetos, as evidências apontam para uma mudança paradigmática de práticas orientadas ao planejamento para aquelas orientadas para entrega de valor (Bizarrias, Penha, & Silva, 2021), sendo essas últimas compreendidas na abordagem ágil de gerenciamento de projetos. Corroborando essa perspectiva, o 15º relatório State of Agile (Digital.ai, 2021) apontou para um crescimento da adoção dos métodos ágeis em equipes de desenvolvimento de TI. Neste mesmo sentido, a transformação ágil e o Business Agility se tornaram meios para obter competitividade por meio de uma maior capacidade de adaptação das estruturas organizacionais em responder aos desafios de mercado (Dikert, Paasivaara, & Lassenius, 2016). Além deste avanço das abordagens ágeis, se faz necessário ressaltar a necessidade de se ter métodos híbridos como uma alternativa à utilização de abordagens de gerenciamento de projetos puramente orientadas ao planejamento, ou ainda a adoção de práticas ágeis sem uma devida estrutura que a suporte (Gemino, Reich, & Serrador, 2021). Com base neste contexto, os editores desta edição especial trazem artigos de perspectiva, ou seja, artigos opinativos que apresentam uma visão para acadêmicos e praticantes sobre “O Futuro do gerenciamento de projetos”. O desafio nesta edição especial foi contemplar várias perspectivas, como por exemplo, a gestão de projetos públicos e privados, além das questões relacionadas a tecnologia e a sustentabilidade. Para esta edição apresentamos sete artigos que tratam sobre o futuro dos projetos públicos, aspectos relacionados ao uso de tecnologias, bem como o envelhecimento dos profissionais de projetos e a renovação das competências no contexto dos projetos. O artigo “Explorando o futuro das pesquisas em gerenciamento de projetos” de Ralf Müller apresenta tendências presentes em revistas relevantes sobre o futuro da pesquisa sobre gerenciamento de projetos. Müller (2023) destaca que os pesquisadores devem compreender a transição do gerenciamento de projetos baseado em processos para o gerenciamento de projetos baseado em princípios. Outros tópicos relevantes como o lado humano nos projetos, a sustentabilidade e a Inteligência Artificial também são explorados. Müller (2023) divide as oportunidades de pesquisa em cinco tópicos: (i) Pesquisa sobre gerenciamento de projetos e os Grandes Desafios; (ii) Pesquisa sobre o lado humano da gestão de projetos; (iii) Pesquisa sobre o entendimento geral de gerenciamento de projetos; (iv) Pesquisa de ferramentas e técnicas avançadas; (v) Métodos e abordagens de investigação emergentes. O artigo “Alguns insights sobre o futuro da gestão de projetos na administração pública” de Stanislaw Gasik indica algumas oportunidades e desafios para a gestão de projetos no setor público. Gasik (2023) destaca temas como a projetização da administração pública, a criação de estruturas para apoiar os prestadores de serviços na realização de seus trabalhos e, especialmente, na resolução dos problemas nos projetos públicos. Gasik (2023) indica também, que no futuro, mais decisões relacionadas aos projetos do setor público serão tomadas pelas comunidades envolvidas - stakeholders. Essa tendência está relacionada à despolitização dos projetos, que deve ser facilitada pelas formas virtuais e remotas de comunicação entre a comunidade e a administração pública. O artigo “A gestão de projetos vistos como sistemas não lineares, complexos e dinâmicos de forma adaptativa e híbrida” de Leando Patah apresenta, entre outros tópicos relevantes, a discussão sobre a adoção dos métodos ágeis e híbridos para adequação à cada contexto do projeto. Patah (2023) destaca a importância de observar os projetos como sistemas, sendo que esses podem ser compreendidos como sistemas lineares e não lineares. Essa perspectiva ajuda a compreender propriedades dos sistemas, análogas aos projetos, como aditividade, homogeneidade, sinergias e interferências. Outro ponto de destaque neste artigo é a oportunidade de tratar a complexidade inerente aos projetos. Ao final, Patah (2023) faz uma provocação ao propor que o gerenciamento de projetos deverá ser visto como um sistema não-linear, complexo e dinâmico. O artigo “Tendências nos projetos de desenvolvimento de sistemas no setor público” de Enock Godoy de Souza, Igor Pinheiro Lagreca de Sales Cabral e Roberto Lopes de Carvalho trata de oportunidades de pesquisa em processos de gestão de projetos de Tecnologia da Informação no setor público. Souza, Cabral e Carvalho (2023) são Auditores Fiscais da Receita Estadual e atuam no Departamento de TI ou no Departamento de Gestão Estratégica e de Projetos da Secretaria da Fazenda e Planejamento do Estado de São Paulo. Os autores trazem principalmente uma perspectiva prática sobre a realidade de gestão de projetos de Tecnologia da Informação no setor público. Um dos pontos de destaque neste artigo está relacionado à tendência da adoção da abordagem ágil na gestão pública de projetos, que é fortemente influenciada pela Transformação Digital, a adoção de Objective and Key Results (OKR), Inteligência Artificial e Ciência de Dados. Uma oportunidade de pesquisa destacada pelos autores é a expectativa de evolução das métricas usadas para avaliar o resultado dos projetos, o que contribuiria na substituição do método de pontos de função. O artigo “O futuro das competências em gerenciamento de projetos: Como fazer a escolha certa das competências para os profissionais de seu projeto?” de Nelson Rosamilha apresenta discussão sobre a adequação das competências dos profissionais de acordo com tipos de projetos. Rosamilha (2023) parte de uma pesquisa prévia que apresentou 170 competências de gerenciamento de projetos categorizadas por competências comuns, relevantes e exclusivas, que foram distribuídas em diferentes tipologias de projetos. O autor pressupõe que as competências necessárias para atuar em projetos são as que melhor se adéquam ao contexto das tipologias de projetos por meio da abordagem de Funil de Competências. Neste sentido, Rasamilha (2023) aponta que as competências do futuro para os profissionais de projetos devem ser contextualizadas em tipos específicos de projetos. Além disso, um aspecto relevante para estudos futuros é a compreensão de que as competências que antes estavam restritas aos gerentes de projetos, agora estão distribuídas entre os profissionais envolvidos nos projetos. O artigo “Perspectivas futuras para a gestão de projetos e sua relação com a sustentabilidade das organizações” de Marcio Pimenta, Bruno Leonardo e Paula Pimenta trouxe perspectivas futuras mais relevantes acerca da gestão de projetos e sua relação com a sustentabilidade organizacional. Pimenta, Leonardo e Pimenta (2023) apontam para cinco perspectivas de futuro para a gestão de projetos: (i) um futuro enevoado e turbulento, (ii) um futuro tecnológico e disruptivo, (iii) um futuro repleto de novas habilidades, (iv) um futuro para construir a sustentabilidade e (v) um futuro desafiador para a diversidade. Um dos destaques do artigo é a visão da reciclagem de profissionais e a retenção das competências por conta de restrições de contratação de profissionais mais velhos – idadismo. Neste sentido, os autores alertam para a necessidade de um planejamento estratégico do envelhecimento dos profissionais para lidar com um suposto apagão, no futuro, de profissionais e competências no contexto da gestão de projetos. O artigo “Desbravando o futuro do gerenciamento de projetos: Tendências e oportunidades emergentes no contexto brasileiro” de Jeferson Kerbes, Sidnei Vieira Marinho e Ovidio Felippe Pereira da Silva Junior apresenta opiniões e perspectivas a partir da discussão com 15 profissionais que atuam com gerenciamento de projetos no Brasil. Kerbes, Marinho e Da Silva (2023) trazem insights obtidos destes profissionais considerando as áreas temáticas de Gestão, Liderança, Temas e Áreas de Gerenciamento, Ferramentas, Ambiente e Profissionais. Os autores confrontam os insights gerados com estudos prévios. Um dos pontos de destaque no artigo é a adequação das competências dos profissionais envolvidos em projetos a fim de quebrar resistências à mudança ou à adoção de novas tecnologias.
Article
Full-text available
This study investigates the interconnection between sustainable project management (SPM) and project risk management. Additionally, it explores the correlation between SPM and transformational leadership behaviours, utilizing managers’ transformational leadership as a mediating variable and decision-making quality as a moderating variable in the relationship between SPM and project risk management. Method: This study gathered data from 247 employees in the Saudi Arabian electronics industry. The collected data was analysed using the STATA software and a structural equation modelling (SEM) approach to achieve the research objectives. Findings: The study’s results indicate a significant relationship between sustainable project management, project risk management, and transformational leadership behaviours. Furthermore, the findings support the proposed hypotheses, suggesting that the relationship between sustainable project management and project risk management is moderated by decision-making quality and mediated by managers’ transformational leadership behaviours. Originality/ Implications: This study adds to the existing knowledge on sustainable project management and its relevance to electronics project management. It highlights the importance of understanding regulatory and mediating mechanisms for improving project sustainability and performance. The results emphasize the significance of incorporating sustainable project management strategies and transformational leadership for sustainable development in organizations.
Article
Full-text available
This introduction to this special issue discusses artificial intelligence (AI), commonly defined as “a system’s ability to interpret external data correctly, to learn from such data, and to use those learnings to achieve specific goals and tasks through flexible adaptation.” It summarizes seven articles published in this special issue that present a wide variety of perspectives on AI, authored by several of the world’s leading experts and specialists in AI. It concludes by offering a comprehensive outlook on the future of AI, drawing on micro-, meso-, and macro-perspectives.
Article
Full-text available
Today, more than ever, achieving sustainability of business activities, intertwining social, economic, and environmental perspectives, is one of the most challenging objectives for companies. Project management processes are no exception. This paper aims to contribute to the current research knowledge through a systematic review of the literature on the integration of project management and sustainability. Specifically, the aim was to clarify the research domains of sustainable project management, and to understand the current state of development and the future research directions. Results indicate that academic literature about this topic is still in its infancy, but that scholars’ attention is growing, opening new research directions. Based on the literature review results, we propose a new conceptual framework linking five key dimensions of sustainable project management: corporate policies and practices, resource management, life cycle orientation, stakeholders’ engagement, and organizational learning.
Article
Sustainability in project management is an emerging and evolving field of study, in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Sustainability in project management is immersed in many goals and targets, and is also echoed in many other goals and targets. In this sense, the goal of this research was to analyse how to incorporate sustainability issues and Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs as critical success factors for project management and propose a sustainable project management model. The developed conceptual model contains the variables related to the identified barriers and motivation factors for the integration of sustainability with project management. It presents seven hypotheses and five constructs: Sustainable Development Goals; Interested Parties; Sustainable Companies; Sustainable Project Management Methodology and Sustainable Project. The proposed model and its constructs’ relationships were validated using a structural equation model, across more than 400 valid questionnaires, completed by project management professionals from all around the world. The main result of the study indicates that for sustainability to become an integer part of project management, the dissemination and use of a sustainable project management methodology that considers the SDGs – Sustainable Development Goals by companies and professional associations, encouraging professionals to be trained and certified in these sustainable methodologies, is necessary.