Mapping the dynamic of Project Management field : Project Management in action

Focusing on the role within and between organizations of the project management discipline to design and implement strategy, as source of competitive advantage, leads us to question the scientific field behind this discipline. This science should be the basis for the development and use of bodies of knowledge, standards, certification programs, education, and competencies, and beyond this as a source of value for people, organizations, and society. Thus the importance to characterize, define, and understand this field and its underlying strength, basis, and development is paramount. For this purpose we propose to give some insights on the current situation. This will lead us to clarify our epistemological position and demonstrate that both constructivism and positivist approaches are required to seize the full dimension and dynamics of the field.We will referee to sociology of actor-networks and qualitative scientometrics leading to the choice of the co-word analysis method in enabling us to capture the project management field and its dynamics.Results of a study based on the analysis of ABI Inform database will be presented and some future trends and scenarios proposed.

Investigating the future of project management : a co-word analysis approach

If Project Management (PM) is a well-accepted mode of managing organizations, more and more organizations are adopting PM in order to satisfy the diversified needs of application areas within a variety of industries and organizations. Concurrently, the number of PM practitioners and people involved at various level of qualification is vigorously rising. Thus the importance to characterize, define and understand this field and its underlying strength, basis and development is paramount. For this purpose we will referee to sociology of actor-networks and qualitative scientometrics leading to the choice of the co-word analysis method in enabling us to capture the project management field and its dynamics. Results of a study based on the analysis of EBSCO Business Source Premier Database will be presented and some future trends and scenarios proposed. The main following trends are confirmed, in alignment with previous studies: continuous interest for the “cost engineering” aspects, on going interest for Economic aspects and contracts, how to deal with various project types (categorizations), the integration with Supply Chain Management and Learning and Knowledge Management. Furthermore besides these continuous trends, we can note new areas of interest: the link between strategy and project, Governance, the importance of maturity (organizational performance and metrics, control) and Change Management. We see the actors (Professional Bodies, Governmental Bodies, Agencies, Universities, Industries, Researchers, and Practitioners) reinforcing their competing/cooperative strategies in the development of standards and certifications and moving to more “business oriented” relationships with their members and main stakeholders (Governments, Institutions like European Community, Industries, Agencies, NGOs…), at least at central level.

Citation success over time : theory or empirics?

This study investigates the citation patterns of theoretical and empirical papers published in a top economics journal, namely American Economic Review, over a period of almost 30 years, while also exploring the determinants of citation success. The results indicate that empirical papers attract more citation success than theoretical studies. However, the pattern over time is very similar. Moreover, among empirical papers it appears that the cross-country studies are more successful than single country studies focusing on North America data or other regions.

Do the best scholars attract the highest speaking fees? An exploration of internal and external influence

This study investigates whether academics can capitalize on their external prominence (measured by the number of pages indexed on Google, TED talk invitations or New York Times bestselling book successes) and internal success within academia (measured by publication and citation performance) in the speakers’ market. The results indicate that the larger the number of web pages indexing a particular scholar, the higher the minimum speaking fee. Invitations to speak at a TED event, or making the New York Times Best Seller list is also positively correlated with speaking fees. Scholars with a stronger internal impact or success also achieve higher speaking fees. However, once external impact is controlled, most metrics used to measure internal impact are no longer statistically significant.

The implications of educational and methodological background for the career success of Nobel Laureates : an investigation of major awards

Nobel laureates have achieved the highest recognition in academia, reaching the boundaries of human knowledge and understanding. Owing to past research, we have a good understanding of the career patterns behind their performance. Yet, we have only limited understanding of the factors driving their recognition with respect to major institutionalized scientific honours. We therefore look at the award life cycle achievements of the 1901–2000 Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, and physiology or medicine. The results show that Nobelists with a theoretical orientation achieved more awards than laureates with an empirical orientation. Moreover, it seems their educational background shapes their future recognition. Researchers educated in Great Britain and the US tend to attract more awards than other Nobelists, although there are career pattern differences. Among those, laureates educated at Cambridge or Harvard are more successful in Chemistry, those from Columbia and Cambridge excel in Physics, while Columbia educated laureates dominate in Physiology or Medicine.

The inner quality of an article: Will time tell?

In this paper, we assess whether quality survives the test of time in academia by comparing up to 80 years of academic journal article citations from two top journals, Econometrica and the American Economic Review. The research setting under analysis is analogous to a controlled real world experiment in that it involves a homogeneous task (trying to publish in top journals) by individuals with a homogenous job profile (academics) in a specific research environment (economics and econometrics). Comparing articles published concurrently in the same outlet at the same time (same issue) indicates that symbolic capital or power due to institutional affiliation or connection does seem to boost citation success at the beginning, giving those educated at or affiliated with leading universities an initial comparative advantage. Such advantage, however, does not hold in the long run: at a later stage,the publications of other researchers become as or even more successful.

Do great minds appear in batches?

Despite much scholarly fascination with the question of whether great minds appear in cycles, together with some empirical evidence that historical cycles exist, prior studies mostly disregard the ‘‘great minds’’ hypothesis as it relates to scientists. Rather, researchers assume a linear relation based on the argument that science is allied with the development of technology. To probe this issue further, this study uses a ranking of over 5600 scientists based on number of appearances in Google Books over a period of 200 years (1800–2000). The results point to several peak periods, particularly for scientists born in the 1850–1859, 1897–1906, or 1900–1909 periods, suggesting overall cycles of around 8 years and a positive trend in distinction that lasts around 100 years. Nevertheless,a non-parametric test to determine whether randomness can be rejected indicates that nonrandomness is less apparent, although once we analyse the greatest minds overall, rejection is more likely.

Do Nobel laureates change their patterns of collaboration following prize reception?

We investigate whether Nobel laureates’ collaborative activities undergo a negative change following prize reception by using publication records of 198 Nobel laureates and analyzing their coauthorship patterns before and after the Nobel Prize. The results overall indicate less collaboration with new coauthors post award than pre award. Nobel laureates are more loyal to collaborations that started before the Prize: looking at coauthorship drop-out rates, we find that these differ significantly between coauthorships that started before the Prize and coauthorships after the Prize. We also find that the greater the intensity of pre-award cooperation and the longer the period of pre-award collaboration, the higher the probability of staying in the coauthor network after the award, implying a higher loyalty to the Nobel laureate.

The first cut is the deepest: Repeated interactions of co-authorship and academic productivity in Nobel laureate teams

Despite much in-depth investigation of factors influencing the co-authorship evolution in various scientific fields, our knowledge about how efficiency or creativity is linked to the longevity of collaborative relationships remains very limited. We explore what Nobel laureates’ co-authorship patterns reveal about the nature of scientific collaborations looking at the intensity and success of scientific collaborations across fields and across laureates’ collaborative lifecycles in physics, chemistry, and physiology/medicine. We find that more collaboration with the same researcher is actually no better for advancing creativity: publications produced early in a sequence of repeated collaborations with a given coauthor tend to be published better and cited more than papers that come later in the collaboration with the same coauthor. Our results indicate that scientific collaboration involves conceptual complementarities that may erode over a sequence of repeated interactions.