Inducing institutional change through projects? Three models of projectified governance

References

• Allan, C. (2012). Rethinking the ‘project’: Bridging the polarized discourses in IWRM. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 14(3), 231–241. doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2012.702012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson, K. (2009). Orchestrating regional development through projects: The ‘innovation paradox’ in rural Finland. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 11(3), 187–201. doi: 10.1080/15239080903033796
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson, K., Sjöblom, S., Marsden, T., & Skerratt, S. (2012). Conclusion: Progressing from governance challenges to approaching “must hit” spatial policy targets. In S. Sjöblom, K. Andersson, T. Marsden, & S. Skerratt (Eds.), Sustainability and short-term policies: Improving governance in spatial policy interventions (pp. 301–319). Farnham: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beunen, R., & Patterson, J. J. (2016). Analysing institutional change in environmental governance: Exploring the concept of “institutional work”. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, doi: 10.1080/09640568.2016.1257423
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biesenthal, C., Clegg, S., Mahalingam, A., & Sankaran, S. (2018). Applying institutional theories to managing megaprojects. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 43–54. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.06.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bodin, Ö. (2017). Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science, 357(6352), eaan1114. doi: 10.1126/science.aan1114
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brady, T., & Davies, A. (2004). Building project capabilities: From exploratory to exploitative learning. Organization Studies, 25(9), 1601–1621. doi: 10.1177/0170840604048002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, V. A., Harris, J. A., & Russell, J. Y. (Eds.). (2010). Tackling wicked problems through the transdisciplinary imagination. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Bulkeley, H., & Betsill, M. (2005). Rethinking sustainable cities: Multilevel governance and the ‘urban’ politics of climate change. Environmental Politics, 14(1), 42–63. doi: 10.1080/0964401042000310178
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
   Google Scholar
• Büttner, S. M., & Leopold, L. M. (2016). A ‘new spirit’ of public policy? The project world of EU funding. European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology, 3(1), 41–71. doi: 10.1080/23254823.2016.1183503
   Google Scholar
• DeFillippi, R., & Sydow, J. (2016). Project networks: Governance choices and paradoxical tensions. Project Management Journal, 47(5), 6–17. doi: 10.1177/875697281604700502
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duit, A., & Galaz, V. (2008). Governance and complexity — emerging issues for governance theory. Governance, 21(3), 311–335. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2008.00402.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engwall, M. (2002). The futile dream of the perfect goal. In K. Sahlin-Andersson & A. Söderholm (Eds.), Beyond project managment. New perspectives on the temporary – permanent dilemma (pp. 261–277). Malmö: Liber.
   Google Scholar
• Engwall, M. (2003). No project is an island: Linking projects to history and context. Research Policy, 32(5), 789–808. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00088-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30(1), 441–473. doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fred, M. (2018). Projectification – The trojan horse of local government (Doctoral dissertation). Lund University & Malmö University, Lund.
   Google Scholar
• Fred, M., & Hall, P. (2017). A projectified public administration: How projects in Swedish local governance become instruments for political and managerial concerns. Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 119(1), 185–205.
   Google Scholar
• Glouberman, S., & Zimmerman, B. (2002). Complicated and complex systems: What would successful reform of Medicare look like? Commission on the future of health care in Canada (Discussion Paper 8).
   Google Scholar
• Godenhjelm, S., & Johanson, J.-E. (2018). The effect of stakeholder inclusion on public sector project innovation. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 84(1), 42–62. doi: 10.1177/0020852315620291
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godenhjelm, S., Lundin, R. A., & Sjöblom, S. (2015). Projectification in the public sector – the case of the European Union. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 8(2), 324–348. doi: 10.1108/IJMPB-05-2014-0049
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godenhjelm, S., Munck af Rosenschöld, J., Kuokkanen, K., Andersson, K., & Sjöblom, S. (2012). The democratic implications of project organisations – a case study of leader-projects in Finland. In S. Sjöblom, K. Andersson, T. Marsden, & S. Skerratt (Eds.), Sustainability and short-term policies: Improving governance in spatial policy interventions (pp. 55–80). Farnham: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Grabher, G. (2002). Cool projects, boring institutions: Temporary collaboration in social context. Regional Studies, 36(3), 205–214. doi: 10.1080/00343400220122025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grabher, G. (2004). Temporary architectures of learning: Knowledge governance in project ecologies. Organization Studies, 25(9), 1491–1514. doi: 10.1177/0170840604047996
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haunschild, P., & Chandler, D. (2008). Institutional-level learning: Learning as a source of institutional change. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 624–649). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hodge, I., & Adams, W. (2016). Short-term projects versus adaptive governance: Conflicting demands in the management of ecological restoration. Land, 5(4), 39. doi: 10.3390/land5040039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen, C., Johansson, S., & Löfström, M. (2013). The project organization as a policy tool in implementing welfare reforms in the public sector. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 28(1), 122–137. doi: 10.1002/hpm.2120
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen, C., Johansson, S., & Löfström, M. (2017). Policy implementation in the era of accelerating projectification: Synthesizing Matland’s conflict–ambiguity model and research on temporary organizations. Public Policy and Administration. doi: 10.1177/0952076717702957
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansson, S., Löfström, M., & Ohlsson, Ö. (2007). Separation or integration? A dilemma when organizing development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 25(5), 457–464. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.11.006
   Google Scholar
• Kuokkanen, K. (2013). Assessing the democratic qualities of programmes and projects: A case from Finnish urban policy. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 17(2), 127–146.
   Google Scholar
• Larsson, L., & Waldenström, C. (2012). Leader as a means for strengthening rural development capacity: From project output to the embedding of outcomes. In S. Sjöblom, K. Andersson, T. Marsden, & S. Skerratt (Eds.), Sustainability and short-term policies: Improving governance in spatial policy interventions (pp. 17–34). Farnham: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Lawrence, T. B., Leca, B., & Zilber, T. B. (2013). Institutional work: Current research, new directions and overlooked issues. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1023–1033. doi: 10.1177/0170840613495305
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 215–254). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lundin, R. A., Arvidsson, N., Brady, T., Ekstedt, E., Midler, C., & Sydow, J. (2015). Managing and working in project society: Institutional challenges of temporary organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lundin, R. A., & Söderholm, A. (1995). A theory of the temporary organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 437–455. doi: 10.1016/0956-5221(95)00036-U
   Google Scholar
• Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). A theory of gradual institutional change. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power (pp. 1–37). New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Manning, S. (2010). The strategic formation of project networks: A relational practice perspective. Human Relations, 63(4), 551–573. doi: 10.1177/0018726709340954
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manning, S., & von Hagen, O. (2010). Linking local experiments to global standards: How project networks promote global institution-building. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(4), 398–416. doi: 10.1016/j.scaman.2010.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsden, T., Sjöblom, S., Andersson, K., & Skerratt, S. (2012). Introduction: Exploring short-termism and sustainability: Temporal mechanisms in spatial policies. In S. Sjöblom, K. Andersson, T. Marsden, & S. Skerratt (Eds.), Sustainability and short-term policies: Improving governance in spatial policy interventions (pp. 1–14). Farnham: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Megyesi, B. (2012). Institutions and networks in rural development: Two case studies from Hungary. In S. Sjöblom, K. Andersson, T. Marsden, & S. Skerratt (Eds.), Sustainability and short-term policies: Improving governance in spatial policy interventions (pp. 217–243). Farnham: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Munck af Rosenschöld, J., & Löyhkö, J. (2015). LEADER and local democracy: A comparison between Finland and the United Kingdom. In L. Granberg, K. Andersson, & I. Kovách (Eds.), Evaluating the European approach to rural development: Grass-roots experiences of the LEADER programme (pp. 13–31). Farnham: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Munck af Rosenschöld, J., Rozema, J. G., & Frye-Levine, L. A. (2014). Institutional inertia and climate change: A review of the new institutionalist literature. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(5), 639–648.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munck af Rosenschöld, J., & Wolf, S. A. (2017). Toward projectified environmental governance? Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 49(2), 273–292. doi: 10.1177/0308518X16674210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Normann, H. E. (2015). The role of politics in sustainable transitions: The rise and decline of offshore wind in Norway. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 15, 180–193. doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2014.11.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Packendorff, J., & Lindgren, M. (2014). Projectification and its consequences: Narrow and broad conceptualisations. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 17(17), 7–21. doi: 10.4102/sajems.v17i1.807
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C. (2003). Joined-up government: A survey. Political Studies Review, 1(1), 34–49. doi: 10.1111/1478-9299.00004
   Google Scholar
• Ray, C. (2000). Editorial. The EU LEADER programme: Rural development laboratory. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(2), 163–171. doi: 10.1111/1467-9523.00138
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. doi: 10.1007/BF01405730
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sahlin-Andersson, K., & Söderholm, A. (2002). The Scandinavian school of project studies. In K. Sahlin-Andersson & A. Söderholm (Eds.), Beyond project managment. New perspectives on the temporary – permanent dilemma (pp. 11–24). Malmö: Liber.
   Google Scholar
• Sävenstrand, A., Svensson, L., Holmström, P., Forssell, R., & Fred, M. (2012). Pärlbandsprojekt: Projekt som verktyg i en långsiktig utvecklingsstrategi [String of projects: Projects as tools in a long-term development strategy] (Spel-report no. 5/2012). Örebro: APeL Forskning och Utveckling.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open system perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Sjöblom, S. (2009). Administrative short-termism—a non-issue in environmental and regional governance. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 11(3), 165–168. doi: 10.1080/15239080903033747
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjöblom, S., & Andersson, K. (2016). The prospects for bridging spatial and institutional divides between regions: Rural-urban relationships in a projectified governance context. In K. Andersson, S. Sjöblom, L. Granberg, P. Ehrström, & T. Marsden (Eds.), Metropolitan ruralities (Vol. 23, pp. 215–240). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Sjöblom, S., Löfgren, K., & Godenhjelm, S. (2013). Projectified politics – temporary organisations in a public context. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 17(2), 3–11.
   Google Scholar
• Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2011). Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector. Administration & Society, 43(8), 842–868. doi: 10.1177/0095399711418768
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sydow, J., Schüssler, E., & Müller-Seitz, G. (2016). Managing inter-organizational relations: Debates and cases. London: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Tukiainen, S., & Granqvist, N. (2016). Temporary organizing and institutional change. Organization Studies, 37(12), 1819–1840. doi: 10.1177/0170840616662683
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turnheim, B., Kivimaa, P., & Berkhout, F. (2018). Experiments and beyond: An emerging agenda for climate governance innovation. In B. Turnheim, P. Kivimaa, & F. Berkhout (Eds.), Innovating climate governance: Moving beyond experiments (pp. 216–241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• van der Heijden, J. (2015). What ‘works’ in environmental policy-design? Lessons from experiments in the Australian and Dutch building sectors. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 17(1), 44–64. doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2014.886504
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Leeuw, S., Wiek, A., Harlow, J., & Buizer, J. (2012). How much time do we have? Urgency and rhetoric in sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 7(S1), 115–120. doi: 10.1007/s11625-011-0153-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vento, I. (2017). The evaluation of innovations: How to evaluate the transformative value of the cohesion policy for managing purposes. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 21(2), 3–22.
   Google Scholar
• Wolf, S. A. (2011). Network governance as adaptive institutional response: The case of multifunctional forested landscapes. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, 3(3), 223–235. doi: 10.1080/19390459.2011.591760
   Google Scholar