Further Commentary on Structuration Theory

Giddens' structuration theory has its critics. Stones (2005) highlighted that Giddens had spent more than a decade between the mid-1970s to mid-1980s working on his structuration theory but did not later defend it against criticisms. Turner (1986) opined the following criticisms: inaccurate definitions, opaque and confusing concepts and the rejection of positivism. Pozzebon and Pinsonneault (2005, p. 1368) suggested that while Giddens' theory was valuable it "operates at a high level of abstraction, so that ST [structuration theory] has been often seen as a meta-theory". Nicolini (2012, p. 50) summarised some of the opposition to Giddens' theory in that: it corresponded with an interest in postmodernism, Giddens was promoting a society in a utopian manner with no room for dissent or conflict, and(unlike other philosophers at the time) did not spend sufficient time submitting his theory to empirical research.

Stones (2005) took a more sympathetic approach and argued that Giddens' work was important but required further refinement to take in to account these criticisms, .e.g. the quadripartite cycle which would mean the theory would have a meso rather than a macro level approach. The quadripartite cycle comprises

(1) external structures as a condition of action, (2) internal structures within the agent,

(3) active agency, including a range of aspects involved when agents draw upon internal structures in producing practical action, and

Structuration theory is recognised in the discipline of project management, despite its critics. 2.10.4 Structuration Theory and Project Management

As noted in Section 3.10.1 (Recognising the importance of human behaviour in projects), there has been a movement in project management academia to consider various and wide- ranging theories that may help improve the development of project management as a discipline. Academics have begun to move away from purely focusing on the technical part of project management (e.g. planning, controlling, executing, etc.) to focus on "understanding the specific nature of social relations, structures and processes that occur in projects" (Floricel et al., 2014, p. 1091).

The application of structuration theory is becoming increasingly recognised by some academics in the project management discipline (Fenies, Gautier, & Pariente, 2015; Floricel et al., 2014; Manning, 2008; Soderlund, 2013).

Floricel et al. (2014) considered that the concept of projects as temporary organisations has meant human interactions and other social relations are now considered to be important for the development of project management theory. Fenies et al. (2015) proposed that structuration theory has helped researchers to comprehend how projects are considered part of temporary social systems. Manning (2008) concurred that structuration theory may help academics to comprehend how projects become embedded as temporary organisations by reviewing the recursive interplay of action and structure. All of the above research considers human relationships and their interaction with the structure of social systems.

Project literature has focused on how organisations can influence the makeup of projects, e.g. so that their employees working on temporary projects will refer to certain structural properties or corporate guidelines, "from a structuration perspective organisations 'provide' rules and resources that enable and constrain project organizing activities" (Manning, 2008, p. 32).

It is suggested that for the purposes of this research that structuration theory will help to understand the relevance of project management best practice and its application in the UK construction industry.

2.11 Summary of Chapter

This chapter considered the knowledge and theories available that are relevant to the research aim. It highlighted key themes surrounding PSFs' use of the PPMPS and the Corpus. Some of these themes included: the clients' role in the construction industry, the limitations of the BoKs, the emergence of project management surveying, the concept of corporate professionalism, the theory of regulations and standards, the development of project managers' competencies, barriers to learning, professional negligence and the concept of supercomplexity.

Section 2.1 (The Client) provided the overall context of the role of the client in the construction industry. It is noted that clients have the ability to use their buying power to influence the construction industry.

Sections 2.2.1 (PMI's Body of Knowledge) through 2.2.4 (CIOB's Code of Practice for Project Management for Construction and Development), provided a concise summary of the PMI's BoK and the Corpus. The purpose of this was to assist the reader to understand the differences between the PPMPS and the Corpus. Section 2.2.5 (An Overview of the Corpus) sets out some further comparison between the PPMPS and the Corpus. It is noted that one key difference between the RICS's Guidance Notes and Information Paper and the APM's BoK, the PMI's BoK and the CIOB's CoP is that the RICS guidance is not bound into one document. Section 2.2.6 (Limitations of, and Concerns, with the BoKs) demonstrated that the limitations of the BoKs and the Corpus, are multi-faceted and are explored in the other parts of this chapter. It is proposed that it is important that this research investigates the limitations of the Corpus as experienced by PSFs and clients in the UK construction industry.

It is proposed in Section 2.3.1 (The PPMAs' Rationale for the PPMPS/Corpus) that the PPMAs will always seek to provide and promote their PPMPS. Section 2.3.2 (The Emergence and Regulation of Project Management Surveying Services), considered the tensions between the role of a regulatory body and the potential risk of the professionals abusing their expertise. Section 2.3.3 (Sociology of Project Management Surveying), provided the background to the development of project management surveying which is relevant as some of the interviewees are chartered surveyors who do not have the CPMS designation. It is argued that PSFs are project-based organisations, and consideration is given as to whether this has an impact on the use of the Corpus is reviewed in Section 2.3.3 (Project-based Organisations). Section 2.3.4 (Codification of Professional Project

Management Practice Standards), referred to the importance of codified knowledge in the context of whether the PPMAs are promoting the profession. The penultimate and final Sections, 2.3.5 (Codification of Professional Project Management Practice Standards) and 2.3.6 (Corporate Professionalism) noted the concept of commercial professionalization and the risk that PPMAs are becoming commercially orientated to the potential detriment of individual members.

Section 2.4.2 (Commercial Consideration for using the Corpus) set out conflicting views in the literature on the usefulness of the Corpus.

Section 2.5.1 (Implementing Professional Project Management Practice Standards) provided a contrary view to the advantages of professional bodies regulating the property profession. There are differences of opinion on how relevant the PPMPS are in keeping up to date with practice and that to some extent practitioners will take little heed of their advice. Section 2.5.2 (Monitoring Professional Project Management Practice Standards), highlighted that when introducing standards careful consideration should be given as to whether there are real benefits to an organisation, as more is not necessarily better. In the event that standards are imposed, the implementation process should be monitored closely especially in project-based organisations with remote projects away from the immediate control of the head office. Section 2.6.2 (Project Managers' Competencies), considered that the PPMPS have a role to play in developing practitioners' competencies and noted the differences between the attribute-based and performance-based competencies. The literature confirmed that those who adhered to practice standards in the workplace did not always achieve project success. Contrasting research showed that projects were seen as a success because practice standards on key criteria were implemented. These findings question, in part, whether adherence to the Corpus is seen as being essential to the development of practitioners by senior management. Section 2.6.3 (Knowledge and Learning), reviewed the different modes of knowledge production and argued that the Corpus is a mimetic form of knowledge.

There is considerable literature on the personal and organisational barriers to learning and sections 2.6.4.4 (The tradition of Apprenticeships), and 2.6.4.5 (Practitioners' Learning Responsibilities), took a critical look at the role of apprenticeships and whether practitioners' can or do want to share their knowledge. The penultimate Section 2.6.4.5 (Practitioners Learning Responsibilities), concluded with a proposal for practitioners to take responsibility for their professional development. It is proposed that some of the barriers to learning may be

implicitly overcome by the creation of In-house standards. The proposal is based on the recognition that professional knowledge is tacit knowledge and it is difficult to transfer to others easily.

Morris, Jamieson, et al. (2006) advised that project management can be considered to be a discipline but not a theory due to its very wide-ranging subject matter. The range of themes in project management demonstrates that the research subject is complex and multi-faceted. It is suggested that the extensive review of literature in this chapter demonstrated that there is an important gap in the existing theory and knowledge on PSFs' and clients' use of Corpus in practice. It is noted that there remains scant literature on project management surveying. The literature review resulted in the development of 10 research questions to achieve the aim of this research including its seven research objectives. These are designed to elicit new information from PSFs and clients on the relevance of project management best practice and its application in the UK construction industry.

It is suggested that this research will contribute to a subject matter that has limited exposure in the academic discipline of project management. The details of the research methodology are set out in Chapter 3 (Research Methodology).

Chapter 3: Research Methodology