Managing value creation in temporary organizations

The goal of this dissertation was to create understanding of the management of value creation in temporary organizations. This dissertation has fulfilled this goal in four ways: by proposing value orientation as a source of task complexity, by proposing a framework for managing value creation, by describing the nature of managing value creation in the execution phase, and by highlighting the multi-level nature of value creation in temporary organizations.

The dissertation builds on three theoretical viewpoints: temporary organizing

(Bakker, 2010; Lundin and Söderholm, 1995; Packendorff, 1995), the embedded

temporary organization (Bakker, 2010; Sydow et al., 2004; Turner and Müller, 2003),

and value creation in temporary organizations (Laursen and Svejvig, 2016; Martinsuo

et al., 2019a, 2017; Winter and Szczepanek, 2008). Regarding value creation, this

dissertation highlights the three characteristics of value: lifecycle orientation,

multidimensionality, and subjectivity. The contributions of this dissertation build on

combinations of the three theoretical viewpoints and the three characteristics of value.

The first contribution of this dissertation proposes value orientation as a source of complexity in temporary organizations. According to Geraldi et al., complexity of projects is “something that is experienced by project managers” (2011, p. 968).

Complexity is a multidimensional concept, the most established dimensions being technological complexity (Shenhar, 2001), uncertainty (Geraldi et al., 2011; Shenhar, 2001) and structural complexity (Geraldi et al., 2011), for example. This dissertation proposes value orientation as a novel dimension of complexity, in other words as another challenging factor project practitioners need to “deal with” (Geraldi et al., 2011, p. 967).

The key characteristic of a temporary organization is its task orientation (Bakker, 2010; Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). The idea of value orientation as a source of complexity (or “complicatedness”, Geraldi et al., 2011) stems from the three characteristics of value. The lifecycle orientation of value broadens the focus of management from the “task that must be accomplished” (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995, p. 441) and from the fulfillment of the iron triangle objectives (Atkinson, 1999) to the whole lifecycle of the temporary organization — from the early front-end phase to the operations phase (Artto et al., 2016). The multidimensionality of value explains how the complexity of the task can take different forms. For instance, different control packages can be used to encourage desirable action with respect to the different dimensions of value (Article I). The multidimensionality of value resembles the idea of multidimensional project complexity and the different management practices for the different dimensions of complexity (Geraldi et al., 2011). The subjectivity of value reveals the stakeholders’ varying or even conflicting perceptions of value (Ang et al., 2016; Green and Sergeeva, 2019) as a source of complexity. For instance, stakeholders’ influence efforts are driven by their subjective perceptions of value (Article IV). The characteristics of subjectivity and multidimensionality are strongly linked with each other.

As the second contribution, this dissertation proposes that control, coordination

and integration, and the stakeholder viewpoint form the framework for managing

value creation in temporary organizations. The framework is illustrated in Figure 12.

Figure 12. The framework for managing value creation in temporary organizations.

The previous chapters have demonstrated how control is a way to encourage desirable action toward value-oriented goals, how the management of organizational interdependencies (i.e., coordination and integration) promotes value creation at organizational interfaces, and how the stakeholder viewpoint enables understanding of the stakeholders’ actions as driven by their perceptions of value. The three perspectives are not interchangeable; rather, they focus on different aspects of value creation. Thus, together, they form an overall framework for managing value creation. The three perspectives of the framework emphasize a contingency approach (Shenhar, 2001) to managing value creation as well. Although the three perspectives are not interchangeable, they can have different importance in different temporary organizations; the stakeholder viewpoint requires more focus in large delivery projects than in small internal development projects, for example.

The proposed framework emphasizes the challenging characteristics, based on

the perspective of value creation and the three characteristics of value, in comparison

to the viewpoints of projects as tools (Packendorff, 1995) or production functions

(Turner and Müller, 2003). This way, this research contributes to answering

important questions asked in the earlier literature, including, for example, value management over the project/program lifecycle, different actors’ involvement in value proposition, creation, and capture processes, and management strategies for adding value to projects (Martinsuo et al., 2017).

The third contribution of this dissertation discusses the nature of managing value creation in temporary organizations. The findings of this dissertation describe various events where “losses of value” were prevented. Examples include changes and related response actions (Article III), stakeholders’ influence efforts (Article IV), and improved project team coordination (Article V). In contrast to preventing losses of value, earlier literature has described several aspects of value creation that focus more on creating additional value. Examples include definition of target benefits (Zwikael et al., 2018), facilitation of multi-organizational value creation (Artto et al., 2016), and enhancement of value capture and mitigation of value slippage (Bos-de Vos et al., 2019). However, these examples are more applicable to the earlier front-end phase or the later operations phase, than the execution phase. This dissertation proposes that the main focus of managing value creation in the execution phase is on preventing losses of value.

Finally, this dissertation highlights the multi-level nature of value creation; in other words, value creation and the need to manage value creation at different organizational levels. The three levels identified include: within the temporary organization, between the temporary and the permanent organization, and between the temporary organization and the external context.

To manage value creation at the first level — within the temporary organization

— control and coordination are especially required. Control includes both encouraging desirable action and monitoring progress in terms of multidimensional value and taking corrective action through change management or improvisation if necessary. Coordination is a way to promote value creation at horizontal organizational interdependencies. At the second level — between the temporary and the permanent organization — the key management perspective is integration. Here the focus is on promoting value creation at vertical organizational interdependencies.

Finally, the management of value creation between the temporary organization and the external context requires the external viewpoint, which in this case is the stakeholder view. The stakeholder viewpoint is especially related to the stakeholders’

actions, which are driven by their subjective perceptions of value.

The idea of multi-level value creation builds on the embeddedness of the temporary organization (Bakker, 2010; Sydow et al., 2004; Turner and Müller, 2003).

The earlier literature on embeddedness has described how temporary organizations

are embedded in different contexts, including organizational units, organizations,

inter-organizational networks, and organizational fields (Sydow et al., 2004). This

embeddedness and the interfaces between the various contexts is relevant for various

fields of research, including, for example, project autonomy (Martinsuo and

Lehtonen, 2009), project learning (Sydow et al., 2004), and project management

offices (PMO) (Hobbs et al., 2008). This research proposes a similar linkage between

embeddedness and value creation.

6 CONCLUSIONS