Practices of isolation

Delft University of Technology

Practices of isolation

The shaping of project autonomy in innovation projects

Willems, Thijs; van Marrewijk, Alfons; Kuitert, Lizet; Volker, Leentje; Hermans, Marleen

DOI

10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.03.004

Publication date

2020

Document Version

Final published version

Published in

International Journal of Project Management

Citation (APA)

Willems, T., van Marrewijk, A., Kuitert, L., Volker, L., & Hermans, M. (2020). Practices of isolation: The

shaping of project autonomy in innovation projects. International Journal of Project Management, 38(4),

215-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.03.004

Important note

To cite this publication, please use the final published version (if applicable).

Please check the document version above.

Copyright

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons. Takedown policy

Please contact us and provide details if you believe this document breaches copyrights. We will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

This work is downloaded from Delft University of Technology.

Green Open Access added to TU Delft Institutional Repository

'You share, we take care!' - Taverne project

https://www.openaccess.nl/en/you-share-we-take-care

Otherwise as indicated in the copyright section: the publisher

is the copyright holder of this work and the author uses the

Dutch legislation to make this work public.

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

International

Journal

of

Project

Management

journalhomepage:www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Practices

of

isolation:

The

shaping

of

project

autonomy

in

innovation

projects

Thijs

Willems

_,

_Alfons

_van

_Marrewijk

_,

_Lizet

_Kuitert

_,

_Leentje

_Volker

_,

_Marleen

_Hermans

b Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands c Norwegian Business School BI Oslo, Norway d Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands e University of Twente, the Netherlands

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Aproject’sautonomy,thedegreetowhichaprojectcanevolvewithoutconstantinterferencefromtheparent organization,isakeyfeatureofinnovationprojects.Theliteraturetreatsautonomyasapassivephenomenonand underestimateshowprojectsastemporaryorganizationsinteractwithmorepermanentformsoforganizations. Adynamicandcontextuallysensitiveunderstandingofprojectautonomyisvaluable;autonomycanchangeover thecourseoftheproject’slifecycleandevolveintoextremeisolation.Weshowhowautonomyisshapedthrough practicesofisolationandhowthisinfluencesprojectoutcomes.Twoinnovationprojectswerestudiedthrough qualitative-interpretivemethodsandweanalyzedsymbolic,discursiveandspatialpracticesofisolation.These practicesfacilitatetheexplorationofinnovationsbutlimitthetransmissionoftheseinnovationstotheparent organization.Wecontributetotheliteratureontemporaryorganizationsandproject-to-parentintegrationby illustratingandtheorizingtheroleofpracticesofisolationinthisprocess.

1. Introduction

Theorizingtherelationbetweentemporaryandpermanent organiza-tionsisakeychallengeinthe(project)managementliterature(Bakker, DeFillipi& Sydow,2016; Lundin& Hällgren,2014;Sydow& Braun, 2018).Whilethepermanentorganizationreferstothestructureinwhich afirm,companyorothertypeoforganizationisorganized,the tempo-raryorganizationrefersto‘atemporallyboundedgroupof interdepen-dentorganizationalactors,formedtocompleteacomplextask’(Burke andMorley,20161237).Oneofthekeyquestionsoftemporary organi-zationsconcernstherightlevelofproject-to-parentintegrationversus project-autonomy(Bakkeretal.,2016).Scholarssuggestthattheright levelofintegrationandautonomydependsonthegoaloftheprojectand itscontext(Johansson,Löfström&Ohlsson,2007;Martinsuo& Lehto-nen,2009).Thisdiscussiononintegration/autonomy isimportantas temporaryorganizationsarequicklydissolvedafterclosureand mem-bersareassignedtonewtasks,teamsanddeadlines,whileparent orga-nizationswanttosuccessfullyintegratethedevelopedknowledge, prod-uctsorservices(Stjerne&Svejenova,2016;Swan,Scarbrough&Newell, 2010;Sydow,Lindkvist&DeFillippi,2004).

∗_{Correspondingauthorat:SingaporeUniversityofTechnologyandDesign,LeeKuanYewCentreforInnovativeCities,Level2,Building3,8SomapahRd,487372,}

Singapore.

E-mailaddress:thijs_willems@sutd.edu.sg (T.Willems).

Frequently,parentorganizationsuseprojectstodeliverinnovation (Criscuolo,Salter&TerWal,2013;Lundin&Soderholm,1995).Such innovationprojectsaretemporary,task-focusedorganizationsthat de-fineanddevelopnewproducts,servicesorbusinessmodels(Gemunden, Lehner &Kock,2018).Previous researchsuggeststhatthese projects mustoperateinrelativeautonomytobeabletoachieveprojectgoals and,moreimportantly,tofulfilltheparentorganizationalaimsof inno-vating(e.g.Davies,MacAulay,DeBarro&Thurston,2014;Lundinetal., 2015;Prado&Sapsed,2016).Relativeautonomyhelpstoestablishthe rightconditionsunderwhichinnovationismorelikelytohappen(Gann & Salter, 2000; van Marrewijk, 2007). Recent research has studied thisinterestingco-existenceofintegrationandautonomyininnovation projects(Vuorinen&Martinsuo,2018),anditisincreasinglyrecognized thereisanimportantgapinunderstandingthedynamicsaroundhow autonomy is developed throughout a project’s lifecycle and how this is shaped by notions of isolation (e.g. Lehtonen & Martinsuo, 2009; Martinsuo & Lehtonen, 2009; Näsänen & Vanharanta, 2016; Turkulainen,Ruuska,Brady&Arrto,2015).

Inthispaperwefocusonpracticesofisolationtostudyhowproject autonomyisshaped,withtheroleoftheparentorganizationgradually

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.03.004

Received9April2019;Receivedinrevisedform25February2020;Accepted25March2020 Availableonline7June2020

evolvingintoamarginalpositionvis-à-visthetemporaryorganization (Martinsuo&Lehtonen,2009).AccordingtotheMacquarieDictionary (1992:933)isolationmeans‘tosetorplaceapart’andto‘separateso astobe alone’butalso, andinterestingfor ourdiscussion,to‘track down;discover’. Inorder todiscoverandinnovate, projectmanagers maychoosestrategiesthathelpisolatethetemporaryfromthe perma-nentorganization(e.g.Turkulainenetal.,2015),forinstanceby pur-posefullydetachingandreattachinginnovationteamsfortheduration ofaproject(Johanssonetal.,2007).VanMarrewijk(2017)showshow grantedautonomyofahigh-speedtrainmegaprojectslowlydriftedinto anungrantedformofspatialandsocialisolation,muchtothedismayof theparentorganization.Whileisolationthusseemsarecurringtheme forinnovationprojects,wedonotknowhowitoccursandrelatesto theintegrationandautonomyoftemporaryorganizations(Lehtonen& Martinsuo,2009;Näsänen&Vanharanta,2016;Vuorinen&Martinsuo, 2018).Amorenuancedunderstandingoftheprocessofautonomyand isolationprovidesinsightsintotheinteractionbetweentemporaryand permanentorganizationsandtheintegrationofprojectsintoparent or-ganization,ashasbeenaskedforbyrecentstudies(Bakkeretal.,2016; Geraldi&Söderlund,2018;Sydow&Braun,2018;Turkulainenetal., 2015;Vuorinen&Martinsuo,2018).

Thispaperfocusesonthequestion:howisautonomyconstitutedin spe-cificpracticesofisolationininnovationprojectsandhowarethesepractices relatedtoprojectoutcomes?Projectoutcomesareunderstoodasfulfilling theproject’sprimarytaskofdevelopinginnovativeproducts,practices orservices,aswellasthesecondarygoaloftransferringthese innova-tionstotheparentorganization(e.g.Johanssonetal.,2007). Further-more,weunderstandprojectisolationaslocalandsituatedsetsof prac-tices(Blomquist,Hällgren,Nillson&Söderholm,2010).Toanswerthe researchquestion,wedrawonthedataoftwoqualitativecasestudies: RailNerveCenterandBeatingHeart.Forbothprojects,creatingand institutionalizinginnovativeformsofinter-organizationalcollaboration wasanimportantgoal.Oneprojectstarted‘embedded’ intheparent organizationwhiletheotheralreadystarted‘isolated’(seeMartinsuo& Lehtonen,2009).Contrastingcasesallowforthediscoveryof similari-tiesanddifferencesinthephenomenonstudied(Siggelkow,2007).Our findingsidentify(1)symbolic,(2)discursiveand(3)spatialpractices thatisolatedbothprojectsfromtheirparentorganization,regardlessof theirstartingposition.Whiletheseinterrelatedisolationpractices pos-itivelyinfluencedtheexplorationofnewcollaborativepractices,they hinderedtheexploitationandsharingoflessonslearnedandthe inte-grationofinnovationsintotheparentorganizations.

Thisstudycontributestotheliteratureontemporaryorganizations (Lundin&Hällgren,2014Geraldi&Söderlund,2018;Sydow&Braun, 2018) by addressing the issue of embeddedness of projects within theirparentorganizations(Burke&Morley,2016;Sydowetal.,2004) through anin-depth understanding of how autonomydevelops over time.Furthermore,thestudycontributestotheprojectmanagement lit-eraturefocusingontheintegrationofprojectsinparentorganizations (Daviesetal.,2014;Gemunden,Salomo&Krieger,2005;Lundinetal., 2015;Martinsuo&Lehtonen,2009;Prado&Sapsed,2016)by provid-ingarichandempiricallygroundedanalysisofpracticesofproject isola-tion.Weillustrateandtheorizehowisolationoccursandhowthisrelates totheintegrationandautonomyoftemporaryorganizations(Lehtonen &Martinsuo,2009;Näsänen&Vanharanta,2016;Vuorinen& Martin-suo,2018).Ourpaperthusadvancesourunderstandingofhow tem-poraryandpermanentorganizationsinteract,highlightinghowproject autonomyexistsdynamicallyonacontinuumbetweencomplete inte-grationandcompleteisolation,andhowpracticesofisolationrelateto howprojectsdeliverinnovations.Wetherebyrespondtothecallfrom MartinsuoandLehtonen(2009)formoreresearchonthemechanisms andeffectsofshapingprojectautonomyinrelationtoparent organi-zationsandtheirnetworks.Finally,wecorroborateearlierfindingsthat innovationsthroughprojectsaredifficult(Bakker,2010),describingthe internalandexternaltriggersforisolationofprojectswithastrong in-novationfocus.

Below,wefirstreviewthedebateontemporaryversuspermanent or-ganizations,therelationbetweenproject-to-parentintegrationand au-tonomy,andtherelationbetweenautonomyandisolation.Wethen ex-plainourresearchapproach,methodologyandanalysis,andpresentour findings.Inthediscussionwereflectonthefindingsinlightoftheoryon projectautonomy.Weconcludethepaperbyexplicatingour theoreti-calcontributionsandpracticalimplicationsforautonomyinthecontext ofprojectsdeliveringinnovationswithintemporaryorganizational set-tings.

2. Theoreticalbackground

2.1. Temporaryandpermanentorganizations

Overthepastdecadetherehasbeenagrowinginterestinthe theo-rizationoftemporaryorganizations(Bakker,2010;Bakkeretal.,2016; Bechky,2006;Burke&Morley,2016;Grabher,2002,2004;Lundinet al., 2015;Sydow&Braun,2018).Temporaryorganizations comprise project-orevent-specificentities;theyareconstitutedeithertodeliver atemporally definedprojector todealwithaneventoroccurrence, afterwhich they ceasetobe (Grabher, 2002).This growinginterest hasresultedinadiversebodyofstudies,includingafocuson tempo-ralityintheatricalproduction(Goodman&Goodman,1976);filmand televisionproduction(Bechky,2006;DeFillippi&Arthur,1998); engi-neeringprojects(Wilemon,1973)andprojectmanagement(Lundin& Söderholm,1995;Lundin&Steinthórsson,2003;Sydow&Braun,2018; Winch,2014).

Explorationsofautonomyaddressafundamentalissueintheorizing therelationbetweentemporaryandpermanentorganizations(Bakker, 2010;Lundin&Hällgren,2014;Lundin&Söderholm,1995),namelyto whatextentatemporaryorganizationshouldbedecoupledfromits par-entorganization(Burke&Morley,2016).Theautonomyoftemporary organizationscanbeadvantageousasitoffersopportunitiesforcreating innovationsandnewknowledge(Grabher,2004;Lenfle&Söderlund, 2019).However,theimplementationofinnovationsornewknowledge from temporarytoparentorganizationis oftenfraughtwith difficul-ties,astheformerismorefocusedonrealizingimmediategoalswhile routinelylearningfromandimplementingthemrequiresbroader orga-nizationalgoals(Sydowetal.,2004).Previousworksuggeststhatthe conceptualboundariesbetweentemporaryandpermanentmaybeless fixedthanusuallythought.Inherstudyonfilmsets,forinstance,Bechky (2006)arguesthat,althoughfilmprojectsareoftenseenasephemeral andunstable,theyareinfactorganizedaroundastructuredrolesystem. Moreover,practicesinprojectsmayalsoappeartobestablewhilethey aresimultaneously fluid;boundaries andcompetencies,forinstance, arecontinuouslynegotiatedinsitubyprojectmembers(Lieftink,Smits & Lauche,2019). Theoftenunique andtemporary characteristicsof projectsmakesthattheidentificationofrolesandtaskwithinprojects andbetweenprojectandparentorganizationcanbeconflict-riddenand negotiatedonadaytodaybasis(vanMarrewijk,Ybema,Smits,Clegg& Pitsis,2016).Thisdiscussionhasimportantimplicationsfor problema-tizingproject-to-parentintegration.

2.2. Project-to-parentintegrationversusautonomy

Integrationis ‘theprocessof achievingunityofeffort amongthe varioussubsystemsintheaccomplishmentoftheorganization’stasks’ (Lawrence& Lorsch,1967:4),forinstancebetween projectand par-entorganization.Projectautonomyrefersto‘thedegreetowhichthe projectisallowedtoevolvewithoutconstantreportingto,and receiv-inginputfrom,theparentorganization’(Martinsuo&Lehtonen,2009: 262).Autonomythusdealswiththeuniquenessandtemporarynature of aproject,butalsotowhatextentitisconnectedandremains em-beddedinanorganization.This issuehasbeenakeyconcernfor lit-erature on integrationandis explored, forinstance, inmulti-project contexts(Dietrich,2006),project-to-projectandproject-to-organization

interfaces(Turkulainenetal.,2015)orentiremulti-projectchange pro-grams(Vuorinen&Martinsuo,2018).Whileitisgenerallyassumedthat integrationisgoodforprojectoutcomes(e.g.Gemundenetal.,2005; Lehtonen&Martinsuo,2009;Turkulainenetal.,2015),researchshows mixedresultswhenstudyingthelevelofintegrationandprojectsuccess. LedwithandCoughlan(2005),forinstance,studiedsixtyNewProduct Development(NPD)projectsandconcludedthatgreaterinvolvementof externalstakeholdersdidnotleadtogreater projectsuccess.Dietrich (2006)hasarguedthatinformalintegrationmechanismsareas essen-tialasformalattemptsforintegration,whereasHoeglandParboteeah (2006)foundthatexternalinfluencefrom managementandthe per-manentorganizationimpactstheperformanceof projectteamsoften negatively.

Manyofthesestudieshavesuggestedthatautonomyisalsocrucial forprojectsuccess. Inrelation toa project’senvironment,Martinsuo andLehtonen (2009)distinguishfourtypesof projectautonomy:(1) isolation(marginalinbothnetworkandparent),(2)networked (cen-tralinnetwork,marginalinparent),(3)privileged(centralinparent, marginalinnetwork)and(4)embedded(centralinbothnetworkand parent).Gemundenetal.(2005),inasimilar vein,identifiedfour di-mensionsofprojectautonomy:(1)goal-definingautonomy,inwhich projectmembershavetheauthoritytosetprojectgoals;(2)structural autonomy,inwhichaproject’ssocialidentityformsaboundarybetween theprojectandothersocial systems;(3)resourceautonomy,namely thedegreetowhichaprojecthasitsownresourcestocompleteproject goals;and(4)social/locationalautonomy,inwhichprojectmembers workincloseproximitytoeachotherforthedurationofaproject. In-terestingly,theirextensivesurveyamong104innovativeprojectsshows thatnoneofthesedimensionsdirectlyrelatetoprojectsuccess,except forlocationalautonomyortheco-locationofthetemporaryand perma-nentorganization.

Thesemixedfindings leadtotheobservationthatintegrationand autonomyarenotmutually exclusivebut,in fact,co-exist(Lehtonen &Martinsuo,2009).Thisalsoshowswhyrecentstudiesonintegration andautonomydiscussthisexplicitlyinthecontextof the temporary-permanent interface of projects (e.g. Näsänen & Vanharanta, 2016; Vuorinen & Martinsuo, 2018), as this takes stock of theuniqueness ofprojectsbutalsoofproblemsrelatedtotheirtemporariness.Itthus questionshowboundaries betweentemporaryandpermanent organi-zations are managed and howthis is contingent on contextual fac-tors andthe project’slifecycle. So, while it is assumed that project autonomy is usuallygranted by the organization(Gerwin & Moffat, 1997)andcarefullymanageduntilitisterminatedwhentheproject ends(Tatikonda&Rosenthal,2000),thesestudiespointourattention tothefactthatdifferentintegration andautonomy mechanismsmay benecessaryduringdifferentphasesofaproject.Inotherwords, in-tegration and autonomy areprocesses that areboth ‘created, main-tained,andpurposefullyaltered’(Martinsuo&Lehtonen,2009:275). InTable 1 wehave summarized the keystudieson project integra-tionand autonomy.Weselected recent, high-impactempirical stud-iesthathadprojectautonomyand/orintegrationasaprimaryfocus. Ascan be seen,there isan emergingappreciationfor regarding au-tonomyasexistingon acontinuumwithintegrationandisolationat bothendsofthespectrum.Whilemoststudieshavediscussed integra-tionmechanismsonthisspectrum,theyhave hintedatthepotential importanceofisolativeactivitieswithoutexplicatingwhat thismight entail.

2.3. Projectisolation:the‘otherend’ofintegration

Theisolationofprojectteamsisoftenobservedinthecontextof radi-callyinnovative,politicallysensitiveorcontroversialprojects(Criscuolo etal.,2013;Kidder,1981).Inawell-knownexample,theU.S. govern-mentManhattanProject(1942–45)producedthefirstnuclearweapons incompleteisolation.Inasimilarvein,in1987SwedishfirmSaabbegan atop-secretV8enginedevelopmentproject,withaverylimited

num-berofengineerslockedupinasmallroomintheofficebuilding’s base-menttomaximizesecurity.Theprojectsecretlydevelopedandtesteda revolutionaryV8engine,butwhenitwaspresentedatSaab headquar-terstwoyearslater,theprojectengineerswerehighlydisappointedas theprojectwasterminated.1_{Thesecontextsappeartocontributetothe} gradualisolationofprojectsandcreatestrongbondsandasenseof col-lectivity(Costas&Grey,2014;Courpasson&Younes,2017).Whilethe motivationsofprojectmembersengagedinsuch‘bootlegging’ activi-tiesmaybebenignandcanindeedcontributetoorganizationalgoals (Criscuoloetal.,2013),theextenttowhichinnovationswillbe incor-poratedintothepermanentorganizationonceaprojectisterminatedis unknown.

Ithasbeensuggestedthatforradicalinnovationsisolationis neces-saryandthatorganizations,ideally,canpurposefullydetachand reat-tachinnovationteamsforthedurationofaproject(Johanssonetal., 2007).SecurityandaerospacecompanyLockheedMartin,forinstance, hasfordecadesorganizedamoreradicalinnovationapproachthrough ‘skunkworks’,whichare‘smallempoweredteamscreate[ing]powerful solutions’.2_{Likewise,Kidder(1981)describeshowateamofcomputer} engineersatDataGeneralwasexplicitlyisolatedfromexisting organiza-tionalstructuresincreatinganewandcompetitivecomputer.Whilethis suggeststhatisolationcanpotentiallybemanagedthroughproject man-agementtechniques(e.g.Tatikonda&Rosenthal,2000),forinstanceby grantingandwithdrawingteamautonomy(Gerwin&Moffat,1997),it haslittletosayabouthowandwhyisolationinteamsiscreated.

Whereasbothprojectintegrationandautonomyareconsidered valu-ablefor achievingprojectgoals,projectisolationis fraughtwith dif-ficulties (Swan et al., 2010) and hasa substantial effect on project outcomes(Criscuoloetal.,2013;Gemunden etal., 2005).Moreover, whileisolationcanbeplannedforandguardedduringspecificphases (Lundin&Soderholm,1995),weunderstandprojectisolationasa po-tentialthroughouttheprojectlifecycle.Wedefineprojectisolationas theprocessof developingautonomytosuchanextentthattheroles oftheparentorganizationbecomemarginalwhile,simultaneously,the projectbecomesincreasinglyinvisiblefortheparentorganization. Iso-lation,asweseeit,isamoreinsidiousexpressionofautonomy, purpose-fullyachievedandcreatedbytheprojectteamoraccidentallyemerging throughouttheprojects’lifecycle.

3. Methods

Tounderstandhowprojectisolationoccursinthesearchfortheright levelofintegration/autonomyoftemporaryorganizationsdesignedto innovate,westudiedtwoprojectsinwhichinnovationwasakey con-cern.‘RailNerveCenter’and‘BeatingHeart’aretwoprojectsthat oper-atedinasensitiveinterorganizationalfieldwheretheeventualoutcome wasregardedcontroversial.RailNerveCenterisaprojectbetween orga-nizationsintheDutchrailwaynetworkandaimedatcreatinganational coordinationcenter.Thiscollaborationwascontroversialinlightofthe tumultuousrecenthistoryoftherailways;innovationsinthenetwork becameimmediatelypoliticized.Forthisreason,theprojectteam de-velopedtheirinnovationsforalargepart‘underground’.BeatingHeart isacitydevelopmentprojectinalargeDutchmunicipalitywithakey goal ofdevelopinginnovativewaysofcollaborationin thesettingof public-privatepartnerships.Astrategyoftransparencywaschosenso thatinnovationscouldbecomeintegratedwithinthemunicipalitywith greaterease.Below,weexplainfirsthowweorganizeddatacollection forbothindividualstudiesafterwhichweexplainhowwecompared datafromthetwoprojectsinouranalysis.

1_{http://saabisti.fi/saab-v8-engine-the-complete-story/#.XGpoTfZFw2w} 2 https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/who-we-are/business-areas/aeronautics/skunkworks.html

Table 1

Summaryofkeyempiricalstudiesonprojectautonomyandintegration.

Publication Empirical context Theoretical interest Methods used Key insights on integration/autonomy

Gemunden et al. (2005)

Highly innovative NPD projects ( N = 104)

Autonomy as a social system and how it is related to innovation success

Survey Identification of different types of autonomy; some relate to higher innovativeness and others not; only locational autonomy (e.g. co-location) relates to success

Ledwith and Coughlan (2005) Electronic firms in NPD ( N = 60) Collaboration and networking between NPD project and external organizations on NPD success Eight questionnaires during interviews with manager responsible for NPD in the firm

For most of the projects studied, involvement of external organizations did not lead to NPD success; small firms usually operated in a more isolated matter

Dietrich

(2006) Multiproject contexts ( N = 4) Contingency thinking to extend work on integration in

permanent organizations and single project context

Inductive, multiple case-study; interviews, questionnaire, archival materials

Informal integration mechanisms are essential; proper mechanism is contingent on complexity and

uncertainty of program; future studies should look into the different integration mechanisms during program’s lifecycle

Hoegl and Parboteeah (2006)

Software development teams in four German companies ( N = 145)

Relation between team autonomy in innovative projects and

performance

Fully standardized questionnaire

External influence from management and the larger organization negatively impacts team performance; team autonomy and equality within teams regarding decision-making positively impacts performance

Johansson et al. (2007)

Development projects and relations with the permanent organizations ( N = 2)

A relational model of development work with projects as a matter of detachment and re-attachment to the permanent organization

Case study research; interviews with project participants and written documentation

Development projects as an organization concept is paradoxical: innovative projects are usually isolated and more autonomous and inhibit implementation whereas projects that are more integrated in the permanent organization have less potential for radical change

Martinsuo and Lehtonen (2009) Stakeholder environment in service development projects ( N = 11)

Project autonomy and organizational enablers and barriers to autonomy

Embedded case-study; interviews with key informants in project and parent organizations

Project autonomy and stakeholder environment are in constant interplay; autonomy is context-dependent and depends on how autonomy is enabled and/or constrained by parent organization; research needed to study the dynamics of autonomy throughout projects’ lifecycle

Lehtonen and Martinsuo (2009)

Change programs with multiple projects ( N = 2)

The co-occurrence of integration and isolation in change programs as a matter of boundary management

Qualitative, inductive case study; interviews and document analysis

Program-parent integration happens through several mechanisms; isolation co-exists with and complements integration; more research needed on the different forms and mechanisms of isolation

Turkulainen et al. (2015) Project-to-project and project-to-organization interfaces of global operations expansion program ( N = 1) Organizations as information processing systems implementing different integration mechanisms Longitudinal single embedded-unit case study; semi-structured interviews and documents

Different interfaces are managed differently via personal, impersonal and group modes; boundary management and isolation activities complement our understanding of how integration is managed and should be further looked at Näsänen and Vanharanta (2016) Meetings of temporary program management group ( N = 9 meetings)

Social and discursive construction of agency to manage the boundary between temporary and permanent organization

Qualitative study with specific focus on discourse analysis

Change program groups construct agency through discursive processes, thereby isolating themselves from permanent organization; isolation can be used to withdraw from operational responsibility or

integration; more research needed on project members’ sensemaking of boundary between

temporary/permanent Vuorinen and Martinsuo (2018) Program integration in multi-project change programs ( N = 2)

Agency theory; program integration and the negotiation of the temporary/permanent boundary Qualitative multiple case-study; semi-structured interviews

Program managers exercise agency in program integration at temporary/permanent interface; different phases in the lifecycle require different integration mechanisms; autonomy/isolation plays an important role

3.1. Datacollection

Forthispaperwedrawonthedataoftwoseparateresearchprojects. Forbothstudiesourinitialfocuswastogainanin-depthunderstanding of howinnovationsaredeveloped throughthetemporarysettingsof projectsandhow,subsequently,theseinnovationsbecomeintegrated withthepermanentorganization.

RailNerveCenter.Dataisdrawnfromanethnographicstudy con-ductedbythefirstauthoroninterorganizationalcollaborationinDutch railwayandtrafficcontrolcenters.TheRailNerveCenter,opened in 2010,isthenationalcoordinationcenterwherethemajorrailway orga-nizationsareco-locatedandcollaborateona24/7basistopreventand managedisruptions.Forthelargerstudy,theresearcherconducted al-most900hofobservationsandheldsemi-structuredinterviewswith28 participants.Duringthefieldwork,theresearcherbecameinterestedin howemployeestalkedabouttheemergenceandhistoryoftheRailNerve Center.Theywouldoftensharestoriesinwhichitwasemphasizedhow

thefirstideasofanationalcontrolroomweremetwithsuspicionby organizationalmembersandhow,asaconsequence,theinitialproject teamdevelopedtheroughcontoursofitinsecrecy.

Toexaminethisintogreaterdetail,thefieldworkerdrewonarchival materialthatdocumentedthedifferentphasesoftheprojectandheused snowballingtechniquestogetintouchwithkeyplayersinvolvedinthe innovationproject.Hewasabletoconductanadditionalseven inter-viewswithprojectteammembers,andthecurrentpaperreportsonthis dataset(seeTable2).Itmayseemasmallsampleonwhichtobuild theory,buttheprojectteamitselfwasalsosmallconsistingonlyof oper-ationalexperts.Intervieweeswereaskedtoreconstructtheirstoryofthe innovationprojectfromideatoexecution.Specifically,questionswere askedabouttheinnovativenessoftheproject,howthiswasmanaged, andhowprojectmembersaimedtointegratethisinnovationfromthe temporarytothepermanentsettingoftheorganizations(seeAppendix Afortheinterviewguide).TheinterviewswereheldinDutch,withan averagedurationof90min,andtheywererecordedandtranscribed.

Table 2

Intervieweesinthetwocases.

No. Organization Position Project

1 Project team External consultant A Rail Nerve Center

2 Project team External consultant B Rail Nerve Center

3 Project team Project manager Rail Nerve Center

4 ProRail Traffic Control Traffic control advisor for project team Rail Nerve Center 5 ProRail Traffic Control Initiator of Rail Nerve Center and advisor Rail Nerve Center

6 Rail Nerve Center National rail coordinator Rail Nerve Center

7 Rail Nerve Center Functional manager Rail Nerve Center

8 Municipality Head of commissioning Beating Heart

9 Municipality Head of project management office Beating Heart

10 Municipality Head of area exploitation Beating Heart

11 Municipality Organizational advisor Beating Heart

12 Project team Project manager A Beating Heart

13 Project team Project manager B Beating Heart

14 Project team Consultant area exploitation Beating Heart

15 Project team Legal counselor A Beating Heart

16 Project team Legal counselor B Beating Heart

17 Project team Consultant internal organization Beating Heart

Withouthavinginterviewedallofthekeyplayers(somehadalready movedtootherorganizationsorwerenotavailable),theoretical satura-tionwasstillreached;theoriginalsamplepopulationwassmall,showed ahighlevelofhomogeneityandwasorganizedaroundasharedtaskso thatthequalityratherthanquantityofthedatabecamethevalueofthe study(seeMason,2010).

BeatingHeart. Theauthorsofthisarticleconductedastudyon in-novativeinterorganizationalpracticesincitydevelopmentprojectsina largemunicipalityintheNetherlands.Themaingoaloftheresearchwas tounderstandhowinnovationsaredevelopedinprojectswheredifferent partiesfromthepublicandprivatesectorcollaborate.Themunicipality recognizedthatinnovations,oncecompletedanddelivered,wereoften hardtointegratewithinthepermanentorganizationandinstitutionalize them.Westudiedatotalofthreecitydevelopmentprojects,butforthis paperweonlyfocusonBeatingHeart,asitwasthefirstprojectinwhich themunicipalityattemptedtodevelopinnovatewaysofcollaboration onsuchalargescale.Moreover,duringtheanalysisofourfindingswe foundthatprojectautonomyappearedasparticularlyimportantforthis projectteamduetothefactthatthetenderingphasewasconsideredto besensitive(weexplainthisingreaterdetailinthefindings).Forthese reasons,butalsobecausetheinitialstartingpointofBeatingHeart (em-beddedautonomy)contrastedwiththatofRailNerveCenter(isolated autonomy),wedecidedtofocusonthisinnovationprojectspecifically. Westartedbydoingdeskresearchandreadinginternaland exter-nalevaluationreportsaswellasotheravailabledocumentationsuchas projectplans,whichwecomplementedwithtenin-depthinterviews(see Table2).Throughpurposivesamplingweassuredtocoverthekey par-ticipantsandmainrolesofpeopleinvolvedintheproject,andthisalso letusassuretotargettherightpeopletoanswerourquestions.LikeRail NerveCenter,BeatingHeartwasahigh-profileproject,soteam mem-berswereusuallythosewithalotofprofessionalexpertise.Oursample coversbothemployeesfromthepermanentorganizationandthe tempo-raryprojectteam.The60-to90-mininterviewswereheldinDutchand, withtheinterviewees’permission,recordedandtranscribedverbatim (seeAppendixAfortheinterviewguide).Forbothstudies,thequotes usedinthefinalpaperweretranslatedintoEnglishbytheauthors.To assurereliabilityweorganizedfeedbacksessionswithparticipants(Rail NerveCenter)andwithmanagement(BeatingHeart)toconfirmthat thedescriptionsofourfindingsandinterpretationsofitarecorrect.

3.2. Dataanalysis

To analyze the data from two cases we use an approach that O’Mahony&Bechky(2015)call‘comparativefieldresearch’.Inbrief, thisentailsbuildingtheoryonmultiple,independentstudiesthatmay coverdifferentempiricalsettingsbutwhileinvestigatingasimilar

pro-cessoroutcome.Forinstance,BechkyandOkhuysen(2011)focuson theroleofsurprisesinapoliceteamandfilmproductioncrewto theo-rizehowcoordinationemergeswhenunexpectedeventsenterthe work-place.

FortheBeatingHeartproject,theissueofprojectautonomykept appearingduringtheanalysisasarelevantconceptforunderstanding theinnovationproject.Thefirstauthornoticedremarkablesimilarities withhisRailNerveCenterethnography.Thecentralityandimportance ofprojectautonomywasdiscussedwithintheresearchteam,afterwhich wedecidedtoconductaseparateanalysisinwhichbothprojectswere analyzedthrough thelensofintegration andautonomy.Forthis pa-perwe thusstartedwithtwodifferentdatasets– previouslyalready analyzedfortheir ownpurpose– byanalyzingthemanewusing the comparativefieldresearchapproach.

Someofthetechniquesdescribed forthisapproacharesimilar to basicgroundedtheoryprocesses(Glaser&Strauss,2017),witha spe-cificfocusonilluminatingempiricalsimilaritiesanddifferencesacross contextstoengageinrobustandgroundedtheory.Welargelyfollowed techniquesdescribedintheworkofscholarssuchasO’Mahony&Bechky (2015).First,we analyzedthetwoinnovationprojectsseparatelyto de-veloparichunderstandingofeachcontextfacilitatingtheorybuilding. Thisensuredthatbothcasessharecharacteristicsandsensitizedthe re-searcherstoemergingdifferences.Weconductedtheseanalysesfroma qualitative–interpretiveparadigm(Yanow&Schwartz-Shea,2006).This paradigmassumesthat‘thesocialworld[…]islocal,temporallyand historicallysituated,fluid,context-specificandshapedinconjunction withtheresearcher’(Bailey,2007:53).Althoughprojectmanagement studiescomefromamorepositivistictradition(Morris,2011), interpre-tativeresearchmethodsareincreasinglyusedinprojectstudies(Geraldi &Söderlund,2018)andisinourcasejustifiedforunderstandingthe sit-uatednatureofprojectautonomy.Afterhavinganalyzedthetwocases separately,westartedaprocessofcomparingandcontrastingthe ana-lyzeddata.Wethusstartedasecondcycleofanalysisandcodingwhich ledtothefinalresultspresentedinthispaper.Fig.1illustratesthese differentphasesintheresearchprocess.

Wethenengagedin aprocessreadingacrossthecases.Fromthis processofcomparisonandcontrast,whichhappenedinseveralmeeting withtheresearchteamanddiscussingemergingfindings,wefoundthree categoriesthatoccurredinbothinnovationprojectsandseemedcentral toexplaininghowprojectautonomywasdeveloped:thetypeof auton-omyatthebeginningoftheproject,practicesofisolation,andhow in-novationsbecame(not)integratedwithinthepermanentorganizations. Thiswasaniterativeprocesswhereweconstantlywentfromthemes groundedin‘raw’datatomoretheoreticallyinformedcategories.We capturedthisprocessinFig.2,whereweillustratehowcomparingtwo quotesledtosimilaritiesacrossaswellasdifferencesbetweenthecases.

- ---Case study ‘Beang Heart’ Analysis &

Coding Idenfy paerns & compare with literature Case study

‘Rail Nerve Centre’

Analysis & Coding

Idenfy paerns & compare with literature

Compare and contrast insights

Analysis & Coding

Results

Fig. 1. Overviewofresearchprocess.

Raw Data Codes Category

“To give the Centre its initial shape, we built the mockup in secret and in one of the empty rooms in the cellar of HQ”

(Quote Rail Nerve Centre Case) Spatial isolation

“We literally locked ourselves up in a building with windows shielded with blinds. Only project members were allowed inside, and we really created this team spirit. This commitment was very important”

(Quote Beating Heart Case)

Symbolic isolation Project team staying

underneath the radar

Finding physical distance

Project team creating distance

Strong internal focus and creating project identity

Fig. 2. Identifyingcommonalitiesanddifferencesacrosscases.

Afterthiswewrotememosofeachprojectelaboratingthedescribed cat-egorieswhileconstantlynotingsimilaritiesanddifferenceswithineach case.Wechosetopresentourfindingsusingacase-specificanalysis“to identifywhateachcasehasincommon,aswellaswhatattributesabout eachcaseareunique” (Paterson,2010:971).Moreover,thiswayof pre-sentingissuitabletoalludetothefactthat,whilewedescribehowthe outcomeofeachinnovationprojectwasmoreorlesssimilar,their re-spectivejourneysweredifferent.Thisallowsustotheoreticallyargue forthedynamicsandsituatedshapingofprojectautonomythroughour conceptofisolationpractices,withoutfallinginthetrapofexplaining causality,whichoftenhappenswhencomparingphenomenaacross set-tings(O’Mahony&Bechky,2015:173).

Weselectedthesetwocasesbecausetheyshowoverlapintermsof thecentralityofinnovationandtheformofinterorganizational collabo-ration.Atthesametime,theyalsocontrastonwhichtypeofautonomy

waschosenatthestartoftheproject,i.e.isolatedforRailNerve Cen-terandembeddedforBeatingHeart,therebyrepresentingthetwoends onthecontinuumofprojectautonomy(Martinsuo&Lehtonen,2009). Whatwefindespeciallyinterestingisthatwhilethestartingpointof bothprojectsintermsofautonomywasverydifferent,theoutcomewas quitesimilarasbothprojectsisolated.Thesharedconcernoninnovation andnewformsofcollaborationallowustocomparethecases,whilethe differenttrajectoriesinhowprojectautonomyevolvedintoisolation al-lowustocontrasthowdifferentdynamicsleadtosimilaroutcomes.In sum,thesewereidealsettingstoexplorethediversityofhowproject autonomyininnovationprojectsisdeveloped.

4. TheRailNerveCenterproject

In2003, theDutchrailwaysystem, whichhadtraditionallybeen managedbyasingleorganization,wassplitupintoseveraldifferent or-ganizations:commercialpassengerserviceoperators(including depart-mentsoftrafficinformationandrollingstockmaintenance),commercial freightoperators,andapubliclyownedinfrastructuremanagerwhose responsibilitiesincludetrafficcontrolandassetmanagement.Themain challengethatemergedfromthisbreak-upwastorethinkcollaboration, especiallyintermsoftrafficcontrolwherethetasksofthedifferent orga-nizationswerestillhighlyinterwoven.Whereasthemovementoftrains andthemanagementofdisruptionsusedtobedirectedbyasingle or-ganization,thecontrolofoperationswasnowdividedamongseveral organizationsand,consequently,newformsofinter-organizational col-laborativepartnershipshadtobesought.

AnincidentontheafternoonofApril6,2005,isgenerallybelievedto haveledtotheRailNerveCenterproject.Thatdaythecomputersystems inoneoftheregionaltrafficcontrolcentersweremalfunctioning.This wasthestartofaseriesofincidentsthatculminatedinthedisruption of theentirerailwaysystem.Evaluationsshowedthatthedisruption was mainlycausedby alackofcommunication,andtheDutch gov-ernmenturgedtherailwayorganizationstoimprovecollaborationand performancein order torestore publiccredibilityandorganizational legitimacy.TheRailNerveCenterwastobecomethephysical nerve

centeroftheDutchrailways,theplacewhereallnationaldisruptions wouldbemonitoredandmanaged.Thegoaloftheprojectteamwasto improveinter-organizationalcollaborationbybringingalltherail or-ganizationsintocloserphysicalproximityinanewco-locatedcontrol center.Aprojectmanagerexplained:‘Ourphilosophywas:ifweareunder oneroof,wewillfeellikeandbecomeoneteam,solveproblemsmuchbetter andquicker,andconsequentlyhavemoreopportunitiestoevaluate,learn andimprove ouroperation’ (interviewwithproject manager, October 2014).

Despitethe opennessthat theprojectteam hopedtoestablishin termsofnewformsofcollaboration,itstartedtheRailNerveCenter projectfromanisolatedprojectautonomytype,withtheinvolved par-entorganizationshavingonlymarginalroles.Theteamfearedthatthe projectwasapotentiallycontroversialandradicalinterventionin rail-wayoperationsthatcouldeasilyinterferewithorevenexacerbatethe alreadystrainedinter-organizationalrelationships.Asoneproject mem-bersaid: ‘thismutual interdependence[between organizations] in rail-wayoperationsmakesitreallysensitive’(interviewwithadvisorproject team,November2014).Duetothissensitivity,projectautonomywas seenas astrategy tokeeptheprojectbeneath theradar of the par-entorganizationsandtogivetheteamroomtomaterializeandmature ideas.

4.1. Triggersforprojectautonomy

Animportanttriggertochooseforaprojectautonomytypethatwas isolatedfromthepermanentorganizationsrevolvedarounddealingwith culturaldifferenceswithinanalreadyhighlypoliticizeddomain. Sev-eralparticipantsconfirmedthis:‘Theyaredifferentculturesandyoumust makesurethateverypartyfeelsthattheyaretakenseriously’(interview withexternalconsultantB,November2014).Thedevelopmentofthe RailNerveCenterwasseenasadelicateprocessthathadtoconsider thedifferentorganizationalculturesandpracticesofspecific communi-tieswithinanalreadytensepoliticalnetwork.Theprojectteamfeltit wasnecessarytoworkontheprojectwithoutdirectexternal involve-ment.Autonomywaschosenoverintegrationasastrategytoavoidthe ideaoftheRailNerveCenterenteringthepoliticalarenaprematurely andbecomeasubjectofdiscussionbetweenthetopmanagementofthe variousorganizations:

Youenterthisstrangeparadox:ifyouwanttobuildamock-up,you havetomakeanofficialproposaltotheboardofdirectors,which automaticallyimpliesthattheprojectbecomesapoliticalissuethat willbediscussedbetweentheorganizations.So,ifyoudon’ttellthem aboutyourplans,youwon’tgetwhatyouwant,andifyoudotell themaboutyourplans,youwon’tgetiteither!(Interviewwith ex-ternalconsultantA,December2014).

Thisquoteconfirmsearlierresearchthatautonomycanreferto dif-ferenttypesanddegreesofintegrationaswellasisolation(Gemunden etal.,2005).TheRailNerveCenterteam,forinstance,realizedthey de-pendedontheresourcesofparentorganizations.Developingautonomy isthusnotonlyadecisionmadebyaprojectteam:itcanalsoemerge fromtheinterrelatedandsometimesconflictingviewsandprocessesof thetemporaryprojectandpermanentorganization.Forinstance,to ma-terializetheRailNerveCentertheprojectteamrequiredorganizational support:‘Ifwereallywantedtobuildaseriousmock-upoftheRailNerve Center,wewouldneedalotofmoney.Andthismoneysimplywasnotthere, atthatmoment’(interviewwithprojectmanager,December2014).In thiscase,alackoffundingnecessitatedother,creativesolutions.Thus, anothertriggerexplainingtheautonomyoftheprojectrelatestothe internalprocesses oftheorganizationconflictingwithandinhibiting projectgoals(Ledwith&Coughlan,2005).Asaconsequence,theproject teamisolatedtheRailNerveCenterprojectbygoing‘underground’to avoidthepoliticizationoftheirimmediategoalsandexternal involve-ment.

4.2. Practicesofisolation

TheRailNerveCenterisolatedthroughthreedifferentbutconnected practices:(1)symbolicpractices,(2)discursivepracticesand(3)spatial practices.Toelaboratethesymbolicpractices,mostinterviewees explic-itlytalkedaboutthestartorkick-off oftheprojectasthemomentthat a‘pioneeringspirit’wasadoptedinordertobeabletocreatively ap-proachcontroversialandsensitivetopicsinrailwayoperationsinterms ofinter-organizationalcollaboration.Oneprojectmanagerstatedthat theprojectteamhadbeenhighlyawarethatrailwayorganizationsare usuallybiasedtowards findingsolutions toorganizationalchallenges byresortingtotechnocraticwaysofimprovingthesystem:‘Butwe[on thecontrary]wantedtogivesubstancetothesocialandpsychological as-pects ofcollaboration. Oneofthe wayswedidso was tobuildtheRail NerveCentermock-upin,literally,asecretway’(interviewwithproject manager,December2014).Bycreatingasenseofsecrecyand pioneer-ingspirit,theprojecttook afirst steptowards creatingmore auton-omy andthus symbolicallyisolating theprojectfromthepermanent organization.

Second,discursivepracticeswerefoundthatcreatedfurther auton-omyof theprojectandseparationfromthepermanentorganization. Theteamperceivedtheirprojecttobeachangeprojectwithpotentially radicalinterventionsinrailwayoperations,andmanyclaimedthatthe projectwasawaytostartdoingthingsdifferently.Someexplicitlytalked aboutcreatinga‘strongprojectculture’:‘Wereallydrewontheworkof Kotter[achangemanagementguru].Theprojectteambecamea “champi-onsgroup” thatslowlybutsurelymadeothersenthusiasticfortheideaofthe RailNerveCenter,too’(interviewwithadvisortoprojectteam, Novem-ber2014).Althoughthestrategyofthe‘championsgroup’wasto gen-erateenthusiasmwithinthepermanentorganization,theprojectteam openlytalkedabout‘elites’and‘champions’wholedtheproject.This discursivepracticeofisolationcreatedfurtherautonomyfortheproject teambydrawingboundariesbetweenthosewhobelongedtotheproject andthosewhodidnot,especiallyintermsofcreatingastronginternal focuswithcommittedprojectmemberswhospoketheirown‘project language’.Developingastrongprojectidentityrelativetotheparent organizationentailsthatachievingintegrationbecomeshardworkin crossingboundaries(Lehtonen&Martinsuo,2009).

Moreconcretestill,theprojectwasisolatedbyspatiallyremoving thetemporaryteamfromthepermanentorganizations.Tostaybeneath theradar,thefirstversionofamock-upRailNerveCenterwasbuiltin thecellarsofoneoftheorganization’sheadquarters.Duringthe pro-cess,thevariouspartiesrealizedthat,despitetheearliersplittingupof theDutchrailwaysystemintodifferentorganizations,theywerestill abletoaccesseachother’soperationalsystems.So,withabitof cre-ativitytheprojectteambuiltthefirstversionoftheRailNerveCenter byconnectingseveraldifferentsystems– suchastrafficcontrol, coor-dination ofrollingstock,planningschemesfor trainpersonnel,asset management’smaps– toonescreen,soastovisualizethestateofthe in-frastructure,plannedmaintenancework,etc.Thepioneeringspiritwas reminiscentofaformofinformalcollaborationwherebyorganizational boundarieswereeasilycrossedinordertoachieveacommonproject goal:

Someonefromtrafficcontrolhadsomemoneyleftoverfromtheir educationbudget,andsomeoneelsefoundleftoversfromthebudget fortherenovationofthecomputernetworks… Onesaid:‘Ican ar-rangesomePCs’andsomeoneelse:‘Iwillcontactthissupplierand askforabigdisplayandavideowall.Icanarrangeitatalowpriceif Ipromisehimthat,shouldtheRailNerveCenterbecomesuccessful, hewillgetagooddeal.’So,wemadealotofdealsandarrangements, foundsomedesks,andwewerereadytostart.(Interviewwith ex-ternalconsultantA,December2014)

Itwouldbetooeasytointerpretthethreeisolationpracticesasonly being theconsequencesof purposefulintentionsof theprojectteam. AsLehtonenandMartinsuo(2009)haveshown,isolationcanalsobe

accidentalandemergentand,likewise,other actorssuchasexternal managementcanactivelyauthorizeorwithdrawautonomy(Gerwin& Moffat,1997).ThesecrecyaroundtheRailNerveCenterprojectdidnot somuchconcerntheprojectteamhidinginformationfromthe organi-zation,assecrecyshouldbeunderstoodasasocialprocessthatneeds tobeactively maintainedinan‘ongoing,iterativeanddynamic rela-tionship’(Costas&Grey,2014:1424).Attheveryleast,thiscaseshows thatorganizationalstructuresdidnotpreventprojectautonomyfrom slowlydriftingtoprojectisolation,andonecouldevenarguethatthe threepractices wereat leastpassivelyencouraged bythepermanent organization.Asdiscussed,thelackoffundsfromtheorganizationsto establishaRailNerveCentermock-upfurthercontributed,perhaps un-consciously,totheprojectteamslidingfromautonomyintoisolation. Yet,evenwhileisolated,theprojectteamcontinuedtoreceiveregular visitsfromseveraldirectorswhowantedtokeepuptodatewiththe project’sdevelopments.Thissuggeststhatalsofromtheorganizational sideitwasacknowledgedthatfortheprojecttoachievecertain organi-zationalgoals(i.e.buildingacontroversialco-locatedcenter), integra-tionattemptsandisolationpracticesmayco-existinprojectsdeveloping theirautonomy.

4.3. Projectoutcomes

Afterseveralmonthsofexperimenting,theprojectteamhadbuilta workingmock-upRailNerveCenter,whichtheythenpresentedtothe boardofdirectorsoftheparentorganizations.Themock-upconsistedof afirstmaterializationofhowthediversetrafficandtraincontrolsystems ofthedifferentorganizationscouldbelinkedupandprovideeachother withinformationtoformabetterpictureduringdisruptions,andthis includedafirstroughdescriptionofthenewroles,tasksandprocesses thataRailNerveCenterwouldimply.Theplanwasreceivedwithgreat enthusiasm.Isolatingtheprojecthadclearlyhelpedtheteamtoachieve projectsgoals.Themotivationforisolationbecameevenmoreobvious because,asthepioneershadfearedfromthebeginning,theprojectsoon fellpreytothepoliticalcontextinwhichtheparentorganizations op-erated:‘EveryconversationabouttheRailNerveCenterbecameapoisoned discussionbetweentheorganizations’(interviewwithtrafficcontrol advi-sor,November2014).

AfterthedeliveryoftheRailNerveCenterbytheprojectteamin 2010,thedevelopedpracticesoninter-organizationalcollaborationand innovativeknowledgehadtobetransferredtotheparentorganizations. However,thedisseminationoflearnedpracticesandknowledgefrom theprojectteamtotheparentorganizationswasfraughtwithproblems: ‘Therewerealotofcomplaintsfromtheorganizations,andtheydidn’tfeel involved.Theyhadotherideasthatwethenhadtoincorporate,sowefeltlike wehadtodoeverythingalloveragain’(interviewwithprojectmanager, October2014).Participantsclaimeditwasdeemeddifficulttomaintain thepioneeringspiritandcollaborativeaimsoftheinitialprojectteam: ‘AtthebeginningIreallywalkedaroundlikealostsoul,eventhoughithadall startedwithavision’(interviewwithfunctionalmanager,January2015). Theinnovationsoonbecamethetopicofadebateoverownership,and someoftheexistingdifferentorganizationalidentities(e.g.railway or-ganizationsoroperationalunits)wereinfactreinforcedratherthan dis-solvedinthenew,co-locatedcenter.Moreover,sincemostoftheplans wereinitiallydevelopedinthecontextoftheisolatedproject,someof theoperationalproceduresandresponsibilitiesintheparent organiza-tionshadtobereorganizedaccordingly.

Asthe projectteam functionedin an isolated setting,employees in the parent organizations werenot ready or sufficiently prepared forthechangestheRailNerveCenterengendered.Theintense inter-organizationalcollaborationthattheprojecthadgeneratedfaced strug-gleswhenputintopractice:‘Someprojectemployeesstillthought:“I’m fromthis organization,I’mfromthat tribe.” Each respectiveculture was firmlygroundedineveryone’sgenes’(interviewwithexternalconsultant B,November2014).Itwasdifficulttomaintaintheinitialenthusiasm duetopracticalconstraints,asthenationalrailcoordinatorreflectedon

thefirstyearoftheRailNerveCenter:‘Theenthusiasmslowlywaned.In thebeginningwewitnessedanenormousgrowingcurve.Butwe’vereached acertainlevel,foralittlewhilenow,andnothingreallyhappensanymore’

(interviewNovember2014).

5. TheBeatingHeartcitydevelopmentproject

TheBeatingHeartisanurbandevelopmentprojectinalargeDutch municipality.Theaimwastocreateanewneighborhoodbyintegrating andconnectingseveralurbanareas.Todoso,criticalinfrastructures– suchasroads,lightrailandelectricitynetworks– werereorganized, whilenewfacilities,suchasacinema,atheatreandshoppingcenters, werebuilt.Theidea wastoincrease thequalityoflifeinthe neigh-borhood andthus makeitmoreattractive foryoungprofessionals to workandlivethere.Thiswasnotaneasytask,astheproject,which startedin2010,wasseverelyhitbythefinancialcrisis.Giventhis cri-sisandthegeneralpoorperformanceoflargeinfrastructureand build-ingprojects,newformsofcontractualarrangementsandcollaborative practicesbetweenpublicandprivatepartiesweresoughtintheBeating Heartproject.Aprojectmemberreflected:

Wewereinthemiddleofthecrisisandthestandardcontractsjust didn’t work.People foundthemunreasonable,so wehadtofind otherkindsofpartnerships… Youeventuallyconcludethatyouare nottheprincipalcontractorfortheentireprojectsoyoucan’ttake fullresponsibility.Butneithercantheprivateparties.Youhaveto searchforcommonground,andthatalsogivessomemore connec-tion.(InterviewwithlegalcounselorA,September2016)

Tofindanewformofcontractualarrangement,theprojectwas ini-tiatedasapublic–privatepartnership.Forthemunicipality,the Beat-ingHeartprojectwasoneofthefirstlargeandcomplexconstruction projectstobetenderedtothemarketintheformofa‘competitive dia-logue’,whichisakindofprocurementprocessthatallowsproject part-nerstonegotiateanddiscusstheobjectivesofaprojectmoreintensely thanintraditionalcontracting.Insuchaninnovativepartnership– one thatrequiredclosecollaborationbetweenpublicandprivatepartnersto achieveprojectgoals– newformsofknowledgeandcollaborative prac-ticeswerenecessary.Asfutureprojectswereexpectedtobemanaged in similarways,themunicipalitysought todevelopwaystomanage thisprojectsothattheknowledgegeneratedwouldbecomeavailable totheorganization.Themunicipalitytherefore optedforan ‘embed-ded’projectautonomy,inwhichtherolesofpartnerorganizationsand stakeholdersremainedcentral.However,thisintegrationmechanismin practice appearedhard tomaintain,andanumberof triggersin the project’scontextaskedforgreaterautonomy.

5.1. Triggersforprojectautonomy

ThemaintriggerwastheconfidentialnatureoftheBeatingHeart project,whichwasespeciallysignificantduringtheinherentlypolitical contextofthetenderingphase.Inthisphase,thesharingofinformation withpeopleoutsidetheprojectwasprohibitedbytenderregulations. Onemanagerrecalled:‘Therewasthisshreddernexttothedoorand be-foreyouleftthebuildingyouhadtoshredeverydocument’(interviewwith projectmanagerA,August2016).Duetotheconfidentialphaseofthe tender, andbecausetheprojectwasthefirstofitskind,itwas diffi-cultfortheprojectmemberstodrawuponearlierexperiencesandto shareanddevelopideaswiththeirdepartmentalcolleagues.Asexisting knowledgeandorganizationalprocesseswereinsufficient,project mem-bersautonomouslyexplorednewwaysofpublic–privatecollaboration. Aprojectmanagerreflected:

Wefacedalotofchallenges. Willthiswork?Whatarethe conse-quences?Ifwedothis,whathappensfurtheronintheprocess?We testedandexploredalot.Thentenderfilewasreallythickandtook usalotoftimeandenergytofullygrasp.(Interviewwithproject managerB,September2016)

Thesecondtriggerwasthehiringofexternalexpertswithexperience ofinnovativetenderingproceduresandpublic–privatepartnerships,as thisexperiencewasnotavailableinternally,norcoulditbedeveloped intime.Byembeddingtheseexpertswithintheproject,external knowl-edgewasexpectedtobecomepartoftheprojectteam.Althoughthis workedoutwell,incorporatinganexternalpartywithintheprojectalso dilutedtheexistingconnectionsbetweentheprojectandtheparent or-ganizationandthusincreasedtheperceptionofisolation.Moreover,as hasbeenshownbyothers(e.g.Ledwith&Coughlan,2005;Vuorinen andMartinsuo,2018),thecapacitytointegrateinnovativeknowledge fromproject-to-parentrequiresasignificantlevelofexpertiseandskills frominternalprojectmanagerswhoarealsofamiliarenoughwiththe permanentcontextoftheorganization.

Thethirdtriggermentionedwasthespeedofthedecision-making processesof theparentorganization.Project membersexperienceda lessthandesirablelevelofautonomy,astheyhadtoalignwith decision-makingprocedures:

Youmayendupwithsomebodyinaprojectwhohasnomandate fromhisdepartment.Thatpersonhastogobackforpermissionevery time.So,whenyouthinkyouhavefinallytakenthreestepsforward, someonetellsyouitcan’tbedone.(Interviewwiththeconsultant internalorganization,September2016)

Projectmembersexperiencedalackofmandatewhentheyhadto makecertaindecisions,suggestingthatintheseinstancestheyfelt in-sufficientautonomytosetandpursueprojectgoals.Timepressures, of-tencausedbyarigidinterpretationofthelegalprocurementregulations andinternalorganizationalstructures,wereseenasamoregeneral phe-nomenonconstrainingtheprojectmembersintheirefforttoeffectively pursueprojectgoals.Ironically,theperceivedlackofautonomycreated therightcontextforthedevelopmentofisolationpracticestoincrease autonomyoftheprojectinstead.

5.2. Practicesofisolation

Thesymbolicpracticesofisolationwereobservedinthestrong iden-tificationofprojectmemberswiththeBeatingHeartproject.Theytalked aboutthetenderprocessbeing‘exciting’with‘lotsofdiscussions’ina ‘dedicated’team.Manyintervieweesexperiencedworkingwithinsucha dedicatedandautonomousteamasverypositive,asaccordingtothem itmadetheteammoredecisive.Thispositiveself-imagewascontrasted witha negativeperception of the municipalityby theprojectteam, asaslow,bureaucraticorganization:‘Evenifit[beinginnovativeand creative]isstimulated,itwillimmediatelyfall preytoanumber ofrules orbudgetsorabstractionsthattakethesouloutofourwork’(interview withthelegalcounselorA,September2016).Furthermore,project man-agersmainlyusedtheirinformalnetworkstoattractprojectmembers, therebyarguablyreinforcingtheprojectidentity,aspeoplewith simi-larmind-setsweresought.Thus,bydrawingthesesymbolicboundaries, theprojectteamcoulddifferentiatebetweentheprojectandthe munic-ipality.

Discursivepracticeswerefoundinthelabelingofproject‘insiders’ and‘outsiders’.ThediscoursearoundtheBeatingHeartprojectoften in-cludedtermsemphasizingits‘uniqueness’and‘complexity’,itsproject memberswereconsideredtobe‘thevery bestpeopleofthe municipal-ity’andtheteamincludedseveral ‘advisorswhowere heavyweightsin the market’(interviewwith the headof theproject management of-fice,September 2016).Byframingprojectmembersasthevery best andexternalexpertsasheavyweightadvisors,distinctionsweredrawn between projectandmunicipality. This distancing waspositively la-beledbyprojectmembers.Intervieweesregularlyreferredtotherole of‘distance’ whentalkingaboutthesuccessof theproject,andthey stressed that thesuccessful outcome of thetender partiallyresulted fromthefactthattheprojectoperatedautonomouslyfromthedaily, bureaucratic and political context of the municipality: ‘The distance workswell,especiallyinternally.Thiswasimportantduringthetender,as

itwasanexcitingprocesswithlotsofdiscussions.Butasateamwealso feltconnected’(interviewwithprojectmanagerA,August2016). Inter-vieweesemphasizedthat thecomplexcontextof theprojectandthe searchfornewwaysofcollaborationwithprivateparties,demanded creative,out-of-the-boxthinking.Moreover,astheyoftenhadtofind exceptionstoexistingrulesandprocedures,projectmembersallowed themselves todo things differently.Bydiscursivelylabeling the dis-tance between project and organizations assomething positive,the project members carved out a space whereit was easier toact ac-cording to their owndiscretion,finding exceptionsto existing rules andprocedures,andcreatingmoreflexibilitytoachievetheirproject goals.

Spatial practices of isolationemerged in thecreation of physical boundariesbetweentheprojectandthemunicipality.Forinstance,the projectoccupiedanewlocationawayfromthemunicipalitywithaccess restrictedtoprojectemployeesonly:‘Weliterallylockedourselvesupin abuildingwithwindowsshieldedwithblinds.Onlyprojectmemberswere allowedinside,andwereallycreatedthisteamspirit.Thiscommitmentwas veryimportant’(interviewwiththeheadofcommissioning,September 2016).Besidesbeinglocatedinanotherphysicalspace– referredtoas ‘aclosedbastion’– thephysicalboundariesbetweentheprojectandthe municipalitywerealsoprotectedby,forinstance,thedocument shred-derorthewindowblinds.Theseartifactswerewaystoadheretotender regulationsthatdidnotallowthefreesharingofinformation,whilealso reinforcingisolationinaphysicalsense:thealmostritualisticshredding ofdocumentsdefinedwhatbelongedtotheprojectteamspaceandwhat belongedtotherestoftheorganization.

Moreover,thedifferentpracticesoftheprojectteamandthe orga-nizationreinforcedeachother,andbothcontributedtoagreatersense ofprojectisolation.Theindividualdepartmentsresponsibleforprojects atapoliticallevel,forinstance,introducedmorecontrolmechanisms in anattempttointegratethepracticesintheprojectwiththe orga-nization.Yet,forprojectmanagers– whoareoftenunderstoodasthe link betweentheprojectandindividualdepartments– aswellasfor projectmembers,itwasdeemedimportanttocontinueoperating au-tonomouslytonavigatethecomplexityanddiversityoftheproject,and topreventbeinghamperedbyexistingbureaucraticprocedures.Asa re-action,thereemergedacertainkindof‘jealousy’amongmembersofthe permanentorganization.Projectmemberswereincreasinglyseenas‘a bunchoffreewheelers’whoweredoingalotofthingsthat,fromthe per-spectiveoftheorganizationalmembers,wereonlymarginallyrelatedto organizationalgoals.ThisfurthertriggeredtheisolationoftheBeating Heartproject.Isolationappearstobeaprocessthatresultsasmuchfrom theintentionsoftheprojectasfromtheintentionsoftheorganization. Asthiscaseshows,whenthereisinsufficientattentionforintegrating theautonomousprojectwiththeparentorganizationthroughoutthe project,autonomycaneasilydriftintoisolationhampering implemen-tationoftheinnovation.

5.3. Projectoutcomes

The Beating Heart project has realized a large partof the new cityneighborhood andiscurrently on timeandwithin budget.This public–privateconstructionprojectisperceivedbyboththe municipal-ityandtheprojectteamasasuccess.Theisolationpracticeshavehelped theprojectteamtodelivertheproject’sprimarygoals.Theproject’s sec-ondarygoalwastodevelopnewformsofpublic–privatecollaboration duringthetenderingandexecutionphasesandtointegratethiswithin theparentorganization,sothatitwouldbeavailableforfutureprojects. Projectmemberscollectivelysoughtandfoundcreativewaystosolve problemsbythemselves,andknowledgewassharedbetweendifferent disciplinesrelativelyeasily,forinstanceduringinformallyorganized oc-casions.Atthesametime,however,andduetothestronglevelof au-tonomy,thisknowledgewasoftennot‘accepted’byemployeesofthe municipality,whofoundithard toseethe‘fit’ ofthespecificproject knowledgewiththeirownwork,orsimplydidnotunderstandenough

Table 3

Practicesofisolationinthetwoprojectpracticesofisolation.

Themes Rail Nerve Center Beating Heart

Primary goal Development of integrated rail control center Transformation of an existing neighborhood via a public–private partnership Secondary goal Innovative ways of inter-organizational collaboration in a

co-located coordination center for better performance on the rail network

New forms of knowledge and competences on managing public–private partnerships and innovative ways of tendering

Autonomy Isolated: partner organizations and stakeholders had marginal roles in the project

Embedded: partner organization and stakeholders had central roles in the project

Triggers for isolation

Creating a safe network to actualize a controversial project Cultural differences in a politicized network

Conflicting project and organizational goals

Confidential nature of the tendering phase

Project separate from daily political turbulence and bureaucratic procedures External experts from private firms

Practices of isolation by project

Symbolic : staying under the radar and creating a sense of secrecy Discursive : talking about ‘champions’ and a ‘pioneering spirit’ of

the project; creating a ‘strong culture’ with ‘elite’ employees Spatial : ‘secret’ project office hidden in the cellars of the

headquarters

Symbolic : drawing on confidentiality to create a ‘strong project identity’; reinforced by a separate website and ‘corporate style’

Discursive : talking about ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’; emphasizing the ‘uniqueness’ of the project; selecting ‘the best people of the municipality’ Spatial : located in a ‘closed bastion’ with artifacts (shredder, window blinds)

that contribute to a sense of secrecy Practices of

isolation by parent organization

Lack of funding and support for the project team

Passively accepting the project and their ‘underground’ status to reach controversial goals

Framing project members as ‘a bunch of freewheelers’ Jealousy of the project’s autonomy

Not accepting or valuing knowledge generated within the project Dissemination

of knowledge

Politicization of project blocked dissemination of project outcomes

Project knowledge could not be transferred to new ‘open’ stakeholder network

New practices were insufficiently connected to daily operations

Parent organization ‘refused’ lessons learned as they were not deemed valuable

Project created knowledge on the tendering process not valued by the permanent organization

ofthecontextoftheprojecttovaluethatknowledge.Evaluationreports showthatnewercitydevelopmentprojectsinthemunicipalityhave in-sufficientlyusedtheexperiencesoftheBeatingHeartproject.Thiscan bepartiallyexplainedbythekindofknowledgethatisdeemed valu-ablebyeachcommunity:projectmembersvaluedtheknowledgethat wasexploredinrelationtotheprocessofthetenderingphases,whereas departmentssawmore valueinknowledge asaready-made product withafocusoncontentorbestpractices.

Thiscaseshowshowtheisolationofautonomousprojectscan re-strict theextent in which lessons learnedby individual team mem-berscanbedisseminatedintheparentorganizationandbecome inte-gratedinthepermanentcontext.However,becauseindividualproject membersaresimultaneouslyorganizationalemployees,wecanexpect at least some spill-over effect, especially in terms of their implicit knowledge.

6. Discussion

Weexplored practicesof isolationin theBeating HeartandRail NerveCenterprojects.Indoingso,wedevelopedadynamicand contex-tualviewofprojectautonomythatallowedustostudythetriggersand practicesofisolationbytheprojectteaminrelationtotheparent or-ganization.Wenowlookatthecommonalitiesanddifferencesbetween thetwocases,beforediscussingwhatafocusonisolationpractices con-tributestoourunderstandingoftemporaryorganizationsinrelationto theirparentorganizations.

6.1. Reflectingonthetwocases

Table3comparesbothcases.TheRailNerveCenterprojectwas po-liticallysensitiveandcontroversial fromthebeginning, whilein the BeatingHeartprojectpotentialconflictsslowlyemergedduringthe ten-deringphase.Inbothcases,projectmembersstronglyidentifiedwiththe unique,innovativeandelitecharacteroftheprojectandde-identified withtheperceivedbureaucraticparentorganization(s).Therather dis-ruptiveandradicalprojectoutcomesoftheRailNerveCenterproject hinderedknowledgedisseminationandimplementation,whilethe rad-icaloutcomesoftheBeatingHeartprojectwerenotrecognizedor im-plementedbytheparentorganization.

6.2. Symbolic,discursiveandspatialpracticesofisolation

Thestudyfoundsymbolic,discursiveandspatialpracticesof isola-tion.Thefirstsetofisolationpracticesaresymbolicpractices.Our find-ingsshowtheimportanceofsymbolsintheshapingofproject auton-omy.Symbolsarepresenteverywhereinprojectsastheyshape organi-zationallifeandcarrymeaning(VanMarrewijk,2017).Forexample,the pioneeringspirit,projectflags,papershredders,projectofficespaces, andnegativeimagesofparentorganizationswerevehiclesforsymbolic meaning.Geertz(1973)usestheconceptofsymbolstodenoteany ob-ject, act,event, quality, orrelationshipthat containsaconception— namely,thesymbol’smeaning.Hestatesthatsymbolsare‘tangible for-mulationsofnotions,abstractionsfromexperiencefixedinperceptible forms,concreteembodimentsofideas,attitudes,judgments,longing,or beliefs’(Geertz,1973:91).Animportantpropertyofsymbolsin tempo-raryorganizationsistheircapacityforcommunicatingmeaning(Firth, 1973).Symbolsareusedforcreatingstructuralautonomy(Gemunden et al.,2005) tosuch anextentthat projectsthemselvescan become symbols.Löfgren(2015),forexample,showsthattheØresundbridge andtunnelmegaprojectwasasymbolofcreatingatransnationalregion ontheDanish–Swedishborder.Inanotherexample,theSydneyHarbor sewagetunnelmegaprojectwasanimportantsymbolfortheAustralian Olympicdream,showingthat‘DownUnder’couldorganizethe2000 Olympics(Pitsis,Clegg,Marosszeky&Rura-Polley,2003).

The second set of isolation practices are discursive practices. Organizational discourses are important vehicles for constituting organizational behavior(Grant & Hardy, 2004). Through discursive practicespeoplemakesenseoftheirorganizationandatthesametime enactit.Forexample,wheninbothcasesprojectteamstalkedabout insidersandoutsiders,elites,champions,andthe‘chosenones’,this dis-coursenotjustrepresentsbutcomestoconstitutetheirrelationshipwith the parentorganization. Furthermore,bypositively labeling the dis-tancetotheirparentorganizationsandnegativelabelingstoriesabout theparentorganization,discursiveroomwascreatedforisolation.For projectstudiesthereisanincreasinginterestintheroleofdiscourses (e.g.Marshall&Bresnen,2013;Sergeeva&Green,2019).Weagreewith Havermans,KeeganandDenHartog(2015),whousenarrativetheory, thatdiscoursesconstructprojectreality.Similarly,Marshalland