Temporary Organizations: Prevalence, Logic and Effectiveness

Temporary Organizations

Temporary Organizations Prevalence, Logic and Effectiveness

Edited by

Patrick Kenis Academic Dean, TiasNimbas Business School and Professor of Policy and Organisation Studies, Tilburg University, the Netherlands

Martyna Janowicz-Panjaitan Research Fellow, Tilburg University, the Netherlands

Bart Cambré Assistant Professor, Tilburg University, the Netherlands

Edward Elgar Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA

© Patrick Kenis, Martyna Janowicz-Panjaitan and Bart Cambré 2009 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Published by Edward Elgar Publishing Limited The Lypiatts 15 Lansdown Road Cheltenham Glos GL50 2JA UK Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. William Pratt House 9 Dewey Court Northampton Massachusetts 01060 USA

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Control Number: 2009930870

ISBN 978 1 84844 085 2 Printed and bound by MPG Books Group, UK

Contents List of contributors Foreword Jörg Sydow Preface and acknowledgements

vii xii xiv

Introduction: temporary organizations – a challenge and opportunity for our thinking about organizations Martyna Janowicz-Panjaitan, Bart Cambré and Patrick Kenis PART I 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

MAKING THE CASE

The prevalence and characteristics of interorganizational temporary collaborations of Dutch small and medium-sized firms (SMEs) Leon A.G. Oerlemans, Jan M.P. de Kok and Jeroen P.J. de Jong Research on temporary organizations: the state of the art and distinct approaches toward ‘temporariness’ Martyna Janowicz-Panjaitan, René M. Bakker and Patrick Kenis Applying organization theory to temporary organizations Patrick Kenis, Bart Cambré, Gerardus J.M. Lucas and Leon A.G. Oerlemans

PART II

1

15

56

86

CONCEPTUAL INSIGHTS INTO TEMPORARY ORGANIZATIONS

Time matters: the impact of ‘temporariness’ on the functioning and performance of organizations René M. Bakker and Martyna Janowicz-Panjaitan The atemporality of temporary organizations: implications for goal attainment and legitimacy Martyna Janowicz-Panjaitan, Patrick Kenis and Patrick A.M. Vermeulen

v

121

142

vi

6. 7.

8.

9.

10.

Temporary organizations

Proximity in temporary organizations Joris Knoben and Tobias Gössling Structure in temporary organizations Jörg Raab, Joseph Soeters, Paul C. van Fenema and Erik J. de Waard The resource dilemma of temporary organizations: a dynamic perspective on temporal embeddedness and resource discretion René M. Bakker, Bart Cambré and Keith G. Provan Turning a negative into a positive: how innovation management moderates the negative impact of TO complexity on the effectiveness of innovative interorganizational temporary collaborations Leon A.G.Oerlemans and Marius T.H. Meeus Conclusion: toward an integrated view of temporary organizations: future research agenda and managerial implications Patrick Kenis, Martyna Janowicz-Panjaitan and Bart Cambré

Index

155 171

201

220

259

277

Contributors René M. Bakker is a PhD candidate at the Department of Organization Studies at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. He holds a Master’s degree from the same university. René undertook part of his studies at the University of Arizona (USA) and the University of Pretoria (South Africa). His research interests include temporary forms of work organization, time and organization theory, and leadership. Bart Cambré is assistant professor at the Department of Organization Studies at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. He received a Master’s degree in sociology at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium) and another in developmental studies at U.C. Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium). He holds a PhD in research methodology in the social sciences (K.U. Leuven) and teaches courses on research methodology, organization sociology and interorganizational relationships in undergraduate and graduate programs. His research interests include temporary work systems, quality of work and the methodology of organizational research. Paul C. van Fenema is an associate professor at the Netherlands Defence Academy and an assistant professor at the Department of Organization Studies at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. He received a Master’s degree in law and economics at Utrecht University and his PhD in business administration from Erasmus University in Rotterdam. He has also worked at Rotterdam School of Management and Florida International University. His research interests include intra- and interorganizational coordination, organizational drifting, knowledge management, crisis and military organizations, and use of information systems. His work has been published in, amongst others, MIS Quarterly, Journal of International Business Studies, Information Systems Journal, European Journal of Information Systems and International Journal of Project Management. Tobias Gössling is an assistant professor at the Department of Organization Studies at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. He holds a PhD in political science from Witten/Herdecke University in Germany. His research focuses on institutions, interorganizational relations and relations between organizations and society (corporate social responsibility). vii

viii

Temporary organizations

Martyna Janowicz-Panjaitan is a research fellow at the Department of Organization Studies at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. She received her PhD in organization and strategy from the Center for Economic Research at Tilburg University. Her research interests focus on international strategic alliances, interorganizational learning, trust, temporary organizations and economies in transition. Her work has been published or is forthcoming in such journals as Research Policy, Organization Studies, Journal of Management Studies and European Management Review. Jeroen P.J. de Jong is a researcher at EIM Business and Policy Research in the Netherlands, and is also an assistant professor at RSM Erasmus University in Rotterdam in the Netherlands. His research interests include user innovation, open innovation, innovation in SMEs and intrapreneurship. Patrick Kenis is academic dean at TiasNimbas Business School and professor of policy and organization studies at the Department of Organization Studies at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. He holds a PhD from the European University Institute (Florence, Italy) and a Master’s degree from the Free University of Brussels (Belgium). Over the last 15 years he has taught organization sociology, organization theory, network analysis and interorganizational relations in undergraduate, graduate and executive programs. His current research interests involve temporary organizations, organizational networks and internet communities. His work has been published in the Academy of Management Review, International Public Management Journal, Journal of Theoretical Politics, Journal of Public Administration, Research and Theory. He has also authored and co-authored a number of book chapters and books. Jan M.P. de Kok is a senior researcher at EIM Business and Policy Research in the Netherlands. He holds a PhD in economics from Erasmus University in Rotterdam in the Netherlands. He received a Master’s degree in economics and econometrics at Tilburg University. He has held research positions at Erasmus University and the University of Amsterdam. His research interests include entrepreneurship and human resource management within small and medium-sized enterprises. Joris Knoben is an assistant professor in the Department of Organization Studies as well as a core fellow of the Center for Innovation Research at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. He holds a PhD in organization studies and a Master’s degree in economics, both from Tilburg University.

Contributors

ix

His research interests lie at the intersections of regional economics, organization science and innovation studies. Gerardus J.M. Lucas is a PhD student at the Center for Innovation Research at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. He holds a Master’s degree in organization and another in social and behavioral sciences from Tilburg University, and also a Bachelor of Arts degree from Maastricht University. He studies the role of performance feedback on the impetus to engage in innovation and innovation enabling behaviors. Marius T.H. Meeus is a professor of strategy, innovation and organization learning at the Department of Organization Studies at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. At present, he is also the director of the Center for Innovation Research at Tilburg University. He has held positions at Utrecht University and at Eindhoven University as well. He was involved in founding ECIS, the Copernicus Institute for sustainability and innovation. He is a NIAS (Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences) fellow, and was a member of the editorial board of Organization Studies. He has contributed to conferences and reports of the Dutch Scientific Council for Government Policy and the Dutch Innovation Platform. His research interests include R&D management, innovation systems, innovation networks, organizational change, social and individual learning, biotechnology, environmental innovation, hydrogen research, transition trajectories, high performance organizations, IPOs (Initial Public Offerings), business models, technological opportunities and many other topics. His work has been published in, amongst others, Research Policy, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Journal of Social and Economic Geography, Review of Industrial Organization, Organization Studies, Industry and Innovation and Regional Studies. Leon A.G. Oerlemans is a professor of organizational dynamics at the Department of Organization Studies at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, and an extraordinary professor of the economics of innovation in the Department of Engineering and Technology Management at the University of Pretoria in South Africa. He is also co-founder of the Center for Innovation Research at Tilburg University. His research focuses on the analysis of innovative behavior of (temporary) organizations in general and innovation and networks in particular. His work has been published in books and journals, including Regional Studies, Economic Geography, Research Policy, Organization Studies, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, South African Journal of Science and the International Journal of Management Reviews.

x

Temporary organizations

Keith G. Provan is the McClelland professor in Eller College of Management at the University of Arizona in the United States. He is also a visiting senior scholar at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. His research interests have centered around the study of interorganizational and network relationships, including network structure, evolution, governance and effectiveness. His empirical work on these topics has focused on public and not-for-profit health and human service agencies, as well as business firms. He has published more than 50 articles in scholarly journals and is one of only 33 members of the Academy of Management’s ‘Journals Hall of Fame’. Jörg Raab is an assistant professor of policy and organization studies at the Department of Organization Studies at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. He received his PhD from the University of Konstanz in Germany. His research has focused mainly on topics in organization theory (especially interorganizational networks), public organizations and governance mechanisms. His current research is mainly on temporary organizations, organizational networks and dark networks as organizational problems. His work has been published in journals such as the International Public Management Journal, Journal of Theoretical Politics and Journal of Public Administration, Research and Theory, and he has authored or co-authored a number of book chapters and books. Joseph Soeters is a professor of management and organization studies at the Netherlands Defence Academy and also at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. He is also affiliated with TiasNimbas Business School at Tilburg University. He is an organizational sociologist with a research focus on international management, international military cooperation and related issues such as diversity management, language management and cultural studies. He is a vice-president of Research Committee 01 on Armed Forces and Conflict Resolution of the International Sociological Association. Patrick A.M. Vermeulen is an associate professor of organization studies in the Department of Organization Studies at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. He received his PhD from the Nijmegen School of Management and previously worked at the Rotterdam School of Management. His main research interests focus upon processes of institutional change, strategies for the Base-of-the-Pyramid and sustainable development. His work has been published in, amongst others, Organization Studies, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Journal of Small Business Management, Long Range Planning, International Small Business Journal and Technovation.

Contributors

xi

Erik J. de Waard teaches business strategy and organizational design at the Netherlands Defence Academy (NLDA). He is currently preparing his PhD on the role of absorptive capacity, modular organizing and lateral coordination as key organizational enablers to align strategic, structural and operational dynamic capabilities within the Dutch armed forces.

Foreword The importance of the time dimension is acknowledged increasingly in studies of management and organization. This is true with respect both to the object of study and to theorizing. For instance, temporary work and working in temporary systems – such as projects or temporary organizations – have received more and more scholarly attention, not least because these organizational forms are on the rise. On the other hand, process theories, to which – obviously – the dimension of time is central, will soon overtake variance theories in terms of scholarly popularity and practical/societal relevance. Although the study of temporary systems has become increasingly popular during the last decade or so and has gradually adopted a more process-focused perspective, it still suffers somewhat from the imprints of its original ‘birth’ in engineering sciences. From there, the study of temporary systems has inherited the normative and valueladen rather than the descriptive and theory-based approach to what such systems are and what it means to ‘manage’ them. Because of this heritage, it is still surprisingly unclear what temporariness really means for managerial and non-managerial members and what it implies for the management of such systems. This is astonishing, because in praxi project managers as well as other members of temporary systems seem more-orless capable, not only of handling the continuous lack of time, but also of dealing with the challenges of temporary membership, for instance, a lack of commitment due to the temporariness of the task. Despite the continuous spread of temporary systems that transcend the boundaries of single organizations more often than not, we do not seem even close to getting away from a ‘society of organizations’ (Perrow, 1991). But in face of ongoing ‘projectification’ (Midler, 1995) the character of these organizations is quite likely to change radically, not least with regard to the time dimension. It is against this theoretical and empirical background that Patrick Kenis and his research group from Tilburg University in the Netherlands use insights from organization studies, on the one hand, to understand the antecedents and goals as well as the processes and outcomes of temporary systems and, on the other hand, to inject the notion of temporariness into organization studies. And it is against the same background that this scholarly endeavor is to be sincerely welcomed! In particular, the focus of this edited volume xii

Foreword

xiii

on interorganizational projects as one form of what the authors call ‘temporary organizations’ (or TOs for short) is important because it offers the chance to link research on projects, task forces, consortia and other types of temporary systems with those on interorganizational relations and networks. This seems to be highly important for a better or, more accurately, a theoretically sounder and empirically based understanding of organizing practices in an increasing number of industries including construction, film making, event management and engineering. And much can also be learned from the organizing efforts in these fields for more traditional industries, which have already started to become just as much a component of a projectified society as those project-based fields. This book, together with ongoing empirical research, particularly in Tilburg and the Scandinavian countries, will sustain Europe’s competitive advantage in this kind of research. Jörg Sydow Berlin-Dahlem March 2009

REFERENCES Midler, C. (1995), ‘“Projectification” of the firm: the Renault case’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11 (4), 363–375. Perrow, C.B. (1991), ‘A society of organizations’, Theory and Society, 20 (6), 725–762.

Preface and acknowledgements The journey from inception to completion of Temporary Organizations: Prevalence, Logic and Effectiveness was an exciting although, happily, a temporary one. It all began as an idea by a group of scholars in the Department of Organization Studies at Tilburg University, the Netherlands, who, in the course of our research, had observed an increasing prevalence of organizations getting together temporarily to accomplish a task. We had a common interest in temporary organizations and, as a group, have had years of experience studying organizational network relationships in a variety of contexts. By combining our knowledge of networks with our breadth of expertise about innovation, small and medium-sized enterprises and their challenges, organizational structure and motivation among others, we concluded that we might be able to understand and explain this phenomenon of interorganizational temporary organizations. We defined temporary organizations as two or more non-temporary organizations collaborating to accomplish a joint task with the duration of the collaboration explicitly and ex ante fixed. Early in our common discussions we discovered, first, that in practice interorganizational temporary organizations were more prevalent than we had expected and, second, that the topic was greatly understudied within the field of organization studies. There are, of course, a number of aspects of temporary organizations that have already been described and analyzed. For example, their relational structure or their properties as projects have been studied by some. What was interesting, however, was that temporary organizations have seldom been seen as a unique form of organizing, a uniqueness, we believe, that is strongly linked to the very fact that they are temporary. We soon learned that there is one major exception to this, the Scandinavian School of Project Studies (see the book Beyond Project Management: new perspectives on the temporary-permanent dilemma, by Kerstin Sahlin-Andersson and Anders Söderholm (eds), CBS Press, 2002). We are fortunate and thankful that we could build on their work. In particular, we would like to thank Rolf Lundin for his openness, his critical comments and his appreciation for our sometimes different take on their views. xiv

Preface and acknowledgements

xv

We are also most appreciative of the EIM Business and Policy Research institute’s contributions. Their financial contribution and excellent data collection enabled us to do a first round of data gathering of evidence on the prevalence of interorganizational temporary organizations. These findings were critical to our hypothesis of the importance, relevance and different characteristics of the phenomenon of temporary organizations. A special thank you goes to Jan de Kok, senior researcher at EIM, for his outstanding intellectual and creative contributions to this project. We look forward to a future collaboration in which we will test the many theories about the functioning and performance of temporary organizations presented in this book. We would also like to thank the Board of the Department of Organization Studies, Tilburg University, the Netherlands, for their continuous support. They provided the authors with the necessary guidance, appreciation and research time. The students enrolled in the different Master thesis circles at the Department of Organization Studies have also contributed greatly to our work on temporary organizations. In addition, we received valuable comments from a number of visiting professors (Candy Jones, Mark Ebers, Jörg Sydow, Joseph Lampel, Anna Grandori, David Knoke, Rolf Lundin, Gernot Grabher, Peter Maskell and Patrick Cohendet) and colleagues at both the European Group for Organizational Studies and Academy of Management meetings, where we presented earlier versions of our work. We would like to thank Jill E. Provan and Mitch Levine for their meticulous editing of Temporary Organizations: Prevalence, Logic and Effectiveness. Their work was invaluable, not only because nearly all of the authors are non-native speakers, but also because they were instrumental in bringing focus and clarity to our arguments. Many thanks to Jenny Wilcox, our editor at Edward Elgar Publishing, for making the production process more enjoyable than it might have been otherwise. And lastly, we thank everyone who has contributed to Temporary Organizations: Prevalence, Logic and Effectiveness. We have come from different directions but have found each other in this exciting and intellectually productive temporary system. It was a pleasure to work together and we are particularly thankful for the helpful comments on each other’s work. Apart from the fact that this was an exemplary academic practice, it also greatly contributed to the consistency of the book.

Introduction: temporary organizations – a challenge and opportunity for our thinking about organizations Martyna Janowicz-Panjaitan, Bart Cambré and Patrick Kenis Between 2004 and 2005 the highway around the City of Antwerp was renovated. This highway links, among others, the Dutch harbor of Rotterdam and the so-called Randstad area of the Netherlands – an urban area including the cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague – with the Belgian harbor of Antwerp and the southern part of Europe. 250 000 vehicles use this highway daily. Consequently, the renovation was a tremendous logistic operation and the challenge was to avoid paralyzing traffic. The undertaking involved ten different companies, public agencies and associations concerned with safety and traffic. Due to this complexity, it was predicted by many that this ‘big maintenance’, as it was called, would lead to an enormous amount of irritation and would last much longer than originally planned. But the outcomes turned out to be very different from these expectations. The renovation resulted in very little irritation and was finished two weeks before the deadline. A number of innovations – specific measures taken to produce a smooth traffic circulation during renovation – have been kept in place, as they proved to have great benefits for traffic circulation and safety. On 30 August 2005 the completion of the ‘big maintenance’ was a major item on the Belgian news. Apart from proudly presenting pictures of the finished product, the newscaster also showed another remarkable photo: a six-foottall construction worker falling into the arms of a co-worker from another company involved in the operation, crying because they had to separate since their successful collaboration had come to an end.

The above account is a story of a temporary organization. Based on our knowledge of the functioning and outcomes of organizations, it is in many respects different from the stories that we, as organization scholars, would expect. This story describes a situation in which a great number of different actors worked together on different tasks. Although these actors had not known each other, they were expected to collaborate temporarily and work intensely to attain clear objectives, without a clear structure of hierarchical authority. 1

2

Temporary organizations

A temporary organization (TO) forms for the purpose of accomplishing an ex ante-determined task that has a predetermined termination point. It can be intraorganizational, occurring within an existing, non-temporary organization, or interorganizational, a joint collaboration among a number of organizations (Packendorf, 1995). In Temporary Organizations: Prevalence, Logic and Effectiveness, we focus on interorganizational TOs. Based on a literature review of TO research described in Chapter 2, Janowicz-Panjaitan, Bakker and Kenis conclude that interorganizational TOs are significantly understudied. This is surprising, especially considering the strategic importance and increasing use of interorganizational collaborations in recent years (Muthusamy and White, 2005), particularly those of a temporary nature (Jones and Lichtenstein, 2008). Consequently, all the constituent chapters in this volume have interorganizational TOs as their unit of analysis and are generally defined as: A group of two or more non-temporary organizations collaborating toward the accomplishment of a joint task with the duration of the collaboration explicitly and ex ante fixed either by a specific date or by the attainment of a predefined task or condition.1

Apart from the fact that they have fixed duration in common, we did not limit the definition of TOs in any other way. Theoretically, we expected them to exist in any kind of sector, produce any type of good and be any size. They may take, for example, the form of an independent legal entity such as a joint venture, or be more informal, when members of one or multiple organizations ‘work together on specific projects without becoming employees of a distinct and separate firm’ (Whitley, 2006, p. 80). They can also include sizable undertakings like organizing the Olympic Games and building major infrastructure projects such as the Sydney Opera House and the English Channel Tunnel (Engwall, 2003; Lundin, 1995). We take it as our point of departure that whether or not TOs cluster around a certain score on any particular dimension remains an empirical question. An organization might be defined as an autonomous work system governed and managed through a system of rules, regulations and procedures. However, interorganizational temporary organizations are not organizations in the classical sense since they are composed of independent and sovereign organizations collaborating mainly to contribute to a common task. Instead of sticking to the more classical definition of an organization, in order to demarcate the objective of our study, we have concentrated on the study of work systems, or systems of coordination

Introduction

3

that produce a certain outcome. Sinha and Van de Ven (2005) provide an excellent foundation for this argument. However, in order to enrich the field of organization studies, we have called TOs organizations. Another cautionary remark with regard to terminology is that, in contrast to some other authors such as Ekstedt et al. (1999), Miles (1964) and Bryman et al. (1987), we do not use the label ‘permanent organizations’ as an antonym for temporary organizations. Since most organizations, even those without an explicitly defined termination point, are not meant to exist forever, we avoid the label ‘permanent’, except when quoting others. In contrast, we adopt the labels ‘temporary’ and ‘non-temporary’. What will later become clear is that such labels underscore the fact that we treat temporariness as a binomial variable, the presence of which has consequences for the outcomes of the organization and how it functions. Why do interorganizational temporary organizations deserve further study? First, much thinking in the field of organization studies is still framed in terms of what James Herndon commented about organizations in 1971: ‘an institution must continue to exist. Every action must be undertaken with respect to eternity’ (1971, pp. 109–110 in Weick, 1974, p. 499, emphasis added). This focus on eternity is the basis of the durability of institutions and explains why organizations sometimes do things contrary to their intended or declared purpose for existence (Weick, 1974). In their brilliant booklet Permanently Failing Organizations, Meyer and Zucker (1989) demonstrated, among many other things, that the persistence of organizations is a dominant force and often even sustains when organizations permanently fail. In view of this, we might ask: how are organizational actions and those of their members affected when the intention of existing for eternity no longer holds? Or in other words, what are the consequences for an organization of being temporary? A second reason for studying TOs is that they are considered to be a prevalent form of organizing in the contemporary economy and society (Grabher, 2002; Sydow et al., 2004). A survey conducted among executives of large and medium-sized Western European firms revealed that in the period from 1992 to 1996, ‘[p]roject-based structures became more pervasive, with 51% of firms placing greater emphasis on them in 1996 compared to 1992: 42% of firms placed much or great emphasis on project structures in 1996, against only 13% in 1992’ (Whittington et al., 1999, p. 588). This trend has made TOs prevalent in many industries – engineering, construction, architecture, film making and theatre production among others (see Bechky, 2006; Engwall, 2003; Ekstedt et al., 1992; Goodman and Goodman, 1972, 1976; Morley and Silver, 1977). Examples of TOs included strategic alliances formed for the sake of entering a new market; research and development consortia set up for the purpose of

4

Temporary organizations

developing a new technology or product; or a task force entrusted with the task of bringing about organizational renewal (Goodman and Goodman, 1972, 1976; Lundin, 1995; Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). TOs can also be encountered in the public and non-profit sectors, where they may take the form of presidential commissions, court juries, election campaigns, rescue operations and disaster relief operations, among others (Goodman and Goodman, 1976; Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). A third reason to study temporary organizations in greater detail is that because they are expected to be more and more prevalent, we need to learn much more about the role of time in organizing. Time has always been, and still is, an under-conceptualized phenomenon in organization studies: ‘despite the pervasiveness of time in all aspects of our lives, it has not been a central theme in organizational research’ (Goodman et al., 2001, p. 509). In particular, there still exists ‘very little theory about . . . durations’ (Ancona et al., 2001, p. 647) or consideration of ‘when an activity starts and stops and how a changing deadline impacts behavior’ (2001, p. 645). ‘The expected duration of organizations and collaborations are an understudied phenomenon in management and organizations’ (Jones and Lichtenstein, 2008, p. 233). As Janowicz-Panjaitan, Bakker and Kenis argue in their literature review (Chapter 2), although scholarly attention devoted to temporary organizations has been increasing steadily since the 1960s, the understanding of what temporariness entails and what consequences it has for the functioning and outcomes of temporary organizations remains limited and constitutes the ‘primary stumbling blocks to the development of a fully fledged theory of TOs’ (p. 57). Our fourth reason for plunging into the world of interorganizational temporary organizations is that as social science scholars of organizations, we thought we could make valuable and unique contributions to the existing project management literature. This literature has often addressed the same empirical phenomenon that we study here. The literature on the topic is impressive but could profit from students who study projects from a social and human agency perspective, in addition to just technical and instrumental perspectives. For example, the project management literature does not ‘assess how the expectation of limited duration shapes and modifies [the] interactions’ of collaborating organizational actors (Jones and Lichtenstein, 2008, p. 232) nor many other structure-, process- and outcome-related properties. In the project management literature, time is the dominant scarce resource that needs to be managed to finish a project. Consequently, time has mainly been addressed as time pressure. In this volume we go beyond viewing time merely as a scarce resource to understanding the impact that limited duration and temporariness have

Introduction

5

on the social processes and outcomes of temporary organizations. The message of this book is that the limited duration of temporary organizations implies much more than scarcity of time to execute a task. As contributions to this volume demonstrate, the ex ante limited duration and the awareness of this impending termination among the temporary organization members fundamentally alter the behavior of the individuals involved and, consequently, the functioning and outcomes of the entire temporary organization. The lack of attention in the project management literature to these effects is probably due to the mainly prescriptive and normative, rather than descriptive and explanatory character of research, and a lack of empirical support (Ekstedt et al., 1999; Jugdev, 2004; Packendorf, 1995). Project management literature has been repeatedly reproached for treating projects instrumentally and lacking theoretical grounding (Shenhar and Dvir, 1996; Shenhar, 2001; Shenhar et al., 2001). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMI, 2008), first developed in 1976, despite a number of revisions, continues to stress the importance of professional qualifications and competences without theoretically backing up these arguments (Jugdev, 2004). Consequently, it is our view that this book will bring the theoretical bases of organization studies and the rich empirical information provided by the project management literature closer together.

APPROACH AND STRUCTURE The approach we chose for this volume was based on the need for theory-grounded insights into the consequences of temporariness for the structure, functioning and outcomes of interorganizational temporary organizations. The prevalence and variety of TOs and the relative absence of temporary organizations in core organizational theory literature were the prime reasons for our writing Temporary Organizations: Prevalence, Logic and Effectiveness. The authors are experts in various areas of organization studies and are actively engaged in a wide range of organizational research. Working in the tradition of viewing organizations as open and networked systems, the contributors became aware that increasingly, the workplace is organized differently from the way it had been in the past. Temporariness and temporary forms of organizing began to take a more central place in their thinking. Thus, although none of the authors had previously studied temporary organizations or contributed to the project management literature, they undertook to juxtapose the idea of temporary systems with their knowledge of organizations. This merger has resulted in what we

6

Temporary organizations

consider to be an important, organization theory-based contribution to the understanding of temporary organizations. Now, more than ever, organizations are reaching their goals through temporary collaborations. It is important to stress that the aim of this book is not to create a new field for the study of these temporary collaborations. Rather, it is more important to us to rejuvenate the field of organization studies by introducing it to the emerging realities of the role of temporary organizations. We believe that the field of organization studies can profit considerably from insights into temporary organizing, and in this volume we hope we have contributed to a better understanding of TOs. To fulfill our objective, we assessed the applicability and generalizability of established organization theories to temporary contexts. In addition, we used existing organization theory to formulate novel insights into the effectiveness of temporariness for the structure, function and outcomes of interorganizational temporary organizations. It is from this perspective that we approached temporary organizations and the existing knowledge on TOs. The main message permeating this book is that temporariness is the primary characteristic distinguishing a temporary organization from other forms of organizing. Throughout the chapters, temporariness is understood as the ex ante determined limited duration of a work system. It also became clear, however, that the duration of a TO’s existence is only one of many important characteristics of a TO. We have divided this book into two parts. In the first part, Chapters 1–3, we explore the prevalence of interorganizational temporary organizations in the economy, review literature on organizations with a predefined end point, and investigate the effect of temporariness on existing organizational theories. In Part II, Chapters 4–9, we focus on the consequences of temporariness on the structure, function and outcomes of temporary organizations. Part I is also a review of what we already know about TOs. This covers empirical prevalence, up-to-date research, and the applicability and generalizability of established organizational theories for studying TOs. While there are numerous accounts of the prevalence of intraorganizational TOs in particular projects (for example, see Whittington et al., 1999), much less is known about the prevalence of interorganizational TOs. Before devoting an entire volume to interorganizational TOs, we thought it imperative to demonstrate the empirical relevance of the phenomenon. Thus, in Chapter 1, Oerlemans et al. present the results of a large-scale, cross-sectoral survey of the empirical prevalence of interorganizational TOs among Dutch small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The high frequency of interorganizational TOs that Oerlemans et al. observed,

Introduction

7

underscores the need for more in-depth study of interorganizational TOs, which we address in the rest of this volume. Similarly, we considered it crucial to map what has already been achieved in research projects on temporary organizations. To get a better idea of the current state of research on TOs, in Chapter 2, JanowiczPanjaitan, Bakker and Kenis survey the extant literature on TOs. Their review focuses on interorganizational TOs as well as on TOs in general, as the scope of research on the former is very limited and research on intraorganizational TOs is potentially helpful for understanding interorganizational TOs. In addressing the various shortcomings of the existing literature, the chapter provides an agenda for what we undertake to achieve in the second part of this book. One of the knowledge gaps identified by Janowicz-Panjaitan, Bakker and Kenis’s review was the ‘lack of rigorous and systematic theoretical development in the literature on TOs’ (Chapter 2, p. 80), a contention supported by other authors (Jugdev, 2004; Shenhar and Dvir, 1996; Shenhar, 2001). The authors’ review suggested that ‘A first step to amend this situation would be to assess the applicability of some well-established organization theories to temporary contexts: This exercise would assist in taking stock of those areas of theoretical development that are most needed’ (Chapter 2, p. 80). In response, Kenis et al. (Chapter 3) systematically examine the applicability and generalizability of five well-established organizational theories to temporary organizations. They conclude that while the dependent and independent variables in contingency, resourcedependence, neo-institutional, transaction cost and population ecology theories are also relevant in the context of TOs, the mechanisms underlying the relationships between these variables seldom hold. Consequently, there is a need to develop theories in order to understand organizations in which time plays a central role. It is precisely this need that is addressed in the second part of this volume. In Part II the authors present the anticipated consequences of ex ante limited duration on an organization’s structure, function and outcomes. Table 0.1 summarizes the conceptual status of time in the chapters. The first two chapters in Part II deal explicitly with time-related phenomena that are likely to emerge in temporary organizations. In Chapter 4, Bakker and Janowicz-Panjaitan analyze the likely consequences of temporariness on the functioning and outcomes of TOs as opposed to nontemporary organizations. Arguing that TOs can be conceived as temporal zones, they show how the temporary character of an organization is likely to result in three time-related phenomena among its members. Temporary organizations are more likely to be oriented to the present, have a higher likelihood of experiencing timelessness and be less entrained to the

8

Temporary organizations

Table 0.1

The conceptual status of time

Chapter (in Part II of this book)

Variables

No.

Authors

Independent

Dependent

4

Bakker and JanowiczPanjaitan

Temporariness

5

JanowiczAtemporality Panjaitan, Kenis and Vermeulen Knoben and Temporariness Gössling Atemporality Duration

Focus on the present Likelihood of timelessness Entrainment Creative solutions Knowledge sedimentation Goal achievement External legitimacy

6

7

8

Raab, Soeters, van Fenema and de Waard Bakker, Cambré and Provan

Geographical proximity Organizational proximity Technological proximity Structure Atemporality

Temporariness Atemporality Types of TOs Temporal TO discretion over embeddedness resources TO’s discretion TO performance over resources TO performance TO complexity Effectiveness Temporal complexity

9

Oerlemans and Meeus

Note:

Time-related variables in bold.

Moderating

TO duration Temporal embeddedness Types and timing of interventions

temporal parameters of the environment than non-temporary organizations. These three effects, Bakker and Janowicz-Panjaitan argue, are in turn likely to influence the collective outcomes of a temporary organization and, in comparison to non-temporary organizations, will result in greater creativity and innovation and lower knowledge sedimentation. In Chapter 5, Janowicz-Panjaitan, Kenis and Vermeulen introduce a concept of TO, atemporality, which is a direct result of their temporariness and which is responsible, the authors argue, for the variance across TOs

Introduction

9

in the degree of goal accomplishment and external legitimacy. In short, both Chapters 4 and 5 explore the time-related qualities of TOs. Whereas the former chapter looks at the implications this has for TOs compared to non-temporary organizations, the latter explores its consequences for variance among TOs. Chapters 6–9 cover four fundamental organizational topics – proximity, structure, discretion over resources and effectiveness – and analyze these in the context of TOs. In Chapter 6, Knoben and Gössling explore the consequences of temporariness, atemporality and TO duration for the three types of proximity – spatial, organizational and technological. They show the difference between the three types of proximity among TOs and non-TOs depending on their levels of atemporality and duration. In Chapter 7, Raab et al. address the structural characteristics of TOs, arguing that TOs are structurally different from non-temporary organizations but also differ among themselves. For emphasis, they develop a typology of TOs along the dimensions of preparedness – the extent to which TOs are prepared for the work they seek to accomplish – and representativeness – whether a TO is individually or organizationally based. Using these two dimensions, they identify four types of TOs and theorize their differences on two structural features – formalization and hierarchy. They also propose that higher atemporality will result in a TO being less formalized while a TO’s duration is expected to be positively related to the formalization and hierarchy of the organizational structure. Chapters 6 and 7 tackle structural aspects of TOs. Chapter 6 examines the configuration of organizational actors involved in a TO with respect to their location and the distance between them, and Chapter 7 focuses on the internal structure of the TO. In Chapter 8, Bakker et al. explore the resource dilemma faced by TOs. On one hand, TOs depend on non-temporary organizations for the resources necessary to operate. On the other hand, they need discretion or autonomy over these resources to be effective. The authors explore how the temporal embeddedness of the TO – the extent to which a TO is embedded in activities beyond its inception or its past – and its termination or the expectation of future involvement affect the level of a TO’s discretion over resources and how the anticipated duration of the TO moderates this relationship. Finally, the authors argue that not only does a TO’s performance increase with greater autonomy, but that the reverse is likely to be true as well: that optimal performance can result in increased autonomy. Finally, in Chapter 9, Oerlemans and Meeus consider the effect that managerial interventions in the TO process may have on the relationship between TO complexity and effectiveness. They identify two groups of interventions depending on the underlying assumptions about innovation

10

Temporary organizations

process – compression and experiential models. While interventions from the experiential model are likely to mitigate the negative effects of complexity on effectiveness, interventions based on the compression model may further aggravate the negative effects. Therefore, the question arises, how to counter the negative effects of complexity. Contrary to what is proposed by Eisenhardt and Tabrizi (1995), Oerlemans and Meeus develop a dynamic perspective on the timing of interventions, arguing that the compression and experiential models are complementary rather than mutually exclusive. In sum, this volume aims to bring closer together organization theory and the phenomenon of temporary organizations. This endeavor is predicated on two assumptions. First, in our view organization theory is able to cast light on the unique processes and outcomes that occur in temporary organizations. Second, we believe that simultaneously confronting organizational theories with temporariness can test their robustness and lead to a strengthening of their generalizability. We trust that Temporary Organizations: Prevalence, Logic and Effectiveness makes a step forward in accomplishing both goals – gaining theory-based insights into the structure, functioning and outcomes of interorganizational temporary organizations, as well as reinforcing, complementing or replacing extant organization theory to better deal with temporary phenomena. Rather than simply being surprised by a number of elements in our case example of the highway renovation project around the City of Antwerp, we hope that our work will enable a better understanding of how and why such temporary interorganizational organizations function and perform.

NOTE 1. Unless otherwise stated by the authors, when the term ‘temporary organization’ is used in the chapters, it refers to interorganizational TOs.

REFERENCES Ancona, D.G., Goodman, P.S., Lawrence, B.S. and M.L. Tushman (2001), ‘Time: A new research lens’, Academy of Management Review, 26 (4), 645–663. Bechky, B. (2006), ‘Gaffers, gofers, and grips: Role-based coordination in temporary organizations’, Organization Science, 17, 3–22. Bryman, A., Bresnen, M., Beardsworth, A.D., Ford, J. and T. Keil (1987), ‘The concept of the temporary system: The case of the construction project’, in N. DiTomaso and S.B. Bacharach (eds), Research in Sociology of Organizations, 5, Greenwich, US: JAI Press, pp. 253–283.

Introduction

11

Eisenhardt, K.M. and B.N. Tabrizi (1995), ‘Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (1), 84–110. Ekstedt, E., Lundin, R.A., Söderholm, A. and H. Wirdenius (1999), Neo-industrial organizing: Renewal by action and knowledge formation in a project-intensive economy, London, UK: Routledge. Ekstedt, E., Lundin, R. and H. Wirdenius (1992), ‘Conceptions and renewal in Swedish construction firms’, European Management Journal, 10, 202–209. Engwall, M. (2003), ‘No project is an island: Linking projects to history and context’, Research Policy, 32, 789–808. Goodman, L.P. and R.A. Goodman (1972), ‘Theatre as a temporary system’, California Management Review, 40 (2), 103–108. Goodman, P.S., Lawrence, B.S., Ancona D.G. and M.L. Tushman (2001), ‘Introduction’, Academy of Management Review, 26 (4), 507–511. Goodman, R.A. and L.P. Goodman (1976), ‘Some management issues in temporary systems: A study of professional development and manpower – the theatre case’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 494–501. Grabher, G. (2002), ‘The project ecology of advertising: Tasks, talents and teams’, Regional Studies, 36, 245–262. Herndon, J. (1971), How to Survive in Your Native Land, New York: Simon and Schuster. Jones, C. and B.B. Lichtenstein (2008), ‘Temporary inter-organizational projects: How temporal and social embeddedness enhance coordination and manage uncertainty’, in S. Cropper, M. Ebers, C. Huxham and P. Smith-Ring (eds), Oxford Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relationships, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 231–255. Jugdev, K. (2004), ‘Through the looking glass: Examining theory development in project management with the resource-based view lens’, Project Management Journal, 35 (3), 15–26. Lundin, R.A. (1995), ‘Editorial: Temporary organizations and project management’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11 (4), 315–318. Lundin, R.A. and A. Söderholm (1995), ‘A theory of the temporary organization’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11 (4), 437–455. Meyer M.W. and L.G. Zucker (1989), Permanently failing organizations, Thousand Oaks, US: Sage. Miles, M.B. (1964), ‘On temporary systems’, in M.B. Miles (ed.), Innovation in education, New York, US: Teachers’ College, Columbia University, pp. 437–490. Morley, E. and A. Silver (1977), ‘A film director’s approach to managing creativity’, Harvard Business Review, 55 (2), 59–70. Muthusamy, S.K. and M.A. White (2005), ‘Learning and knowledge transfer in strategic alliances: a social exchange view’, Organization Studies, 26 (3), 415–441. Packendorf, J. (1995), ‘Inquiring into the temporary organization: New directions for project management research’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11 (4), 319–333. PMI (Project Management Institute) (2008), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), 4th edn, NC, USA: PMI Publishing Division.

12

Temporary organizations

Shenhar, A.J. (2001), ‘One size does not fit all projects: Exploring classical contingency domains’, Management Science, 47 (3), 394–414. Shenhar, A.J. and D. Dvir (1996), ‘Toward a typological theory of project management’, Research Policy, 25, 607–632. Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., Levy, O. and A.C. Maltz (2001), ‘Project success: A multidimensional strategic concept’, Long Range Planning, 34, 699–725. Sinha, K.K. and A.H. Van de Ven (2005), ‘Designing work within and between organizations’, Organization Science, 16 (4), 389–408. Sydow, J., Lindkvist, L. and R. DeFillippi (2004), ‘Project-based organizations, embeddedness and repositories of knowledge: Editorial’, Organization Studies, 25 (9), 1475–1489. Weick, K.E. (1974), ‘Amendments to organizational theorizing’, The Academy of Management Journal, 17 (3), 487–502. Whitley, R. (2006), ‘Project-based firms: New organizational form or variations on a theme?’ Industrial and Corporate Change, 15 (1), 77–99. Whittington, R., Pettigrew, A., Peck, S., Fenton, E. and M. Conyon (1999), ‘Change and complementarities in the new competitive landscape: a European panel study, 1992–1996’, Organization Science, 10 (5), 583–600.

PART I

Making the case

1

The prevalence and characteristics of interorganizational temporary collaborations of Dutch small and medium-sized firms (SMEs) Leon A.G. Oerlemans, Jan M.P. de Kok and Jeroen P.J. de Jong

INTRODUCTION Teams – both permanent and temporary – are ubiquitous in organizations. Many scholars have studied permanent teams and are now undertaking research efforts to study the characteristics and performance of intraorganizational, or temporary teams, as well (Stewart, 2006). These studies have indicated that the number of organizations implementing team-based structures has rapidly increased and member characteristics such as team size and heterogeneity, the level of autonomy and intra-team coordination impact team performance (Devine et al., 1999). Due to increased levels of technological and market uncertainty, Jones and Lichtenstein (2008) have observed that in addition to intraorganizational teamwork, interorganizational teams and projects have become a phenomenon of increasing importance. In interorganizational teams and projects, multiple organizations collaborate on a shared activity, often for a limited period of time. They stated (pp. 231–232) that ‘this type of collaboration and coordination among two or more organizations has been observed in a wide range of industries such as advertising, construction, biotechnology, computers, film, financial services, and fashion, among others’. A crucial characteristic of these interorganizational projects, in contrast to more common forms of interorganizational coordination such as joint ventures and alliances, is that these collaborations are by definition temporary, existing for a limited period of time and terminated either at a pre-established point or when pre-specified goals are met. As Mathieu et al. (2008) observed, the increasing attention to temporary organizations fits into a more general trend in organization science in which the 15

16

Temporary organizations

implications of time on the outcomes and performance of organizational forms has grown in importance (see also Rämö, 2002). Interorganizational temporary collaboration (IOTC) can generate significant benefits for the participating organizations and for completing their tasks. For example, in a study of 41 temporary projects in the US construction industry, Albanese (1994) found significant improvements in project results – costs, quality, schedule completion, safety and improved working relationships – as a result of using interorganizational teambuilding processes. Moreover, these collaborations were often suitable for knowledge creation and innovation (Lubatkin et al., 2001). Although there have been a number of theoretical studies on the subject, extant empirical research exploring the phenomenon of interorganizational projects and teams has been largely absent. Most studies, such as Grabher (2000), Winch (1989) and Bechky (2006), are small sample studies and to our knowledge there is hardly any large-scale empirical evidence on the prevalence of interorganizational temporary collaboration. In order to fill the gap in the empirical literature, this chapter explores the prevalence and characteristics of temporary collaborations using data from small and medium-sized Dutch firms. A focus on these SMEs, organizations with less than 250 employees, is interesting because smaller firms often experience higher levels of dependence and more intense resource deficits than larger organizations (Hannan and Freeman, 1984), potentially forcing them into interorganizational linkage in general, and into interorganizational temporary collaborations in particular. Drawing on a dataset with information on about 1500 organizations, we have attempted to answer two main research questions: ● ●

What is the prevalence of interorganizational temporary collaboration among Dutch SMEs? What are the characteristics of these interorganizational temporary collaborations?

This chapter has three aims. The first is to demonstrate that from an empirical point of view, temporary organizations are a significant phenomenon for small and medium-sized Dutch firms. The second is to provide insight into a number of characteristics of interorganizational temporary collaborations, such as composition, tasks, temporal features and interorganizationality. Last is to successfully use the theoretical typology on interorganizational temporary collaboration developed by Jones and Lichtenstein (2008) to further describe our population of temporary organizations. Until now the concepts of interorganizational temporary projects and

Interorganizational temporary collaborations of Dutch SMEs

Table 1.1

17

Taxonomy of organizational teams

Temporal duration

Product type Processing information

Production task

Temporary

(cell 1) Ad hoc project team: Exists for a finite period to solve problems, make plans and decisions, or interact with clients or customers.

Permanent

(cell 3) Ongoing project team: Standing team with relatively stable membership that solves problems, makes plans and decisions, or interacts with clients or customers.

(cell 2) Ad hoc production team: Is temporary in nature and formed on a case-by-case basis to build, construct or assemble products; perform artistically or competitively; or provide a public service. (cell 4) Ongoing production team: Same as the ad hoc production team but forms on a regular or recurrent basis.

teams were used interchangeably. However, in this chapter the focus will be on two specific types of temporary organization. To position these forms, a framework developed by Devine et al. (1999) will be used; they categorized teams using two dimensions: product type and temporal duration. With regard to product type, they distinguished between tasks that revolved around processing information – as in planning, creating and innovating – and production tasks involving a certain degree of hands-on physical activity. With regard to temporal duration, Devine et al. distinguished between ‘short-term’ teams completing tasks within a limited time and ‘ongoing teams’ which may be continually assigned new tasks or perform the same task in a cyclical way. When crossed, these two dimensions resulted in a simple taxonomy of four types of organizational teams that can be either inter- or intraorganizational (see Table 1.1). In this chapter we focus on interorganizational versions of the ad hoc project and production teams (cells 1 and 2 in Table 1.1). More specifically, we present descriptive empirical data on temporary collaborations in which Dutch SMEs participated. These temporary interorganizational collaborations are characterized by jointly-conducted tasks and/or shared risks among participating firms. The remainder of this chapter has the following structure. After discussing the characteristics of the sample used for this research, we investigate the prevalence of interorganizational temporary collaborations. Next,

18

Temporary organizations

we present a number of characteristics of these collaborations mainly by using descriptive statistics. The presentation of data is structured by using categories that are generally accepted in team research (Stewart, 2006). In the next section, a typology developed by Jones and Lichtenstein (2008) is used to categorize and describe the temporary organizations in our sample, and to empirically explore its discriminatory value. In the last section we will formulate a number of conclusions.

PROJECT SAMPLE AND DATA CATEGORIZATION Questionnaire The data for this project was gathered via a telephone survey. Prior to this survey a pre-test version of the questionnaire1 was submitted to a limited number of Dutch SMEs. Based on these responses, the final questionnaire was improved by simplifying questions and adding brief explanations. The telephone survey was adjusted accordingly. Stratification Plan The two main research questions result in two different requirements regarding the stratification plan. To gain insight into the prevalence of interorganizational temporary collaboration (IOTC) among Dutch SMEs, our sample of 1500 included firms from all relevant sectors and size classes. To learn more about the characteristics of the IOTCs in which the firms participated, the sample should identify a number of firms that participated in at least one IOTC. Our stratified sample plan had to meet both of these requirements. These requirements were met by using a large sample size and by consciously sampling a disproportionally large number of firms from sectors and size classes where prevalence of interorganizational temporary collaborations (IOTCs) was assumed to be high. A priori, it was assumed that the prevalence of IOTCs would be relatively high in sectors such as construction, engineering, consultancy and film and entertainment. To identify other promising sectors, the fieldwork was split into two waves of data collection. In the first wave, 500 interviews were completed across all relevant sectors and size classes, with a specific focus on the engineering, consultancy and entertainment sectors. The results of this wave were used to obtain a first impression of the prevalence of IOTCs across sectors. This information was then used to determine the stratification plan for the second wave of 1000 completed interviews.

Interorganizational temporary collaborations of Dutch SMEs

Table 1.2

19

Breakdown of response rate

Sampled enterprises No response Response, no interview attempt* Refusal to participate in interview Interview not completed Completed interview

Number

Per cent

6066 1564 1252 1731 19 1500

100 26 21 29 0 25

Note: *A response occurs, but an interview is not undertaken. Examples include a responding firm employing more than 250 employees and a respondent who qualifies but has no time to participate.

Sample In the first and second interview waves, 1500 interviews were completed. A total of 6066 enterprises were sampled in order to obtain this dataset of 1500. A breakdown of the response rate is presented in Table 1.2. The sample of 1500 enterprises covered all relevant economic sectors and size classes, with a disproportionally large number of firms from sectors and size classes where IOTCs can be found relatively often (see Tables 1.3 and 1.4). There are two obvious observations from Tables 1.3 and 1.4. Of the sampled enterprises, 73 per cent originated from specifically targeted industries such as: oil, chemical and metal; construction; land transportation; engineering; consulting; and entertainment, which included theatre and media. Firms with 50 or more employees accounted for 80 per cent of the sample. Data Categorization In the next two sections of the chapter, we present descriptive statistics on interorganizational temporary collaborations of Dutch SMEs by applying a framework developed by Stewart (2006) for classifying research on teams. Stewart’s classification was adapted from Cohen and Bailey’s (1997) work on group effectiveness. Stewart, as well as Cohen and Bailey, used three broad classification categories: organizational context, group composition and task characteristics. In this chapter, we add a fourth, temporal characteristics of IOTCs. IOTCs do not operate in a vacuum but in an organizational context. For example, some sectors, such as construction, might have a higher

20

Table 1.3

Temporary organizations

Breakdown of the sample by sector

Sectors

Number

Share (%)

281 267

18.7 17.8

14

0.9

295 62 60 188 171 17 134 234 73 55 106 243 128 110 5 3

19.7 4.1 4.0 12.5 11.4 1.1 8.9 15.7 4.9 3.7 7.1 16.1 8.5 7.3 0.3

Manufacturing Paper, petroleum products, chemicals, plastics, glass, basic metals and machinery Food, textile, leather, wood, electronics, transportation and furniture Construction Trade and repair Hotels and catering Transportation and communication Across land Other transportation and communication Financial services Business services Engineering Consulting Other business Other services Theatre, media and entertainment Employer organizations Others Other Total

Table 1.4

1500

Breakdown of the sample by size class

Class size (number of employees) 0 1–9 10–49 50–99 100–250 Total

100

Number

Share (%)

9 87 199 638 567

0.6 5.8 13.3 42.5 37.8

1500

100

prevalence of IOTC due to their specific activities. Group composition, our second category for classifying IOTCs, focuses on the characteristics of IOTCs and their participating members, and also includes IOTC heterogeneity and size, since both of these issues can relate to the processes and

Interorganizational temporary collaborations of Dutch SMEs

21

performance of interorganizational temporary collaborations. Category number three, task characteristics, refers to the division of and coordination among IOTC activities. Autonomy is a key construct that has emerged in research to describe how an IOTC’s tasks are coordinated with those of other – often parent – organizations. Intra-IOTC coordination captures task coordination activities within the IOTC. Because time plays a unique role for temporary organizations (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995), we have added a fourth category for classifying research on teams: the temporal characteristics of IOTCs, which includes duration and termination. A subsequent section draws on a typology of temporary interorganizational collaborations developed by Jones and Lichtenstein (2008). This typology was designed using the theoretical dimensions of both temporary and social embeddedness. The authors used a small number of cases to explore the insights derived from combining these dimensions. We use their framework in this chapter for two reasons: first, to present additional insights into this Dutch SME population of interorganizational temporary organizations and second to explore the discriminatory power and assess the external validity of the typology when it is applied to a large dataset. First, however, we focus on the prevalence of IOTCs among Dutch SMEs.

PREVALENCE OF TEMPORARY COLLABORATION AMONG DUTCH SMES To what extent do Dutch small and medium-sized firms participate in interorganizational temporary collaborations? In order to answer this question, we asked SMEs if they were involved in interorganizational partnerships, and if so, in what type of collaboration. We distinguished among three types of collaboration in the questionnaire: collaboration, but not temporary; temporary collaboration, but not joint; and joint temporary collaboration. In this context, joint refers to the conditions under which the partners in the collaboration were involved in the execution of a joint task and jointly carried the financial risk for the collaboration. Table 1.5 shows the sample distribution. Based on the prevalence of outcomes reported in Table 1.5, we can make a number of observations. A small majority (56.7 per cent) of the SME firms in our sample had some form of interorganizational collaboration. This finding stresses the importance of interorganizational relationships and networks among firms in general and specifically among SMEs. Of the firms in our sample, 31.1 per cent had a temporary interorganizational collaboration, and about 17 per cent of all responding firms had a

22

Table 1.5

Temporary organizations

Prevalence of collaboration among all firms with 1–250 employees

Firms with collaboration

Any collaboration of which: Temporary collaboration of which: Joint task execution Joint risk sharing Joint temporary collaboration

Number

Per cent of all firms surveyed*

Per cent of all collaborating firms**

848

56.7

100

465

31.1

54.8

375 273 252

25.1 18.2 16.8

44.2 32.2 29.7

Notes: * n = 1496 firms; **n = 848 firms; four firms did not know whether or not they were involved in any collaboration.

joint temporary collaboration. Since the sample was deliberately designed to identify firms with temporary interorganizational collaborations, these percentages are an overestimation of the actual percentages for the population of all Dutch private SMEs. Nevertheless, both figures highlight the relative importance of interorganizational temporary collaboration. Based on the responses, 54.8 per cent of all collaborations were temporary, and joint temporary collaborations accounted for about 30 per cent of all collaborations.

CHARACTERISTICS OF TEMPORARY COLLABORATIONS AMONG DUTCH SMES Composition of Interorganizational Temporary Collaborations IOTCs are composed of individual member organizations2 and the skills, abilities and dispositions they bring to the collaboration. Stewart’s research on teams (2006) elaborated on the relationship between these three traits and member performance and showed that there was a direct correlation between them. However, characteristics of individual IOTC members do not necessarily imply that the IOTC as a collective will perform well. As Schneider et al. pointed out (2000, p. 99), ‘The effects of a valid selection procedure [of individual members] can be nullified by any lack of cooperation within groups and by bottlenecks, shirking, and social loafing’. In

Interorganizational temporary collaborations of Dutch SMEs

Table 1.6

23

SMEs participating in IOTCs – industries and size class*

Industry** Manufacturing Construction Trade and repair Hotels and catering Transportation and communication Financial services Business services Other services

%

Size class **

%

8.7 29.0 1.6 1.2 7.1

1–9 10–49 50–99 100–250

3.2 8.4 38.6 49.8

5.6 15.5 31.3

Total

100

Total

Notes:

Size class is expressed in number of employees; **n = 252.

100

other words, both the characteristics of the individual IOTC member and the collective features of the IOTC must be studied to fully understand the impact of temporary collaboration. Our discussion starts with the individual IOTC member characteristics. IOTC Parent Organization Characteristics In this section we focus on the characteristics of the SMEs participating in IOTCs. First, we looked at the sector distribution and size class of SMEs participating in IOTCs. Table 1.6 reveals that 31.3 per cent of the SMEs interviewed were in other services and 29 per cent in the construction industries. A total of 24.2 per cent of the SMEs, 8.7 per cent in manufacturing industries and 15.5 per cent in business services, participated in the IOTCs. A logistic regression3 confirms that SMEs from these sectors have the largest likelihood of participating in an IOTC, and SMEs from trade and repair are least likely to be involved. Most of the interviewed firms participating in IOTCs (88.4 per cent) employed 50 or more people. Further analysis demonstrates that the likelihood of participating in a joint temporary collaboration increases with firm size: whereas 3.2 per cent of the sampled firms with 1 to 9 employees were involved in a joint temporary collaboration, this share increased to 49.8 per cent for the sampled firms with 100–250 employees. In other words, there is a clear tendency for larger SMEs to be involved in temporary organizations more often than smaller ones. In addition to distribution across industries and size class, we looked

24

Table 1.7

Temporary organizations

SMEs participating in IOTCs – different age groups

Age of SME in years 1–10 11–20 21–30 31–50 51–75 76–100 100 or older All

Percentage of SMEs participating in an IOTC 20.5 25.1 26.1 24.3 29.5 25.4 35.8 26.0

at the age distribution of SMEs that participated in IOTCs. By applying organization ecology theory logic, we propose that younger firms have a higher probability of participating in IOTCs. There are two reasons for this. First, younger firms are imprinted with the latest management insights. This, combined with the fact that temporary organizations are a relatively new phenomenon, indicates that younger firms could show a higher propensity for participating in an IOTC. In addition, younger SMEs have the highest need to establish linkages as a way to secure resources and lower uncertainty. Based on the results presented in Table 1.7, there is no clear evidence that IOTC participation by SMEs is age related. Although the youngest SMEs were less likely to participate in an IOTC, the margin by which the oldest firms were more likely to do so is small. However, regardless of this small margin and contrary to our expectations, the results do suggest a positive relationship between firm age and IOTC participation. On the other hand, for the older firms, such as SMEs 11 to 100 years old, there does not seem to be any relationship between firm age and IOTC participation. This is confirmed by a logistic regression4 in which the likelihood of participating in a joint temporary collaboration is related to the natural log of economic sector, firm size and firm age. While size and sector were both related to IOTC participation, the age of the SME parent organization was not. Therefore, we conclude that IOTC participation by SMEs is not age dependent. The indication that the prevalence of IOTCs among SMEs is size dependent is supported by the available information about the sales volumes of the SMEs in Table 1.8 and confirmed in the above logistic regression. In this example, size is defined as sales volume. SMEs with larger sales volumes tend to participate in an IOTC more often than those with lower

Interorganizational temporary collaborations of Dutch SMEs

Table 1.8

SMEs participating in IOTCs – sales data by volume

Sales volume in 2005, excluding VAT (€m)

Less than 2.5 2.5–5 5–10 10–20 20–50 50 or more All

Table 1.9

Percentage of SMEs participating in IOTCs within each sales category 21.9 20.2 26.3 26.6 31.7 35.4 26.8

Motives for joining the IOTC

Motive

Percentage

Increasing sales volume Access to new markets Innovation New knowledge Monitoring of external developments To extend the organizational network Other reasons Note:

25

46.0 36.9 43.7 34.1 17.1 35.7 28.6

Multiple responses are possible.

sales volumes. However, because a high percentage of the organizations (22 per cent) did not report their sales volumes, this interpretation must be made with some caution. An important question to consider is why the SME respondents joined an IOTC. The motives for joining are listed in Table 1.9. This table shows that 43.7 per cent of the responding firms joined an IOTC because they were planning product or service innovation; another 34.1 per cent joined to acquire new knowledge; and 46 per cent saw the IOTC as a way to increase sales volume. To a large extent these findings mirror the distinction we make in the introduction of this chapter between ad hoc project teams planning innovation and knowledge development and those ad hoc production teams aiming to sell new products. By applying a K-means cluster analysis, we explored which combinations of motivations reported in Table 1.9 can be grouped together. The results distinguished four combinations. First, the largest group of firms (about 46 per cent) participated in the IOTC to increase sales volumes.

26

Table 1.10

Temporary organizations

SMEs participating in IOTCs – using intraorganizational project teams?

Use Yes No Does not know

Percentage 86.8 12.0 1.2

The second group’s main motive to join the IOTC (27 per cent of the cases) was to innovate in combination with getting access to new markets. A third group of firms (also 27 per cent of the respondents) joined the IOTC for multiple reasons. With the exception of ‘new market access’, these firms indicated that all remaining motives applied. The fourth and smallest group of 1 per cent responded that a combination of two motives prompted them to join an IOTC – access to new markets and extension of the interorganizational network. One way to interpret this last result could be the belief by the SME that membership in an IOTC is a way of extending the distribution network of the firm. A last item for discussion in this subsection on IOTC parent organization characteristics is whether or not the SME worked internally with project teams. Having intraorganizational project teams indicates that the organization has had some experience with working in a project-based way, an experience they bring to the IOTC. It is clear that a vast majority of the SMEs participating in IOTC have had interorganizational project team experience. IOTC Size – Human Resources, Financial Resources The relationships between team size and performance vary. In some studies on teams, large teams suffered from a lack of coordination and process losses (Gooding and Wagner, 1985). In other studies large teams were found to be more effective than smaller teams (Magjuka and Baldwin, 1991) because they may have been more able to obtain resources such as time, energy, money and expertise. These resource acquisitions were expected to be particularly beneficial for teams conducting complex tasks in uncertain environments (Stewart, 2006). Assuming that research findings on teams apply largely to IOTCs, indicators of IOTC size are presented in Table 1.11. This describes the number of parent organizations – or participants – in each IOTC to which our sample of Dutch SMEs belonged. About one-third of the IOTCs had two parent organizations; another third had three or four parent organizations. In other words, a

Interorganizational temporary collaborations of Dutch SMEs

Table 1.11

IOTC size – number of parent organizations

Number of parent organizations in the IOTC (n = 252)

Percentage of IOTCs with this number of parent organizations

Cumulative percentage of IOTCs with this number of parent organizations in IOTCs

33.3 37.7 18.7 10.3

33.3 71.0 89.7 100

2 3–4 5–9 10 or more

Table 1.12

27

Number of parent organizations in IOTCs by sector

Sector

Number of parent organizations 2 (%)

3 (%)

4 or more (%)

Manufacturing Construction Trade and repair Hotels and catering Transport and communication Financial services Business services Other services

36.4 37.0 25.0 66.7 41.2 14.3 41.0 26.9

22.7 28.8 75.0 33.3 17.6 14.3 12.8 20.5

40.9 34.2 0.0 0.0 41.2 71.4 46.2 52.6

Total (n = 252)

33.6

22.4

44.0

vast majority, 71 per cent, of the IOTCs were relatively small, with four or fewer parent organizations. Table 1.12 shows the relative distribution of the number of parent organizations in the IOTCs by economic sector. Multi-actor collaborations with four or more participants comprised 44 per cent of the IOTCs, whereas two partners were involved in about 33 per cent of the IOTCs. Moreover, there were collaborations with four or more partners in both the financial and other services sectors, and to a lesser degree in the business services sector. The small IOTCs, with two participating partners, were predominantly in the hotel and catering industry, and to a lesser degree in transport and communication and business services. The breakdown by class size in Table 1.13 reveals that smaller firms (less than 50 employees) tended to participate in IOTCs with at least four partners more often than in those with fewer partners. However, these differences between the class sizes were statistically insignificant.

28

Table 1.13

Temporary organizations

Number of parent organizations in IOTCs by class size

Class size or number of employees

2 partners (%)

3 partners (%)

4 or more partners (%)

1–9 10–49 50–99 100–250

25.0 28.6 33.3 35.5

25.0 14.3 25.0 21.8

50.0 57.1 41.7 42.7

Total (n = 251)

33.7

22.5

43.8

Table 1.14

IOTC budget from parent organizations

Budget for IOTC Yes No Does not know Total (n = 252)

Percentage 65.9 33.3 0.8 100

To conduct their activities and tasks, IOTCs need resources such as finance and personnel. The volume of these resources can be regarded as indicators of IOTC size. When respondents were asked whether or not a specific budget was allocated to the IOTC by the participating parent organizations, 65.9 per cent of the IOTCs responded positively (see Table 1.14). However, further analyses showed that there were no direct relationships between either sectors, industries or class size and financial budget. Table 1.15 provides information on the actual size of the budget available to the IOTC. As expected, there are major differences among them. In this sample of 113 respondents, IOTC budgets ranged from 2000 to 300 million euros and averaged 12.1 million. Further analyses showed that there were no direct relationships between budget size and the number of IOTC participants, the number of employees in the IOTC or the tasks for which IOTCs were established. In our survey, we also asked IOTC participants what types of funds were used for financing the IOTC. From Table 1.16, it is clear that equity funding and subsidies were by far the most frequently used types of funding. Equity funding was used by 79 per cent of the participants in IOTCs. On one hand, this reflects that many participants in IOTCs are risk takers. On the other hand, the literature on governance regards equity financing as a strong way to govern interorganizational relationships

Interorganizational temporary collaborations of Dutch SMEs

Table 1.15

IOTC budgets

Budget size (in euros) <20,000 20,000–50,000 50,001–100,000 100,001–500,000 500,001–1,000,000 1,000,001–5,000,000 5,000,001–10,000,000 10,000,001–50,000,000 50,000,000 or more Total (n = 113)

Table 1.16

Percentage 6.2 8.1 8.9 16.1 8.9 25.9 7.2 11.7 7.0 100

Types of funds used to finance the IOTC

Type of funding

Percentage

Equity funding Debt capital Subsidies Other Does not know

79.0 11.5 36.5 15.1 1.2

Note:

29

n = 252.

because it most closely replicates the hierarchical control features of organizations (Gulati and Singh, 1998). In addition to financial resources, IOTCs use human resources to accomplish tasks and activities. For a second IOTC size indicator, we asked respondents how many of their employees participated in IOTC activities (Table 1.17). The average number of employees involved in an IOTC was 67. However, in a majority of IOTCs (80.3 per cent), less than 50 employees participated. These findings indicate that although some of the IOTCs were quite large, only about 5 per cent employed 250 or more persons. The next human resource characteristic we looked at was the percentage of SME employees who worked in IOTCs. The outcome provided some insight into the share of available human resources with which the responding parent organization was willing and able to provide the IOTC. Table 1.18 shows that about 86 per cent of the parent organizations in our sample assigned 25 per cent or less of their workforce to the IOTC. For

30

Table 1.17

Temporary organizations

Size and percentage of employees involved in IOTCs

Number of IOTC employees

Percentage involved in IOTC activities

<10 10–19 20–49 50–99 100 or more

25.8 26.6 27.9 8.6 11.1

Total

100

Mean = 67.3 Mode = 10 Standard deviation = 197.5 n = 233

Table 1.18

Percentage of SME employees involved in the IOTC

Percentage of SME employees assigned to the IOTC <25 26–50 51–75 76–100

Percentage of parent organizations 86.2 6.1 2.4 5.3

Cumulative percentage (n = 247) 86.2 92.3 94.7 100

92.3 per cent of the SMEs surveyed, 50 per cent or fewer employees were involved in the IOTC. In only 7.7 per cent of the cases were more than 50 per cent of SME employees assigned to the IOTC. Table 1.19 describes the relative participation of firms in the IOTC, based on total number of employees involved in the IOTC by each responding SME. These percentages were calculated by dividing the total number of employees working on the IOTC into the number of employees that the responding firm actually assigned to work on the IOTC. Thus, a figure of 50 per cent would indicate that half of the employees of the IOTC were on the payroll of the responding firm. On average, 35 per cent of the employees of IOTCs were on the payroll of the responding SME. In 23.7 per cent of the cases, this participation level was between 50 per cent and 69 per cent. Therefore, we concluded that there was some considerable variation in the relative levels of participation by involved SMEs.

Interorganizational temporary collaborations of Dutch SMEs

Table 1.19

31

Relative participation of SME employees in IOTCs

Relative SME participation (%) < 1 of total IOTC employees 1–9 10–29 30–49 50–69 70 or more Total

Percentage 1.7 9.1 32.3 25.9 23.7 7.3 100

Mean = 34.8% Mode = 50% Standard deviation = 21.5 n = 232

IOTC Heterogeneity In addition to IOTC parent organization characteristics and size, we looked at IOTC composition in a third way: member characteristics do not aggregate linearly. In this view Kristof-Brown et al. (2001) emphasized the importance of fit between members of an organizational unit. Research in this area focused on both the heterogeneity and homogeneity of member characteristics. Some studies have advocated that a heterogeneous group functions optimally. Theoretical arguments for this point of view have focused on the advantage of creativity that can be derived from diverse viewpoints, cultural backgrounds and skills. Conversely, proponents of homogeneity have stressed the notion that similarity among members lowers the probability of conflict. Therefore, heterogeneity of members of an organizational unit is usually advocated for units performing creative but not routine tasks. In the remainder of this section, we focus on the type of partners involved in the IOTC and hypothesize that IOTC diversity will probably have an impact on the processes and outcomes of IOTCs. Respondents were asked to indicate what types of partners were involved in the IOTC. Possible types to choose from included for-profit, governmental and notfor-profit organizations. Table 1.20 presents an overview in which the size – the number of participants in the IOTC – is also taken into account. In most cases, the responding firms were for-profit organizations. The vast majority, 81 per cent, of IOTCs in which two participants were involved were collaborations between two for-profit organizations. Six per cent

32

Table 1.20

Temporary organizations

IOTC participants and composition

Number of participants

IOTC composition by industry

2 (n = 84)

100% for-profit 50% governmental 50% other not-for-profit

81.0 6.0 13.0

3–4 (n = 95)

% for-profit organizations involved < 25 25–75 ≥ 75

36.8 63.2 0.0

% for-profit organizations involved < 25 25–75 ≥ 75

32.6 34.8 32.6

% for-profit organizations involved < 25 25–75 ≥ 75

37.5 16.7 45.8

5–9 (n = 46)

> 10 (n = 24)

Frequency of occurrence (%)

of the projects were collaborations between a for-profit and a governmental organization. For multi-actor IOTCs, those with more than two participants, the basic pattern of domination by for-profit firms remained consistent. Specifically, as the number of participants increased, the percentage of IOTCs composed of mainly for-profit firms increased. There were no IOTCs with three to four members in which 75 per cent or more of the participants were for-profit organizations. This increased to 45.8 per cent for IOTCs comprised of ten or more organizations. To find out whether there were groups of IOTCs in which specific combinations of types of partners were clustered, a K-means cluster analysis was conducted for multi-actor IOTCs. The results of a threecluster solution are presented in Table 1.21. The largest cluster (cluster 3) consisted of multi-actor IOTCs populated by predominantly for-profit organizations in combination with other not-for-profit organizations. The smaller clusters 1 and 2 were multi-actor IOTCs in which not-for-profit organizations collaborated with a relatively high number of government organizations (cluster 1) or in which governmental organizations collaborated with non-profit organizations (cluster 2). In other words, all clusters were quite heterogeneous. Next, we investigated whether there were different levels of satisfaction

Interorganizational temporary collaborations of Dutch SMEs

Table 1.21

Results of a K-means cluster analysis (final cluster centers)

Type of partner

For-profit Government Other not-for-profit

Table 1.22

33

Cluster 1 (n = 41)

2 (n = 29)

3 (n = 95)

7.9 10.4 81.7

10.4 67.0 22.6

67.8 7.4 24.8

Most important IOTC tasks

Task Produce a specific product or service Improve or innovate a production process Penetrate a new market Organize events Share knowledge or development Other

Percentage 53.4 12.0 9.6 5.6 4.8 14.7

among the three clusters. There were statistically insignificant differences, although the level of satisfaction was clearly the highest in cluster 3.5 In other words, there is some indication that homogeneity is advantageous.

IOTC TASK CHARACTERISTICS Task design is defined as the differentiation and integration of those activities conducted by the IOTC. In this section, we investigate which tasks were conducted by the sampled IOTCs, whether they were unique or recurrent, and what the intra-IOTC coordination looked like. Importance of IOTC Tasks IOTC members were asked an open question: to indicate the most important task of their temporary collaboration. After recoding, five major task categories emerged: to produce a specific product or service; to improve or innovate the production process or the development of a new production technology; to explore or penetrate a new market; to organize events; and to share knowledge or development. The distribution over these different tasks is shown in Table 1.22. In a majority of cases (53.4 per cent) the most important task of the IOTC was to produce a specific product or service,

34

Table 1.23

Temporary organizations

IOTC tasks – importance by industry (%)

Sector

Most important task 1

2

3

4

5

6

Manufacturing Construction Trade and repair Hotels and catering Transport and communication Financial services Business services Other services

36.4 72.2 25.0 33.3 55.6

36.4 4.2 0.0 0.0 22.2

13.6 1.4 25.0 33.3 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.5 6.9 0.0 0.0 5.6

9.1 15.3 50.0 33.3 16.7

35.7 56.4 44.3

21.4 5.1 12.7

7.1 17.9 12.7

0.0 7.7 13.9

21.4 0.0 2.5

14.3 12.8 13.9

Total (n = 251)

53.4

12.0

9.6

5.6

4.8

14.7

Notes: 1 = Produce a specific product or service 2 = Improve or innovate a production process 3 = Penetrate a new market 4 = Organize events 5 = Share knowledge or development 6 = Other

while improving or innovating a production process was an important task for 12 per cent of the IOTCs. In other words, a significant number of the IOTCs can be regarded as ad hoc production collaborations, whereas a smaller proportion of the IOTCs can be labelled ad hoc project collaborations (see Table 1.1). In Table 1.23, most sectors of IOTC members indicated that producing specific products or services was the most important task of the IOTC. This was true especially for firms in the construction, business services and transport and communication industries, where responses exceeded 50 per cent. Improving or innovating a production process was generally considered to be the second most important task across most of the industries studied. The major exception to these findings was in the trade and repair industry, where ‘other tasks’ was considered to be the most important task. The distribution in Table 1.24 is not statistically significant. The findings lead to the conclusion that both larger and smaller IOTCs (based on numbers of parent organizations or partners) conducted the same tasks. For all size classes, it is clear that producing a specific product or service was the most important task of the temporary collaboration. IOTCs with five to nine participants deviated a bit from this general pattern because a larger share of them improved or innovated production processes.

Interorganizational temporary collaborations of Dutch SMEs

Table 1.24

35

Most important IOTC task by IOTC size (number of partners) (%)

Size class (number of partners)

Most important task of the IOTC 1

2

3

4

5

6

2 partners 3–4 partners 5–9 partners 10 or more partners

55.4 54.7 42.6 64.0

10.8 10.5 21.3 4.0

12.0 7.4 10.6 8.0

9.6 2.1 4.3 8.0

3.6 5.3 6.4 4.0

8.4 20.0 14.9 12.0

Total (n = 251)

53.6

12.0

9.6

5.6

4.8

14.4

Notes: 1 = Produce a specific product or service 2 = Improve or innovate a production process 3 = Penetrate a new market 4 = Organize events 5 = Share knowledge or development 6 = Other

IOTC parent organizations were asked to indicate whether the task of the temporary collaboration was project-specific or recurrent. This distinction is important, since in project-specific tasks, the IOTC is confronted with higher levels of uncertainty and participating organizations can rely less on routines. The data show that there is a 50–50 overall distribution. Neither the size of the IOTC – in terms of number of employees – nor its most important task resulted in specific patterns. In other words, both smaller and larger IOTCs performed project-specific and recurrent tasks in similar proportions. The same would be true if the most important task of the IOTC is considered. Intra-IOTC Coordination Intra-IOTC coordination focuses on task coordination within the IOTC. This task coordination focus differs from autonomy because it looks at relationships within the IOTC rather than at relationships between the IOTC and other organizational units, such as the parent organizations (see Chapter 8, this volume). Collaborating groups such as IOTCs have high intraorganizational coordination when they are interdependent and when members depend upon each other for information, resources and other inputs. Research (Stewart and Barrick, 2000) has shown that high levels of coordination stimulate members to work together closely and develop shared norms and values. Moreover, this coordination has

36

Table 1.25

Temporary organizations

IOTC management strategies

Management strategies By one of the participating organizations Joint management Special management team Other Total (n = 172)

Percentage 30.2 30.2 33.1 6.5 100

improved intraorganizational processes by opening communication channels and building a group feeling. Others disagree. Saavedra et al. (1993) found that high levels of coordination created interdependencies that, in turn, had negative performance effects, whereas Wageman (1995) maintained that lower levels of independence were beneficial for efficiency and creative problem solving. To shed light on the ways the IOTCs in our sample are coordinated, we discuss findings on a number of dimensions of intra-IOTC coordination, including the way the IOTC is managed and the modes and frequency of intra-IOTC communication. IOTCs can be managed in multiple ways: by one of the participating organizations conducting the main managerial functions, by joint management, or through management by a special management team. Table 1.25 presents an overview of the different arrangements by which IOTCs are managed. In 30.2 per cent of the cases researched, IOTC management was the responsibility of one of the participating members; in 33.1 per cent a special management team was established, and joint management was found in 30.2 per cent of the IOTCs. Further analyses (not presented here) show that IOTC size often dictated the management method. The higher the number of organizations that participated in the IOTC, the lower the percentage of joint management and the higher the percentage of management by a special management team. For example, in 53.8 per cent of the cases, small IOTCs – those with two parent organizations – were governed jointly; only 16.7 per cent of the IOTCs with 5 to 9 parent organizations were jointly managed; and 38.9 per cent of the IOTCs of this size class were managed by a special management team. Size is thought to be an important determinant for how frequently IOTCs communicate. We expected a positive relationship between size and frequency of communication, thus the larger IOTCs – especially those with many employees – would be more complex and need to communicate more frequently in order to coordinate activities. Two main conclusions about size and frequency of communication can be drawn from the figures

Interorganizational temporary collaborations of Dutch SMEs

Table 1.26

37

Frequency of intra-IOTC communication by IOTC size (number of employees) (%)

IOTC size (employee number)

Frequency of interpersonal communication Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Less than monthly

Never

< 10 10–19 20–49 50–99 100 or more

8.3 16.1 23.1 40.0 38.5

41.7 45.2 35.4 20.0 38.5

35.0 33.9 40.0 40.0 15.4

15.0 3.2 1.5 0.0 7.6

0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total (n = 233)

20.6

38.6

34.3

6.0

0.5

Frequency of non-personal communication < 10 10–19 20–49 50–99 100 or more

26.7 37.1 40.0 50.0 61.6

43.3 54.8 52.3 35.0 27.0

23.3 6.5 7.7 10.0 3.8

5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8

1.7 1.6 0.0 5.0 3.8

Total (n = 233)

39.1

46.3

11.2

1.7

1.7

in Table 1.26. First, there is frequent interpersonal and non-personal communication in the IOTCs. For interpersonal communications, 38.6 per cent engaged in it weekly and 20.6 per cent on a daily basis, and 46.3 per cent weekly and 39.1 per cent daily for non-personal communication. It turned out however, that the frequency of interpersonal and non-personal communication was not size dependent.

TEMPORAL CHARACTERISTICS OF IOTCS The most distinct characteristic of an interorganizational temporary collaboration is its limited duration. Because IOTCs have different tasks, the duration of a temporary collaboration may vary. Several scholars have noted that time is an important issue in organizational life and impacts readily on observable and measurable processes, such as completing tasks, but also those processes that are not easily observable, such as thinking, reflecting and learning (Goddard, 2001; Bluedorn and Denhardt, 1998). The average duration of an interorganizational temporary collaboration was 4.2 years, and 59 per cent of the IOTCs had a maximum duration of 3 years (Table 1.27). While there was a large proportion of short-term

38

Table 1.27

Temporary organizations

IOTC duration

Duration in years

Percentage

Cumulative percentage

4 9 23 23 12 7 15 7

4 13 36 59 71 78 93 100

Shorter than 0.5 year 0.5 – < 1 year 1 – < 2 years 2 – < 3 years 3 – < 4 years 4 – < 5 years 5 – < 10 years 10 years or longer Total

100

Mean = 4.2 years Median = 2.9 years Mode = 3 years Standard deviation = 4.47 years n = 252

Table 1.28

How IOTCs are terminated

How On a fixed date Upon task completion Other Do not know Total (n = 252)

Percentage 25.8 67.5 6.3 0.4 100

collaboration in our sample, a considerable number of all the IOTCs had a relatively long time horizon: 29 per cent lasted longer than four years. How IOTCs are terminated is the next logical question we addressed. Respondents were asked whether termination took place on a fixed date, upon task completion or in another way. As Table 1.28 shows, in a majority of cases the IOTCs were terminated upon task completion, while 25.8 per cent responded that the IOTC was terminated on a pre-planned date. Because the majority of IOTCs were terminated upon task completion, we might assume that, in practice, time limitations were less pressing, allowing actors to have more flexibility. As is evidenced by the figures in Table 1.29, there are hardly any differences between size classes with respect to the way of project termination.

Interorganizational temporary collaborations of Dutch SMEs

Table 1.29

39

IOTC termination by number of employees

Number of employees

Fixed date

Task completion

Other way

< 10 10 – 19 20 – 49 50 – 99 100 or more

23.3 30.6 24.6 35.0 19.2

66.7 66.1 72.3 65.0 73.1

10.0 3.2 3.1 0.0 7.7

Total (n = 233)

26.2

68.7

5.1

Table 1.30

IOTC termination by sector (%)

Sector

Fixed date

Task completion

Other way

Manufacturing Construction Trade and repair Hotels and catering Transport and communication Financial services Business services Other services

31.8 12.4 25.0 0.0 27.8 21.4 30.8 35.4

59.1 84.9 75.0 100.0 72.2 78.6 56.4 54.4

9.1 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.8 10.2

Total (n = 252)

25.8

67.5

6.7

To find out if there were differences in IOTC termination among sectors, we constructed Table 1.30, based on SME responses to our survey. The results show clear differences among sectors for terminating IOTCs, with most favoring termination upon task completion over a fixed date termination. Only the business and other services sectors had a relatively high percentage of IOTCs with fixed termination. Termination upon task completion was found relatively often in the construction, trade and repair, hotel and catering, and financial services industries. Whether or not there was an association between an IOTC’s task and the way in which the collaboration is terminated is presented in Table 1.31. There was no association.6 IOTCs that had penetrating a new market as their most important task deviated slightly from the general pattern. The results reported in Table 1.32 show that a large majority of IOTCs conducting a one-time unique task were terminated after completing their assignments. This was also true, but to a lesser extent (56.9 per cent), for IOTCs performing recurrent tasks. The distribution found is statistically significant.7

40

Table 1.31

Temporary organizations

IOTC termination by task (%)

Tasks

Fixed date

Task completion

Other way

Production of a specific product or service Improvement or innovation of production process Penetration of a new market Events organization Share knowledge or development Other

22.4

73.2

4.4

16.7

73.3

10.0

45.8 28.6 33.3 29.7

50.0 64.3 58.3 56.8

4.2 7.1 8.4 13.5

Total (n = 251)

25.9

67.3

6.8

Table 1.32

IOTC termination by task recurrence (%)

Task

Fixed date

Task completion

Other way

Once only Recurrent Does not know

21.3 31.0 22.2

76.4 56.9 77.8

2.4 12.1 0.0

Total (n = 252)

25.8

67.5

6.7

Although the main way in which IOTCs are different from permanent organizations is their predetermined limited duration, there can be a tendency towards permanency in temporary collaborations over time. In other words, in principle, independent organizations can collaborate with the same partners on a temporary basis repeatedly. In his 1995 study, Gulati proposed that repeated interactions generated interorganizational trust and lowered the need for formal governance. From the figures in Table 1.33, we can deduce that these repeated ties are common. The occurrence of repeated interorganizational temporary collaborations is apparent in Table 1.34. When we asked SMEs with repeated ties how frequently they occurred, 38.5 per cent of the respondents replied that they had collaborated three or more times with the same partners in the last three years. Several conclusions can be formulated on the basis of the findings presented in this section on the temporal characteristics of IOTCs. Of these, two are the most important. First, there is a large variation in the duration of temporary collaborations, leading us to believe that there is no such

Interorganizational temporary collaborations of Dutch SMEs

Table 1.33

IOTC partnerships – prior experience in the previous three years

Prior experience with same partners Yes No Does not know Total (n = 252)

Table 1.34

41

Percentage 58.3 40.9 0.8 100

IOTC partnerships – same partners in the previous three years

Number of repeat collaborations 1 2 3 4–9 10–19 20 or more Does not want to report Total (n = 109)

Percentage 29.4 30.3 19.3 12.9 2.7 3.6 1.8 100

thing as the typical temporary organization. Second, based on the levels of atemporality (see Chapter 5, this volume), we find that many SMEs have collaborated repeatedly and on a temporary basis with the same partners. Therefore, one could argue that for these firms, temporary collaboration is, to a certain extent, routine behavior.

INTERORGANIZATIONALITY In her study on interorganizational teams of suppliers and buyers, Stock (2006) developed the concept of interorganizationality. This concept referred to the extent to which each parent organization was equally represented by the same number of members in their IOTC, and to what extent power was equally distributed among those organizations. Interorganizationality is connected to effectiveness. Therefore, effectiveness of an interorganizational unit will be highest when interorganizationality is maximal; that is, when parent organizations are equally represented and power is equally distributed. If interorganizationality is low because of dominance by one parent organization, the voice of other

42

Table 1.35

Temporary organizations

IOTC size (number of parent organizations) and equality of financial contributions in the previous three years (%)

Equality of financial contributions Equal Fairly equal Unequal Very unequal Does not know Total (n = 199)

Table 1.36

IOTC size

Total

2

3–4

5–9

10 or more

28.8 43.9 19.7 6.1 1.5

26.7 38.7 14.7 18.7 1.2

14.6 41.5 24.4 19.5 0.0

23.5 29.5 17.6 23.5 5.9

100

100

100

100

24.6 40.2 18.6 15.1 1.5 100

Perceived influence of SME in IOTC relative to the other partners

Relative SME influence Much higher Higher Fairly equal Lower Much lower Total (n = 252)

Percentage 28.2 12.3 47.2 11.1 1.2 100

participants will probably be ignored, increasing the probability of conflict and impacting negatively on effectiveness. In a previous section, we addressed IOTC composition. In this section, we focus on the balance of power in the IOTC based on the concept of interorganizationality. Two indicators of this balance will be discussed: equality of financial contributions and equality of perceived influence. In Table 1.35 we present a breakdown of the equality of financial contributions – by the SMEs to the IOTCs – based on the number of IOTC participants. About 65 per cent of the respondents stated that the financial contributions of the IOTC participants were fairly equal or equal, but a breakdown by IOTC size shows some differences. Although there was a tendency for the amount of contributions to be less equal as IOTC size increased, these differences were not statistically significant.8 Equal or unequal financial contributions do not necessarily translate into (un)equal levels of influence by the SME on the IOTC, as is evidenced by Table 1.36. It was thought by 47.2 per cent of the SMEs that their

Interorganizational temporary collaborations of Dutch SMEs

43

influence on the IOTC was equal to the influence of other IOTC partners. However, 40.5 per cent of SMEs thought that their organizations’ influence on the IOTC was comparatively higher or much higher. Further analyses – not presented here – showed that there was clearly a statistically significant association between the perceived levels of influence of the respondent, and the level of balance in financial contributions of IOTC participants. More unequal financial contributions tended to be associated with a higher level of perceived influence of the responding firm on the IOTC.9 In other words, higher financial contributions translated into a more powerful position in the IOTC.

TYPES OF INTERORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION Jones and Lichtenstein (2008) proposed four prototypical interorganizational collaboration projects that can be distinguished based on combinations of duration and repeated ties. The researchers used these two combinations to show how multiple organizational actors coordinate their joint activities to reduce the uncertainty of demand, that is, uncertainty due to rapid shifts in user tastes and preferences, and transactional uncertainty – uncertainty due to interdependencies emerging from the joint production of services and products. This typology also captures how variance in project duration affects the kinds of coordination techniques put in place when multiple organizations collaborate to conduct a joint task. Based on research by Clark (1985) and Gersick (1994), these authors have argued that variance in project duration is coordinated by three combinations of temporal markers: chronological-, event- and entrainment-based pacing. According to Jones and Lichtenstein, interorganizational projects can also be influenced by repeated ties (see also Gulati, 1995). Their basic argument is: when interactions evolve from one of a kind single exchanges to repeated, durable interorganizational ties, understandings become more widely shared and trust that facilitates coordination and guides collaborative activities is built. In Table 1.37, we explore the discriminatory power and external validity of Jones and Lichtenstein’s typology by applying it to our sample of SME temporary organizations. In the next section we will investigate the prevalence of the four types of IOTCs in our sample. To construct these four types, we used their two variables – repeated ties and project duration. We defined repeated ties as prior collaboration with the same partners in the previous three years and project duration as temporal embeddedness. We dummy coded temporal embeddedness so that one category contained all

44

Table 1.37

Temporary organizations

Four types of IOTCs

Repeated ties

Relations unlikely to recur and endure across projects

Relations recur and endure across projects

Project duration Shorter project duration

Longer project duration

Type I: Single project organizing Exemplar: Film

Type II: Multi-party organizing Exemplar: Crisis response

Who coordinates: Specific role – such as director and a general contractor

Who coordinates: Multiple 3rd party organizations – such as Red Cross and national and local authorities

How they coordinate: Temporal embeddedness Temporal pacing with deadlines encoded in contracts Event-based pacing – sequences of project Social embeddedness Relational embeddedness – low for manufacturing; high for a few key players Structural embeddedness – dense but fleeting relations for most organizations due to people working across projects Use of hierarchical roles Type III: Network alliances Exemplar: Architecture and construction

How they coordinate: Temporal embeddedness Entrainment pacing – timed to crisis needs Event-based pacing – phases of crisis efforts Social embeddedness Relational embeddedness – low for key emergency organizations; low for country agency and emergency NGOs Structural embeddedness – higher overlap for key NGOs Use of hierarchical roles – key NGOs and government

Who coordinates: Lead firm – provides products and services How they coordinate: Temporal embeddedness Temporal pacing – deadlines and roles encoded in contracts

Type IV: Constellations Exemplar: Large-scale engineering design and construction Who coordinates: Lead firm or government agency How they coordinate: Temporal embeddedness Event-based pacing – phases of project

Interorganizational temporary collaborations of Dutch SMEs

Table 1.37

(continued)

Repeated ties

Source:

45

Project duration Shorter project duration

Longer project duration

Event-based pacing – sequences of project Social embeddedness Relational embeddedness – recurring relations between some partners across projects Structural embeddedness – intermediate density due to repeated relations among groups of partners

Temporal pacing – milestones Social embeddedness Relational embeddedness among large firms – low with governmental clients and local firms Structural embeddedness – fragmented with constellations of key organizations and little repetition among those in the market or field

Jones and Lichtenstein (2008: 241).

Table 1.38

Frequencies of four types of IOTCs (%)

Social embeddedness

No prior collaboration Prior collaboration

Temporary embeddedness Shorter project duration

Longer project duration

20.8 (Type I) 29.6 (Type III)

21.7 (Type II) 27.9 (Type IV)

Total (n = 226)

100

IOTCs with a project duration of less than or equal to the median project duration, 35 months. The second category comprised all IOTCs whose project duration lasted 36 months or longer. The second variable, social embeddedness, consisted of two categories: one having no prior collaboration with the same partners in the recent past (40.9 per cent) and the other having collaboration in the recent past (58.3 per cent). Prevalence of the Four Types of IOTCs The results of combining high and low levels of temporal and social embeddedness are presented in Table 1.38. At the one end of the combined scales (Type I: the upper left corner of the table) are the one-time joint

46

Temporary organizations

Table 1.39

IOTC types and size (number of parent organizations) (%)

Size

Type of IOTC

2 3–4 5–9 10 or more Total

Type I

Type II

Type III

Type IV

57.4 29.8 10.6 2.2

34.7 40.8 10.2 14.3

24.3 43.9 21.2 10.6

20.6 42.9 27.0 9.5

100

100

100

100

Total (n = 225) 32.4 40.0 18.2 9.4 100

projects (like film productions) that have a relatively short lifespan and that are composed of organizations that did not interact before. So-called constellations (Type IV) can be found in the lower right corner of the table, where longer lasting IOTCs can be found. Based on our findings, Type III IOTCs are the most common. Short-term collective endeavors with repeated ties comprised 29.6 per cent of the interorganizational temporal collaborations. Short-term collaborations with no prior ties emerged in 20.8 per cent of the cases.

IOTC TYPES AND COMPOSITION Types of IOTC and Size There were clear differences in size among the four types of IOTCs. Type I collaborations – short project duration and no prior collaboration – had an average of three parent organizations. With almost six, Type III – shorter projects and prior collaboration – had the highest average number of partners, and Types II and IV collaborations averaged 4.5 partners each. Based on our results (Table 1.39) we can make the following observations: ●

●

●

A large majority of Type I IOTCs (57.4 per cent) had two parent organizations while IOTCs with three or more partners were far more prevalent in Types II, III and IV; 14.3 per cent of Type II IOTCs had ten or more partners. While this number may appear low, it is higher than any of the other three types; Types III and IV IOTCs had relatively high percentages of IOTCs with five to eight partners (21.2 per cent and 27.0 per cent respectively).

Interorganizational temporary collaborations of Dutch SMEs

Table 1.40

IOTC types and size (number of employees involved) (%)

Size

Type of IOTC

< 10 10–19 20–49 50–99 100 or more Total

Table 1.41

Total

Type I

Type II

Type III

Type IV

(n = 215)

21.7 23.9 34.8 10.9 8.7

29.8 25.5 27.7 8.5 8.5

24.2 29.0 24.2 12.9 9.7

23.3 26.7 31.7 5.0 13.3

24.7 26.5 29.3 9.3 10.2

100

100

100

100

100

IOTC types by project (budget) size in euros (%)

IOTC size

< 80 000 80 001–600 000 600 001–4 500 000 > 4 500 000 Total

47

Type of IOTC Type I

Type II

Type III

Type IV

20.8 17.2 17.2 44.8

15.6 6.2 31.3 46.9

14.9 21.3 17.0 46.8

4.3 17.4 17.4 60.9

100

100

100

100

Total (n = 154) 13.1 16.2 20.1 50.6 100

We found no strong relationships between IOTC types and the number of its employees (Table 1.40). The only indications were that Types II and III were relatively small, and Type IV was somewhat overrepresented in the larger size classes. However, none of these differences were statistically significant. If IOTC size were measured by budget size, the pattern emerging from Table 1.40 would be strengthened. However, in Table 1.41 it is clear that the smallest projects in terms of funds available can be found among Type I IOTCs: 20.8 per cent of them had a budget below 80 000 euros. On the other hand, Type IV often had large projects: 60.9 per cent had a budget larger than 4.5 million euros. Types II and III were typically more medium-sized projects. IOTC Types and Heterogeneity The breakdown of the four IOTC types and their partners is an indicator of the level of IOTC heterogeneity. We have analyzed the results in two steps: first, for IOTCs in which two partners participated and second, for multi-partner IOTCs.

48

Table 1.42

Temporary organizations

IOTC types and heterogeneity (two-partner IOTCs) (%)

Type of partner (by sector)

For-profit organization Governmental organization Other not-for-profit organizations Total (n = 73)

Table 1.43

Type of IOTC Type I

Type II

Type III

Type IV

88.9 3.7 7.4

82.4 11.8 5.8

93.8 0.0 6.2

61.5 7.7 30.8

100

100

100

100

IOTC types and heterogeneity (multi-partner IOTCs) (%)

Type of partner

Cluster 1 (predominantly not-for-profit) Cluster 2 (government + not-for-profit) Cluster 3 (predominantly for-profit) Total (n = 152)

Type of IOTC Type I

Type II

30.0 5.0 65.0

21.9 12.5 65.6

100

100

Type III Type IV 28.0 18.0 54.0 100

24.0 22.0 54.0 100

Aside from slight variations in each of the four IOTC types, there was more collaboration among for-profit than not-for-profit organizations for two-partner IOTCs in our SME study (Table 1.42). Only Type IV had a relatively large proportion (30.8 per cent) of collaborations among not-forprofit, as well as for-profit organizations. Other than this, there were only minor, statistically insignificant differences among the four IOTC types. In our analysis of IOTC types and multi-partner IOTCs, we applied the results of our cluster analysis to the composition of multi-partner IOTCs and found more distinct differences among the four IOTC types. We now observed that a relatively high percentage (65.0 per cent) of Type I (shortterm with no prior collaboration) and of Type II was a collaboration in which most of the participating actors were for-profits (cluster 3). This is partly in line with Jones and Lichtenstein’s typology of temporary interorganizational collaboration. Moreover, in particular, multi-partner interorganizational temporary collaborations with governmental organizations (cluster 2) were found relatively often in Type III (short-term with prior collaboration) and Type IV (long-term with prior collaboration) IOTCs. Our findings for Type III IOTCs largely failed to resemble Jones and Lichtenstein’s predictions. Based on this we concluded that their typology did not work very well for the Dutch IOTCs.

Interorganizational temporary collaborations of Dutch SMEs

Table 1.44

IOTC types and recurrence of task (%)

Recurrence of task

Type of IOTC Type I

Type II

Type III

Type IV

61.7 29.8 8.5

51.0 44.9 4.1

55.2 44.8 0.0

49.2 46.0 4.8

Once Recurrent Does not know Total (n = 226)

Table 1.45

49

100

100

100

100

IOTC types and management type (%)

IOTC management type

One of the IOTC participants Jointly by participants Special management team Other way Total (n = 152)

Type of IOTC Type I

Type II

Type III

Type IV

19.4 38.7 32.3 9.6

36.0 28.0 24.0 12.0

32.1 21.4 41.1 5.4

24.9 35.1 35.0 5.0

100

100

100

100

IOTC Types and Task Characteristics The four types of IOTCs were established to perform either a recurring or a one-time task (Table 1.44). The Jones and Lichtenstein typology proposed that Type I IOTCs would show a high percentage of non-recurring tasks. Our data confirmed this. Although high percentages were also found for the rest of the IOTC types, they were not statistically significant. Type I IOTCs had the lowest percentage of recurrent tasks, with 29.8 per cent, and 46 per cent of Type IV IOTCs had recurrent tasks. In other words, the level of routine was the highest for long-term IOTCs with no prior collaboration. Intra-IOTC Coordination According to Jones and Lichtenstein, hierarchical management by one lead organization was prevalent in most IOTCs (Types I, III and IV) but multi-party management was characteristic of Type II IOTCs. Our results, however, showed no statistically significant differences among IOTC types (Table 1.45). Management by one of the IOTC participants was relatively

50

Table 1.46

Temporary organizations

IOTC types and legal forms (%)

Legal form

Yes No Total (n = 226)

Type of IOTC Type I

Type II

Type III

Type IV

34.0 66.0

49.0 51.0

16.4 83.6

36.5 63.5

100

100

100

100

strong among Type II and III IOTCs. Type I and Type IV IOTCs applied joint management relatively often. The establishment of a special management team was often the preferred way of managing an IOTC for Types III and IV, although the difference from joint management was very small for Type IV. Interorganizational governance literature argues that low trust levels, especially for those partners who have not collaborated in the past, will result in appropriations concerns. In IOTCs with a longer duration, rents of the collaboration emerged over time and outcomes became unclear. These concerns have been mitigated through the use of hierarchical governance structures such as legal forms to guide and monitor behavior. If concerns were truly allayed by means of such structures, most long-term IOTCs between partners with no prior ties (Type II) would use a legal form most frequently. Table 1.46 shows that this was indeed the case with the Dutch IOTCs. Of Type II – long-term partners with no prior ties – 49 per cent had a legal form, confirming our expectations. The percentages of other types with legal forms were much lower. Only 16.4 per cent of Type III used a separate legal entity, possibly indicating that these partners had collaborated repeatedly on short-term projects. Because of this shadow of the past, partners that have already collaborated have higher trust levels and less need for formal legal forms. IOTC Types and Temporal Characteristics This chapter contains two relevant temporal characteristics: duration and method of termination. Termination methods were discussed in a previous section of this chapter; here we discuss them across types of IOTCs. In our study of Dutch IOTCs, there were no major differences in how IOTC types were terminated. In the majority of all types, collaboration was terminated after task completion, although this percentage was considerably lower in the Type IV case.

Interorganizational temporary collaborations of Dutch SMEs

Table 1.47

51

IOTC types and duration (when IOTCs are terminated) (%)

When

On a fixed date Upon task completion Other Does not know Total (n = 226)

Type of IOTC Type I

Type II

Type III

Type IV

21.3 78.7 0.0 0.0

24.5 73.5 2.0 0.0

22.4 70.1 6.0 1.5

39.7 54.0 6.3 0.0

100

100

100

100

INTERORGANIZATIONALITY In a previous section, we argued that IOTC performance might benefit from high levels of interorganizationality. In particular, higher levels of equality of financial contributions and of influence are regarded as favorable for higher outcomes. In this section, we investigate the extent of the differences between the IOTC types for these two indicators. There were no statistically significant differences among the IOTC types for either equality of financial contributions or the influence indicators (see Table 1.48). SME respondents stated that regardless of interorganizationality, overall financial contributions by IOTC participants were fairly equal or equal. The percentages ranged from 60.8 per cent for Type IV to 76.3 per cent for Type II. The level of influence was also equal. For each IOTC type, 39.7 per cent or more of the respondents evaluated their influence more-or-less equal to that of the other participants.

CONCLUSIONS This chapter provides an initial understanding of the prevalence and characteristics of interorganizational temporary collaborations (IOTCs), focusing specifically on those IOTCs in which Dutch small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) participate. The study was based on a survey of 1500 Dutch enterprises with up to 250 employees. The results showed that 31 per cent of the sampled SMEs were involved in an IOTC and 17 per cent were involved in an IOTC with either joint task execution or joint risk sharing, which qualifies as a true temporary collaboration in the context of this chapter. Due to the stratification plan of the sample, the dataset did not permit us to provide an unbiased estimate of the total number of Dutch SMEs

52

Table 1.48

Temporary organizations

IOTC types – equality of financial contributions and influence indicators (%)

Equality of financial contributions Equal Fairly equal Unequal Very unequal Does not know Total (n = 182)

Type of IOTC Type I

Type II

Type III

Type IV

22.5 40.0 22.5 15.0 0.0

34.2 42.1 18.4 5.3 0.0

28.3 34.0 17.0 20.7 0.0

19.6 41.2 21.6 15.7 1.9

100

Equality of influence

Much higher Higher Fairly equal Lower Much lower Total (n = 226)

100

100

100

Type of IOTC Type I

Type II

Type III

Type IV

29.8 10.6 44.7 14.9 0.0

20.4 12.2 51.0 12.2 4.2

31.3 13.4 49.3 4.5 1.5

31.7 12.7 39.7 15.9 0.0

100

100

100

100

involved in IOTCs. Nevertheless, the data strongly suggest that a considerable share of SMEs were involved in one or several IOTCs. Moreover, it is important to remember that the data presented in this chapter only apply to Dutch SMEs. Prevalence The prevalence of IOTCs among SMEs varied along a number of dimensions such as firm size – employee number or sales volume of the parent firm – and sector. Also, some factors contributed to a high prevalence while others, such as age, were not relevant. Characteristics In addition to prevalence, in this chapter we discussed the characteristics of IOTCs based on composition, tasks, temporality and activity. The most obvious characteristic of IOTCs was heterogeneity. The number of IOTC parent organizations ranged from two to more than 20. The number of employees involved in the surveyed IOTCs ranged from two to more than

Interorganizational temporary collaborations of Dutch SMEs

53

500, with a mean of 67 employees and a budget of between 2000 and 300 million euros. This large range in the size of IOTCs is consistent with the range of size found for individual enterprises. The surveyed SMEs mentioned a variety of motives for participating in IOTCs. The two that were most often cited were increasing sales volume and innovating. Other oftenmentioned motives that were cited by the respondents were gaining access to new markets, acquiring new knowledge and extending networks. There was little variation in what was considered the most important task of the IOTC. The SMEs responded that IOTCs were often organized to produce a specific product or service. The second most mentioned task – improving or innovating a production process – occurred with only 12 per cent of the IOTCs. Combined, these findings indicate that the production of a specific product or service may serve several objectives, ranging from increasing sales volume and innovating to gaining access to new markets, thereby extending a firm’s network and acquiring new knowledge. An IOTC task can be based either on a single or a recurrent project. Our empirical findings indicated that both options occurred equally and that neither was related to the nature of the task. The task of the IOTC was managed by the parent organizations, by one of the parent organizations, or by a specific management team. In general, these three occurred equally, but joint management occurred more often in those IOTCs with relatively few parent organizations. There was evidence of a skewed distribution in the temporal characteristics of IOTCs. The mean duration of those sampled was 4.2 years, the median duration was 2.9 years and 36 per cent of the IOTCs lasted two years or less. In 67.5 per cent of cases, IOTCs were terminated upon task completion. Approximately 25 per cent of the surveyed SMEs responded that the IOTC would be terminated on a fixed date. This occurred most often in the case of IOTCs with recurrent tasks and those whose main task was penetrating a new market or organizing an event. In sum, one can conclude that interorganizational temporary collaboration comes in many different shapes. Moreover, for many SMEs, temporary collaboration was a continuous affair, as was indicated by the number of times the SMEs had collaborated with the same partner in the past. Exploring a Typology of IOTCs In this chapter we applied the typology based on temporal and social embeddedness developed by Jones and Lichtenstein (2008). This was done by classifying the IOTCs in our sample into four categories, based on prior collaboration with the current partner organizations – as a proxy for social embeddedness – and the length of the project duration – as a

54

Temporary organizations

proxy for temporal embeddedness. The characteristics of the resulting four IOTC types partially fitted the Jones and Lichtenstein framework, particularly regarding the heterogeneity of the involved parent organizations and intra-IOTC coordination. However, in many other respects this classification did not result in relatively homogeneous subsets of IOTCs. For example, there were no significant differences in the main task, the recurrence of tasks, the number of employees involved, or interorganizationality. It is clear that much research is still needed to arrive at an IOTC typology that is both theoretically and empirically valid.

NOTES 1. The survey questionnaire was developed in close cooperation by researchers of Tilburg University and EIM Business and Policy Research. 2. When referring to members, we mean organizations. Thus, IOTC composition refers to characteristics of organizations and not people participating in temporary organizations. 3. The results of the logistic regression analysis are available on request from the authors. 4. The results of the logistic regression analysis are available on request from the authors. 5. Kruskal-Wallis Chi Square is 2.303 with two degrees of freedom. Level of significance is 0.316. 6. Significance level of Pearson Chi-square is 0.475. 7. Significance level of Pearson Chi-square is 0.020. 8. Significance level of Pearson Chi-square is 0.384. 9. Spearman’s rho is 0.217 with a level of significance of 0.047.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ahuja, G. (2000), ‘Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 45 (3), 425–455. Albanese, R. (1994), ‘Team-building process: Key to better project results’, Journal of Management in Engineering, 10 (6), 36–44. Bechky, B. (2006), ‘Gaffers, gofers and grips: Role-based coordination in temporary projects’, Organization Science, 17 (1), 3–22. Bluedorn, A.C. and R.B. Denhardt (1998), ‘Time and organizations’, Journal of Management, 14, 299–320. Clark, P. (1985), ‘A review of the theories of time and structure sociology’, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 4, 35–79. Cohen, S.G. and D.E. Bailey (1997), ‘What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite’, Journal of Management, 23, 239–290. Devine, D.J., Clayton, L.D., Philips, J.L., Dunford, B.B. and S.B. Melner (1999), ‘Teams in organizations: Prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness’, Small Group Research, 30 (6), 678–711. Gersick, C.J.G. (1994), ‘Pacing strategic change: The case of a new venture’, Academy of Management Journal, 37 (1), 9–45.

Interorganizational temporary collaborations of Dutch SMEs

55

Goddard, R. (2001), ‘Time in organizations’, Journal of Management Development, 20 (1), 19–27. Gooding, R.Z. and J.A. Wagner (1985), ‘A meta-analytical review of the relationship between size and performance: The productivity and efficiency of organizations and their subunits’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 30 (4), 462–481. Grabher, G. (2000), ‘The project ecology of advertising: Tasks, talents, and teams’, Regional Studies, 36 (3), 245–262. Gulati, R. and H. Singh (1998), ‘The architecture of cooperation: Managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 43 (4), 781–814. Hannan, M.T. and J.H. Freeman (1984), ‘Structural inertia and organizational change’, American Sociological Review, 49, 149–164. Jones, C. and B.B. Lichtenstein (2008), ‘Temporary interorganizational projects: How temporal and social embeddedness enhance coordination and manage uncertainty’, in S. Cropper, M. Ebers, C. Huxham and P. Smith-Ring (eds), Oxford Handbook of Interorganizational Relationships, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 231–255. Kristof-Brown, A.L. and C.K. Stevens (2001), ‘Goal congruence in project teams: Does the fit between members’ personal mastery and performance goals matter?’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (6), 1083–1095. Lubatkin, M., Florin, J. and P. Lane (2001), ‘Learning together and apart: A model of reciprocal interfirm learning’, Human Relations, 54 (10), 1353–1382. Lundin, R.A. and A. Söderholm (1995), ‘A theory of the temporary organization’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11 (4), 437–455. Magjuka, R.J. and T.T. Baldwin (1991), ‘Team-based employee involvement programs: Effects of design and administration’, Personnel Psychology, 44, 793–812. Mathieu, J., Travis Maynard, M., Rapp, T. and L. Gilson (2008), ‘Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future’, Journal of Management, 34 (3), 410–476. Rämö, H. (2002), ‘Doing things right and doing the right things: Time and timing in projects’, International Journal of Project Management, 20 (7), 569–574. Saavedra, R., Earley, P.C. and L. Van Dyne (1993), ‘Complex interdependence in task-performing groups’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 61–72. Schneider, B., Smith, D.B. and W.P. Sipe (2000), ‘Personnel selection and psychology: Multilevel considerations’, in K.J. Klein and S.W.J. Kozlowski (eds), Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, San Francisco, US: Jossey-Bass, pp. 91–156. Stewart, G.L. (2006), ‘A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance’, Journal of Management, 32 (1), 29–54. Stewart, G.L. and M.R. Barrick (2000), ‘Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type’, Academy of Management Journal, 43 (2), 135–148. Stock, R.M. (2006), ‘Inter teams as boundary spanners between suppliers and customer companies’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (4), 588–599. Wageman, R. (1995), ‘Interdependence and group effectiveness’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (1), 340–350. Winch, G. (1989), ‘The construction firm and the construction project: A transaction cost approach’, Construction Management and Economics, 7 (4), 331–345.

2

Research on temporary organizations: the state of the art and distinct approaches toward ‘temporariness’* Martyna Janowicz-Panjaitan, René M. Bakker and Patrick Kenis

INTRODUCTION Temporary organizations (TOs) exist in a vast range of economic and social activities and across a range of industries. In the commercial sector, TOs may involve a joint effort to develop a new technology or product, bring about organizational renewal or enter a new market (Goodman and Goodman, 1972, 1976; Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). They are prevalent in industries such as engineering, construction, architecture, film making and theater production (Bechky, 2006; Ekstedt et al., 1992; Engwall, 2003; Goodman and Goodman, 1972, 1976; Morley and Silver, 1977). In the public and nonprofit sectors, they take the form of presidential commissions, court juries, election campaigns, rescue operations and disaster relief operations among others (Goodman and Goodman, 1976; Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). Although all TOs have an ex ante determined termination point, many of their other characteristics, such as goals, size and structure, may vary. Although TOs have been around for a long time in some sectors, like construction and engineering (Asheim, 2002), it is in the context of the socalled ‘new’ (or post-industrial) economy that they are receiving increased attention (Ekstedt et al., 1999). Thus, although the phenomenon of the temporary organization is not new, the attention it has been attracting in recent years is (Grabher, 2002). This increased attention is related to the assumption that organizations with a predefined termination point, such as project teams, are a crucial form for contemporary economic organizing (Grabher, 2002; Sydow et al., 2004). More than two decades ago, Bryman and colleagues lamented that the ‘exploration of so-called temporary systems or temporary organizations’ was lacking (Bryman et al., 1987a, p. 253). Much research has been carried out since the 1980s (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). While some 56

Research on temporary organizations

57

scholars focused on defining the phenomenon and exploring the drivers of TO success, others explored the internal structure of TOs and their links with the environment, while still others focused on a myriad of organizational processes from learning and knowledge sharing in and across TOs, through trust building to decision making (see Asheim, 2002; Balachandra and Friar, 1997; Cusumano and Nobeoka, 1998; Engwall, 2003; Freeman and Beale, 1992; Grabher, 2002; Keegan and Hartog, 2004; Koppenjan, 2001; Laufer et al., 1999; Meyerson et al., 1996; Parkin, 1996; Pinto and Covin, 1989; Pinto and Mantel, 1990; Pinto and Slevin, 1987; Sapsed et al., 2005; Shenhar et al., 2001; Smith, 1993; Thamhain and Wilemon, 1987; Turner and Cochrane, 1993; Turner and Müller, 2005). However, despite the recognition that temporary organizations differ from their non-temporary counterparts (Bryman et al., 1987a) and the substantial amount of research on the nature and functioning of TOs, many important research questions have remained unaddressed. Moreover, as we will demonstrate, there is no consensus about what exactly the temporary character of TOs entails. Various authors, to a greater or lesser extent, explicitly subscribe to different definitions of temporariness, but an explicit discussion of what temporariness of TOs actually involves and implies for their functioning and performance is conspicuously absent in the existing literature. In our view, these shortcomings are the primary stumbling blocks to the development of a fully fledged theory of TOs. Yet, if temporary organizations are to be considered as a distinct organizational form, it is necessary to unequivocally define and demonstrate the relevance of temporariness, which we believe distinguishes TOs from other types of organizations. In light of the above, the purpose of this chapter is twofold. First, we review the literature on TOs. In doing so, we strive to present an up-to-date overview of extant research on the various aspects of temporary organizations and, even more important, identify gaps in prior research which can help guide future research efforts. Second, we aim to identify and categorize the different approaches to temporariness that can be encountered in the current body of literature, and make the call for more systematic research on the role of temporariness in the functioning and performance of organizations.

A FIRST GLANCE AT THE TEMPORARY ORGANIZATION PHENOMENON Definition Because of the multitude of forms that TOs assume as well as the variety of arenas in which they operate, there are many definitions of TOs in

58

Temporary organizations

the extant literature. Some often-quoted examples of these definitions include Goodman and Goodman (1976, p. 494), who held that TOs involve ‘a set of diversely skilled people working together on a complex task over a limited period of time’, and Morley and Silver (1977, p. 59), who defined temporary systems as systems ‘limited in duration and membership, in which people come together, interact, create something, and then disband’. Similarly, Keith (1978, p. 195) proposed that ‘[t]emporary systems are structures of limited duration that operate within and between permanent organizations’, while Grabher (2004) viewed TOs as transient, interdisciplinary institutions focusing on the achievement of a single task. Whitley (2006, p. 78) focused on TOs which are separate legal and financial entities set up for a specific project and dissolved upon its completion, while Bechky (2006, p. 3) defined TOs as bringing ‘together a group of people who are unfamiliar with one another’s skills, but must work interdependently on complex tasks’. As this small sample of definitions reveals, different authors focus on different aspects of TOs. While some emphasize the nature of the task (Goodman and Goodman, 1976; Grabher, 2004; Whitley, 2006), others grant attention to the character of the team involved (Bechky, 2006; Goodman and Goodman, 1976; Grabher, 2004). Still others tend to focus on the variety of forms that TOs can take (Keith, 1978; Whitley, 2006). Perhaps it is in light of this that Lundin and Söderholm, aiming to develop the skeleton of a theory of TOs, proposed four concepts to demarcate the concept of temporary organization: limited time, a task as a TO’s raison d’être, a team that works on the task within the time available and transition reflected in the ‘expectation that there should be a qualitative difference in the temporary organization “before” and “after”’. In general, our literature review confirms that TOs are viewed as organizations set up to accomplish one or a very limited number of tasks, and to do so through a team of selected actors within a limited amount of time and with transition as an ultimate end (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995; Packendorf, 1995; Turner and Müller, 2003). Additionally, when compared to non-temporary organizations, it is argued that TOs tackle tasks of higher complexity and engender higher levels of uncertainty and interdependence between team members while simultaneously having more time and budget constraints (Bryman et al., 1987a; Goodman and Goodman, 1976; Grabher, 2002; Meyerson et al., 1996; Morley and Silver, 1977). TOs are also posited to be less bureaucratic and mechanistic and more participatory in their leadership style (Bryman et al., 1987a; Meyerson et al., 1996), while the selection of team members is argued to be based on their interpersonal skills and competences (Bennis and Slater, 1968; Bryman et al., 1987a). Finally, an often-mentioned characteristic of TOs is that they have a certain

Research on temporary organizations

59

degree of isolation from the environment and the disturbances it may have on the TO’s functioning (see Lundin and Söderholm, 1995; Miles, 1964). While the above characteristics are the most crucial in distinguishing TOs from their non-temporary counterparts, many additional factors have been reported in the literature. However, we argue that all of these are, to a varying degree, consequences of the one true distinguishing feature of TOs that is mentioned consistently across definitions, namely their temporariness (see Goodman and Goodman, 1976; Grabher, 2004; Keith, 1978; Lundin and Söderholm, 1995; Morley and Silver, 1977). In our view, despite the great diversity of forms and activities TOs (under)take, and the resulting variety of definitions they are accompanied by, temporariness is the only factor that is unique to TOs, while others are simply consequences or correlates thereof, which need not be exclusive to TOs. Given the central significance of temporariness in understanding TOs, we were struck by the conceptual ambiguity associated with this concept, and the resulting lack of systematic research concerning its effects. Later in the chapter, we will elaborate on this lack of clarity and report on the different ways in which various authors have conceptualized temporariness. History The early beginnings of research on TOs can be traced back to the 1960s and early 1970s, when authors including Miles (1964), Bennis and Slater (1968) and Goodman and Goodman (1972) discussed the concept of a temporary system in the context of educational innovations, societal trends and theatre productions respectively. These authors defined the concept quite clearly and discussed in substantial detail the inputs, processes and outputs that characterize these organizations. Among the first to predict the coming advent of temporary organizations was Bennis when stating, ‘[o]rganizations of the future [. . .] will be adaptive, rapidly changing temporary systems, organized around [. . .] groups of relative strangers’ (1969, p. 44). Although publications on the subject continued into the late 1970s (Goodman and Goodman, 1976; Morley and Silver, 1977) and throughout the 1980s (Bryman et al., 1987a; Pinto and Covin, 1989), they were few and spread over a long period. The interest in TOs reignited in 1995 with the special issue of the Scandinavian Journal of Management on TOs (Hellgren and Stjernberg, 1995; Lundin, 1995; Lundin and Söderholm, 1995; Packendorf, 1995). More recent influential contributions include those of Engwall (2003), Grabher (2004), Bechky (2006) and Turner and Müller (2003). At first glance, literature on TOs seems quite scarce. A literature search on temporary organizations yielded few results. Upon closer scrutiny

60

Temporary organizations

however, the apparent scarcity of literature turns out to be incorrect. The primary reason for this is that research on TOs is often disguised under a variety of labels such as temporary systems, temporary groups and, most notably, projects and project teams that do not include the word ‘temporary’ in their labels. Thus, rather than being scarce, literature on TOs is dispersed. Seminal contributions have appeared in edited volumes with topics as diverse as trust in organizations (Meyerson et al., 1996) and innovation in education (Miles, 1964), rather than in outlets focusing on TOs in their own right. Recently, some focus has been provided by two special issues of general management journals, namely the Scandinavian Journal of Management (1995) and Organization Studies (2004). Arguably, literature on project management is relatively concentrated, and thus constitutes an exception to the fragmentation described above. Although the project management literature does suffer from a number of shortcomings which have been elaborately discussed by among others Packendorff (1995) and will not be reiterated here, many useful insights can be derived from it. Although project management literature usually does not refer to TOs, we subscribe to the view of many authors who deem projects to be one of many tangible manifestations of temporary organizations (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995; Packendorf, 1995), and thus consider literature on project management to contribute to our knowledge of TOs. The practical problem with equating a project with a TO however, is that project literature deals predominantly with intraorganizational projects and, thus, for the most part ignores interorganizational projects (see Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). Some authors, in fact, make this an explicit assumption; Shenhar (2001a, p. 395) for instance stated that projects can be seen as ‘temporary organizations within organizations’. Yet, TOs as we understand them can and frequently do involve a number of different organizations. Considering the above, we suggest that TOs are a conceptual category that encompasses projects but also other forms of temporary organizing. Thus, although project management literature contributes predominantly to our understanding of merely one of the types of TOs, intraorganizational, we still consider it a valuable contribution to our understanding of TOs in general. Therefore our literature review covers both, and our discussion of temporariness applies to both inter- and intra-organizational TOs.

MAJOR THEMES IN THE TEMPORARY ORGANIZATIONS LITERATURE In this section, we present some major themes that we have identified in the literature on TOs using a broad definition of TO that includes

Research on temporary organizations

61

temporary systems, temporary organizations and temporary groups and projects among others. We then discuss eight broad categories of themes, reviewing issues that have been studied and those that, in our view, still remain to be addressed. Types of TOs and Contingent Effects Some researchers have focused on how TOs are likely to vary from each other. This has led to the development of various typologies and taxonomies of TOs. For example, Whitley (2006, p. 79) identified two differentiating dimensions of TOs: the singularity of goals, whether the products developed are unusual; and the distinctiveness and stability of work roles, whether ‘the organization of expertise, tasks, and roles is predictable and stable over projects’ (Whitley, 2006, p. 81). The intersection of these two dimensions led Whitley (2006) to define four types of TOs he refers to as organizational, precarious, craft and hollow. Similarly, Turner and Cochrane (1993) proposed classifying projects around two dimensions: how well defined the goals are and how well defined the methods are. Lundin and Söderholm (1995) pointed out that the tasks of a TO can either be unique, occurring once, or repetitive, to be repeated in the future. Other scholars, predominantly in the project management literature (see Blake, 1978; Wheelwright and Clark, 1992), classified projects both according to the level of change and/or the outcomes they intend to bring about (Dvir et al., 1998; Shenhar, 2001a, b). Still others constructed multidimensional classifications of projects, like Balachandra and Friar (1997), who focused on three different dimensions of new product development and research and development projects, namely: the nature of technology, low versus high; the type of innovation, incremental versus radical; and the market, new versus existing. While the above classifications were formulated in a deductive manner, Dvir et al. (1998) took a different approach by constructing a classification of projects empirically, thereby proposing a taxonomy rather than a typology of projects. Another distinction proposed in extant literature is between inter- and intra-organizational TOs (Keith, 1978; Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). While project management literature deals primarily with intraorganizational TOs, there are a few interesting contributions focusing exclusively on interorganizational TOs. Examples include Jones and Lichtenstein (2008), who studied interorganizational projects, and Ness and Haugland (2005), who focused on fixed duration interfirm relationships. We find the number of studies dealing with interorganizational TOs to be quite scarce, a serious shortcoming considering the strategic importance of interorganizational collaboration in recent years (Muthusamy and White, 2005).

62

Temporary organizations

Many of the studies mentioned above not only propose a classification of projects, but also argue that ‘different projects exhibit different sets of success factors, suggesting the need for a more contingent approach in project management theory and practice’ (Dvir et al., 1998, p. 915). Shenhar (2001a, b) built on the classification of Dvir et al. and showed that in managing a project, different approaches are appropriate for different projects. Turner and Cochrane (1993) furthered this argument by proposing that management of different kinds of projects requires unique start-up and implementation techniques. Some of the characteristics of the different kinds of TOs are also argued to have implications for their performance. Similarly, Dvir et al. (1998) identified sets of managerial variables affecting the success of each class of projects in their project taxonomy. Finally, Shenhar and Dvir (1996) developed a two-dimensional typology along the dimensions of technological uncertainty and system scope and argued that this is a useful tool for predicting project effectiveness. Overall, we conclude that while some groundwork has been laid in studying the varieties of TOs, there remains much to explore. For example, while a number of differentiating dimensions have been identified, none is in any way related to the temporal aspect of TOs. This is surprising considering the proposition that time, and the limited nature thereof, is at the very core of TOs. Additionally, we find that little research has been done to further understand how the various differentiating dimensions impact the functioning and outcomes of TOs. While project management literature has made a step in this direction, the contributions we identified focus predominantly on the managerial implications of project variability. We would like to stress that before formulating managerial recommendations, there is need for both theoretical and empirical study of how the individual or group level phenomena in TOs are affected by the different variables, particularly those related to time. Performance As foreshadowed in the preceding discussion, there is much research interest in the performance of TOs. While performance is a topic extensively covered in the project management literature, contributions are rare in the general TO literature. In the small group literature there has been work on temporary as opposed to non-temporary teams (Bradley et al., 2003; McGrath, 1984; Saunders and Ahuja, 2006). As a prominent example, Saunders and Ahuja (2006), in a conceptual contribution, formulated a large number of propositions on the differences between temporary and ongoing teams, in terms of their efficiency and effectiveness among others.

Research on temporary organizations

63

Overall, a consensus seems to emerge that compared to non-temporary settings, temporary organizations provide superior effectiveness and goal accomplishment (at the cost of a lower long-term efficiency – see Saunders and Ahuja, 2006), particularly when the goal involves change or transformation (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). Furthermore, Lundin and Söderholm (1995) and Miles (1964) have argued that the superior effectiveness of a TO is a result of isolation from its environment. Because isolation minimizes outside disturbance, leading to greater experimentation, openness to change and higher odds of uninterrupted completion of the task, a TO can overcome the inertia normally found in non-temporary organizations (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995; Miles, 1964). It has also been argued that greater effectiveness of TOs compared to non-temporary organizations is due to their higher productivity and task orientation. Miles (1964, p. 457) argued that ‘in temporary systems [. . .] restrictions in time, goal, personnel, and space, and the protection from external stress, help to create conditions for vigorous, productive work’. The time pressure that members in TOs are sometimes believed to experience due to temporariness and the ‘urgency [. . .] of delivering the desired outcomes within the desired timescales’ (Turner and Müller, 2003, p. 1) is argued to lead to a strong task orientation. However, this advantage may occur at the expense of bridging cognitive distance or developing social or emotional ties (Lindkvist, 2005). Besides effectiveness and task accomplishment, there are many other possible indicators of performance. In fact, many scholars studying TOs have acknowledged the difficulty of measuring TO success. For instance, in the context of temporary systems set up to accomplish change in people or organizations, Miles (1964) argues that the outcomes may not only be uncertain but very difficult to measure. One of the primary reasons why measuring the progress and outcomes of TOs is so difficult is because success is ‘heavily dependent on the reaction of the environment’ (Goodman and Goodman, 1976, p. 496). The environment of a temporary organization is likely to encompass a vast variety of stakeholders, whose assessments of a TO’s performance may differ significantly. Leaders of TOs may therefore need to navigate complex and at times contradicting pressures from various sources, both external and internal, to secure the project’s success (see Goodman and Goodman, 1976). As far as the project management literature is concerned, the approach to measuring project success has evolved over the years from very technical accounts related to the efficiency of implementation processes such as timeliness, cost and functionality in the 1970s, through increased focus on the perceptions of various stakeholders and quality of planning and handover in the 1980s and 1990s, to recent approaches that take into

64

Temporary organizations

account aspects such as ‘project product and its utilization, staff growth and development, the customer, benefits to the delivery organization, senior management, and the environment’ (Turner and Müller, 2005, p. 56). Still, ‘there are few topics in the field of project management that are so frequently discussed and yet so rarely agreed upon as the notion of project success’ (Dvir et al., 1998, p. 917). Perhaps it is this difficulty Goodman and Goodman (1976, p. 498) were experiencing in the 1970s when they concluded, ‘we were unable to find even crude measures for comparing task effectiveness’. Aside from these difficulties in measuring project success, a number of different approaches to delineating dimensions of project performance have been identified in the extant body of project management literature. For example, Shenhar et al. (2001) distinguished four dimensions for evaluating the success of a project – project efficiency, the impact on customers, direct business and organizational success, and preparation for the future. The salience of each of the dimensions, they argued, depends on the kind of project. Similarly, Pinto and Mantel (1990) identified project success as a combination of the perceived value of the project by team members and client satisfaction with the delivered project, arguing that ‘perceived causes of project failure will vary, depending on [. . .] stage of its life cycle [. . .] [and] [. . .] type of project assessed’ (Pinto and Mantel, 1990, p. 271). In 1987, Pinto and Slevin empirically identified 14 critical success factors of a project. Building on this research, in 1989 Pinto and Covin showed that the relevance of different success factors varies across the different types of projects as well as across the stages of their life cycle. All these sets of performance criteria are not only linked to the various stakeholders of a project, whose assessments of performance are likely to vary (Freeman and Beale, 1992), but reflect the contingent effects of project success as well, such as type of project or life cycle phase. In addition to the above studies, there has been a substantial amount of research probing the driving forces of project performance. For instance, Thamhain and Wilemon (1987) identified six forces driving project performance that are related to leadership, job content, personal needs and general work environment. Kernaghan and Cooke (1990) studied how the performance of a temporary group can be improved by interventions in the rational and interpersonal group processes. Allen et al. (1980) took a closer look at the role of internal project communication in the performance of three types of projects (product and process development teams, research teams and technical service teams) and found that the effect of communication on project outcome depends upon the type of project. Finally, Cusumano and Nobeoka (1998) investigated the impact that different strategies for managing multiple projects have on the performance of the projects.

Research on temporary organizations

65

Based on these studies, we conclude that some inroads have been made to identify various aspects of TO performance and the factors that have an impact on performance. However, given that some of the work has been published very recently (like Saunders and Ahuja 2006), empirical tests of the propositions are yet to be conducted, and thus provide a promising direction for future research. In particular, exploration of the mechanisms underlying the differences between temporary and non-temporary teams can be very beneficial to the field. Also, we did not find any studies that investigate the effect of a particular success factor on different performance indicators. Such investigation is crucial, as a given success factor may have a different or even opposite effect on different aspects of performance. For example, Goodman and Goodman (1976) analyzed twenty theatre productions, focusing on the effectiveness, measured as task accomplishment, innovation and professional growth of their members. They found that role clarity positively affected task accomplishment but negatively affected innovation and professional growth. Understanding the effect the different variables have on various performance indicators and the underlying mechanisms could become the basis for formulating more realistic and better grounded managerial recommendations. We see this as an important direction for future research. Learning in TOs and Knowledge Flows Learning and knowledge transfer within a TO, as well as between the TO and its environment has been the focus of a considerable amount of research. In one such study, Brady and Davies (2004) focused on the relationship between project and organizational learning, in which they proposed two modes of learning, the bottom-up, project-driven mode and the business-led mode. In the project-driven mode, knowledge from the project is transferred to other projects and to the organization as a whole. In the business-led mode, organizational knowledge is exploited to ‘perform increasingly predictable and routine project activities’ (Brady and Davis, 2004, p. 1601). Another interesting issue is raised by Lindkvist (2005), who investigated the temporary organization as a learning entity. In contrast to communities of practice, which involve individuals engaging in a joint enterprise around a shared practice, he argued that most TOs ‘comprise a mix of individuals with highly specialized competences, making it difficult to establish shared understandings or a common knowledge base’ (Lindkvist, 2005, p. 1190). He also argued that most TOs ‘consist of people, most of whom have not met before, who have to engage in swift socialization and carry out a pre-specified task within set limits as to time and costs’ (p. 1190). For that reason, rather than as communities of

66

Temporary organizations

practice, such groups should be conceived of as ‘collectivities-of-practice’. These operate on decontextualized, explicit knowledge, and its members are conceived of as free agents rather than undergoing enculturation. Learning occurs primarily through problem solving (Lindkvist, 2005). Focusing on intra-TO knowledge transfers, Sapsed et al. (2005) compared knowledge transfer practices between members of co-located and dispersed teams. Katz and Tushman (1981), on the other hand, studied the role of gatekeepers in the external acquisition of technical ideas in different kinds of projects. Combining both approaches, intra-TO and TO-environment knowledge transfers, Schofield and Wilson (1995) studied how project teams help organizations deal with change by stimulating individual and organizational learning. In doing this, the authors focused on the specific rules, roles and relationships that can help project team members to share their knowledge with one another and with other organizational members more effectively. Finally, in the context of TO learning and knowledge transfers, some research attention has been attributed to TO embeddedness, the relationship between the TOs and the various organizational contexts in which they operate. In a 2004 study, Grabher (p. 1492) viewed projects as ‘inextricably interwoven with an organizational and social context which provides key resources of expertise, reputation, and legitimization’. Similarly, Scarbrough et al. (2004) focused on the relationship between projects and their organizational environment in studying how organizations learn from projects. Based on a comparative analysis of two construction projects, Scarbrough and colleagues formulated propositions with respect to the transfer of knowledge generated in a project to other parts of the organization, suggesting a trade-off between the potential for knowledge integration within a TO and the sharing of knowledge with the parent organization. Finally, in analyzing project-based learning, Grabher (2004) went beyond the organizational embeddedness of a project to various other layers of the ecology in which it is embedded. He argued that creation and retention of knowledge in projects occurs at the interface between the project itself and the core team, firm, epistemic community and personal networks, that is, in the different layers of the ecology. Through a comparative case study of project ecologies, Grabher identified two learning logics, cumulative versus disruptive, and pinpointed the differences between them. The research on TO embeddedness raises an intriguing issue, namely the relationship between the TO and its environment. While some authors argue that the superior effectiveness and goal accomplishment of TOs is due to their isolation from the environment (Miles, 1964), others stress the TOs’ dependence on the environment in accomplishing their tasks

Research on temporary organizations

67

(Engwall, 2003). Because of these differences of opinion, we propose future research to explore the tension between the environmental dependence and embeddedness of TOs, as well as, among others, the impact of isolation on how TOs function, the resources available to them, and their performance on various criteria. Human Resource Aspects Some scholars have focused on human resource management in temporary organizations, particularly team member selection, leadership, stress and role clarity related to TO participation. Many of those studying team member selection focus on the recruitment of personnel for TOs (see Bennis and Slater, 1968; Bryman et al., 1987a; Morley and Silver, 1977). These authors suggest that compared to non-temporary organizations, selection of TO members is based on their interpersonal skills and competences rather than purely on professional qualifications. In our view, this is an interesting issue that opens up possibilities for further research. Questions related to the process of team member selection for inter- and intra-organizational TOs and the impact on the TO, in particular its outcome, have not, to the best of our knowledge, been addressed thus far. A second aspect of human resource management in TOs, covered in the extant literature but worthy of further study, is leadership. Interestingly, a literature review conducted by Turner and Müller (2005) revealed that, with few exceptions (see Thamhain and Wilemon, 1987), leadership is not typically mentioned as one of the critical success factors in project management. Nevertheless, some scholars have undertaken studies of leadership styles in TOs. They found that, compared to non-temporary organizations, the leadership in TOs tends to be more participatory in style (Bryman et al., 1987a; Meyerson et al., 1996). Furthermore, leaders of TOs in the construction sector were found to have higher task orientation compared to those operating within non-temporary organizations (Bryman et al., 1987b). In contrast to the above studies that aimed to identify the leadership style in TOs as opposed to non-temporary settings, Keegan and Hartog (2004) compared the relationship between different leadership styles and employee motivation, commitment and stress in project teams as opposed to teams reporting to line managers. Interestingly, they found that although project managers’ leadership style was not perceived as less transformational compared to that of line managers, the relationship between transformational leadership and outcomes tends to be weaker for employees reporting to project managers than for those reporting to line

68

Temporary organizations

managers. This unexpected outcome suggests that temporariness of a team has an effect on the relationship between leadership style and outcomes rather than only on the type of leadership exercised. Further research should therefore investigate the moderating effect of temporariness on the relationship between leadership style and various outcome variables. Tension and pressure resulting from involvement in a TO is a third human resource topic studied by some authors. The relationship between these two variables, however, is equivocal. While Keith (1978) found that involvement in a TO correlates positively with work-related tension and higher strain, Miles (1964, p. 457) argued that members of a TO are protected from external stress. This apparent contradiction might be rooted in the fact that Keith (1978) studied TOs that involved part-time team members who continued their work in the non-temporary setting; at the same time, the TOs had high turnover in membership. Miles (1964), on the other hand, considered TOs to be self-contained and to a certain extent isolated from their environment. This issue of partial involvement and isolation brings us back to the earlier discussion of TO embeddedness (and disembeddedness) and the effect it may have on various aspects of TO performance. A fourth and final human resource management issue in the extant TO literature is the roles of TO members. In a previously mentioned study, Goodman and Goodman (1976) showed that role clarity had a positive effect on task accomplishment but a negative effect on innovation and professional growth. In Bechky’s 2006 film project study, she reported that in this kind of TO, structured systems of roles play an important coordinating function. And in 2006, Whitley focused on the role separation and stability of TO members in and across the TOs as one of the differentiating features of project-based organizations, capturing the ‘flexibility and distinctiveness of their system of work organization and control’ (Whitley, 2006, p. 83). Whitley further argued that project-based organizations with low separation and stability of roles tend to learn through ‘establishing and changing patterns of work organization and division of tasks and skills’, while in project-based firms with high separation and stability of roles, learning ‘tends to be more specific to each individual and role than collective and organizational’. In conclusion, our review suggests that further research is needed to understand the impact that involvement in a temporary organization has on the tension and stress experienced by employees, in particular the variables that moderate this effect, like for example full- versus part-time involvement. Similarly, future research should aim to further understand the function that roles and their stability have on various aspects of the TO’s performance. Thirdly and finally, a fruitful avenue for future research

Research on temporary organizations

69

is to study the extent to which theories of leadership developed for nontemporary settings hold in temporary organizations, and what leadership tools managers in temporary settings may employ to successfully lead. Structure and Coordination Although there are some notable exceptions, few studies’ primary focus is on coordination within temporary organizations. Instead, most authors have dealt with coordination as a subtheme of inquiry. Studies of structure in temporary organizations lean toward a consensus of viewing TOs as having relatively fewer formal and normative structures than nontemporary organizations (Keith, 1978; Meyerson et al., 1996). TOs are also posited to be less hierarchical (Miles, 1964; Palisi, 1970), and less bureaucratic and mechanistic than non-temporary organizations (Bryman et al., 1987a; Kadefors, 1995; Meyerson et al., 1996). Given the above, TOs are considered to require more interpersonal and less formal processes of coordination (Bechky, 2006). One example of an interpersonal coordination mechanism is trust. Although its relevance has been addressed for both intra- and interorganizational TOs, the importance of trust in the context of TOs presents a paradox. While extant literature emphasizes the importance of ‘long term relationships for the generation of trust’ (Grabher, 2002, p. 205), in TOs there is apparently no ‘time to engage in the usual form of confidencebuilding activities that contribute to development and maintenance of trust in more traditional, enduring forms of organization’ (Meyerson et al., 1996, p. 167). Therefore, although for the most part TOs do not offer an opportunity for long-term relationships to develop, their members do rely heavily on trust to tackle the complex tasks for which TOs are usually set up, such as learning and innovation (see Grabher, 2002) and the problem solving these tasks require (Ness and Haugland, 2005). Ness and Haugland (2005) also investigated how governance mechanisms evolve in interorganizational relationships with fixed ex ante endpoints. They found that despite limited duration, trust and relational norms do develop in such temporally limited collaborations. While hierarchical control mechanisms can supply the necessary confidence level, the trust that is necessary to assure sufficient information sharing for problem solving does evolve despite the temporary nature of a project. The most noteworthy contribution on the issue of trust in TOs is that by Meyerson et al. (1996), who analyzed trust between members of temporary groups. As a possible solution for the paradox of limited time versus trust building, Meyerson et al. introduced the concept of swift trust. This concept is based primarily on role-based interactions between members

70

Temporary organizations

of temporary groups, and emerges when people under time pressure have no way of collecting evidence on the trustworthiness of individual group members, so they resort to category-driven information processing. Thus, formation of swift trust involves the willingness to suspend doubt and import trust to a given situation rather than create it. The suspension of doubt is an inherent element of any kind of trust (Möllering, 2003), but seems to be of particular importance in swift trust. With regard to coordination, Bechky (2006) contested Meyerson et al.’s view (1996) of TOs as unstructured and unstable, requiring swift trust as a primary mode of coordination. To the contrary, Bechky argued that work in such organizations is well structured, although coordination is achieved through non-traditional means. Bechky found that role-prescribed interactions occurring within a TO both coordinate the activities of a TO and sustain the role structures across TOs. Since Bechky’s film projects are repeated TOs, whereas Meyerson et al. (1996) focus on non-repeated single occurrence TOs, it is likely that under different conditions, various forms of coordination (and structure) are more or less effective. Future research should address whether certain conditions (for instance, whether the TO is unique or repetitive) call for certain forms of coordination. After reviewing the literature on structure, we assume that there must be some degree of fit between the structure of TOs and their environment and task. As we mentioned above, non-temporary and temporary organizations alike vary in the type of tasks they are set up to handle and the contexts in which they operate, among many other factors. Each of these contingencies is likely to be of influence on what kind of structure will be most appropriate to coordinate the TO. Because the issue of variance in structural aspects across various types of TOs has received only scant attention, it appears to be a fruitful area for future research. Decision Making Although there is research on decision making under time pressure, a condition often attributed to temporary organizations, research on decision making in temporary organizations as such is scarce. The only contributions to the subject that we were able to identify were related to decision making within project teams, and most of these studies tended to be rather prescriptive and practitioner oriented (for example Koppenjan, 2001; Laufer et al., 1999; Parkin, 1996; Smith, 1993). Some of the issues covered in these studies include: when a project manager should include others in the decision-making process (Smith, 1993); what tool a project manager can use to manage the decision-making process of his team when uncertainty and time pressure are high (Laufer et al., 1999); and how involving

Research on temporary organizations

71

representatives of safety interests in the decision-making process can help to internalize safety measures into the design and implementation of a project (Koppenjan, 2001). Because of the lack of study, the field of temporary organization decision making offers a vast scope for future research. Issues raised by prior decision-making research can serve as a stepping stone in identifying directions for such research. For example, participation in decision making may affect both the commitment of those making decisions as well as the project outcome. The study of this concept in TOs may have additional unique implications because commitment may be harder to build in a temporary context. A second area of exploration could be the question of the extent of inclusion in decision making when this process is fraught with high levels of uncertainty and time pressure. While time pressure is likely to lead to the inclusion of few stakeholders in the decision-making process in favor of an efficient centralized process, higher uncertainty may call for higher inclusiveness (see Provan and Kenis, 2008). We consider these to be but two of the many interesting areas for future research. Dynamics Two opposing views on the evolution of temporary organizations have emerged from the literature: a sequencing approach and a punctuated equilibrium model. In 1995, Lundin and Söderholm drew on the project life cycle model presented in A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (Project Management Institute, 1987) and proposed a fourphase sequencing approach to a TO’s development: action-based entrepreneurialism, fragmentation for commitment building, planned isolation and institutionalized termination. In contrast to this sequential approach, in their empirical and exploratory studies Gersick (1988, 1989) and Engwall and Westling (2004) proposed a punctuated equilibrium model of group dynamics in temporary teams. In her study Gersick (1988, 1989) analyzed how groups in TOs approached and paced their work, based on the members’ awareness of deadlines. After establishing a particular approach to executing a task at the outset of its work, the group stayed with this approach until halfway through its existence. This inertia ended with a transition when the group dropped the initial approach and adopted a new approach to problem solving. This was followed by rapid and marked progress. A second period of inertia climaxed with another transition right before the deadline. A final burst of activity then catapulted the players to the completion of their work (Gersick, 1989, p. 276). In a similar vein, Engwall and Westling (2004, p. 1557) used the concept

72

Temporary organizations

of peripety, or the moment of sudden change, to explain the dynamic evolution of a project that had started ineffectively and abruptly became highly structured and effective. While the project members did not share a common view of the organization’s goals and objectives, or how to achieve them before the peripety, ‘after the peripety [. . .] one conceptualization [. . .] was commonly enacted on a collective level’ (Engwall and Westling, 2004, p. 1569). Despite these studies, the question still remains: do TOs develop in a sequential manner or in the punctuated equilibrium model? We propose that the difference may lie in the management structure of the project. A team headed by a project manager is likely to proceed more sequentially than a team that is self-managed, in which more peaks and lows occur. In fact, from the project management point of view, its very purpose is to strive to equalize the exerted effort throughout the project’s development (for example by means of intermediate deliverables). In the self-managed teams, peaks and valleys in exerted effort are likely to arise and lead to a higher level of project risk. Project-based Organizations The final strand of research that emerged from our review of temporary organization literature focuses on organizations in which operations are mainly based on projects, that is, project-based organizations (see Blindenbach-Driessen and van den Ende, 2006; Hobday, 2000; Turner and Keegan, 1999, 2001). The following three studies highlight the range of research in this area particularly well. Turner and Keegan (1999) presented the preliminary findings of a study designed to investigate how project-based organizations are managed, especially in relation to operational control and governance and human resource policy, which encompasses among others individual and organizational learning and leadership. In another study Turner and Keegan (2001) investigated the governance structures of project organizations, emphasizing the roles of ‘broker’ and ‘steward’ in managing the interface between the project and clients. The most recent contribution on project-based management is from Blindenbach-Driessen and van den Ende (2006), who compared the success factors of projects within project-based organizations to those within functionally organized firms. ‘[T]he application of contingent planning approaches, explicit project selection, senior management support, the availability of sufficient experts, making business cases and testing and launching the new services’ appear to be more important in projectbased organizations compared to others (p. 556). In contrast, ‘the use of cross-functional teams, heavyweight project managers, collaboration with

Research on temporary organizations

73

customers and suppliers and performing market research’ turn out to be less important (p. 558). While these contributions make an important step toward understanding the uniqueness of project-based organizations as compared to functionally organized organizations, future research should look to further understand the challenges involved in managing this type of organization. This is particularly important considering that an increasing number of organizations adopt the project-based way of working. Understanding how project-based organizations function and what drives their success is both of high scientific as well as practical relevance. Table 2.1 summarizes our findings with regard to the eight major themes we identified in the current body of literature on temporary organizations. In the next section, we turn our attention to the central characteristic of TOs: temporariness.

TEMPORARINESS – DEFINITIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Although definitions of temporary organizations have proliferated, they all point to one common characteristic, their temporariness. Yet, despite the central position that temporariness receives across the range of definitions in the extant literature, the understanding of temporariness and its implications is equivocal, as we will demonstrate. If temporariness is in fact the essence of a temporary organization, then a clear understanding of this concept is crucial. In order to gain insight into the meaning of temporariness, we surveyed studies on TOs that more-or-less explicitly addressed the concept of temporariness of TOs.1 Aiming to identify the main themes that emerge in the extant literature with respect to understanding temporariness, we propose that there are three possible approaches: temporariness as short duration, temporariness as limited duration and temporariness as awareness of impending termination, which is a subcategory of limited duration. Before we proceed, we wish to stress that although we see them as distinct, there is undeniably some level of conceptual overlap between the three approaches. In addition, some of the studies we classified as taking a particular approach toward temporariness do not offer an explicit definition of the concept. In such cases we relied on implicit information conveyed by the authors about what temporariness entails. Obviously a certain level of subjectivity was inherent in this process. Nevertheless, we do believe that the classification we propose has merit and is a useful heuristic to further our understanding of temporariness.

74

Major publications

Balachandra and Friar (1997); Blake (1978); Dvir et al. (1998); Jones and Lichtenstein (2008); Shenhar (2001a, b); Shenhar and Dvir (1996); Turner and Cochrane (1993); Wheelwright and Clark (1992); Whitley (2006)

Allen et al. (1980); Bradley (2003); Cusumano and Nobeoka (1998); Freeman and Beale (1992); Kernaghan and Cooke (1990); McGrath (1984); Miles (1964); Pinto and Covin (1989); Pinto and Mantel (1990); Pinto and Slevin (1987); Saunders and Ahuja (2006); Shenhar et al. (2001); Thamhain and Wilemon (1987); Turner and Müller (2005)

Brady and Davies (2004); Grabher (2004); Katz and Tushman (1981); Lindkvist (2005); Sapsed et al. (2005); Scarbrough et al.(2004); Schofield and Wilson (1995)

1. Types of TOs and contingent effects

2. Performance

3. Learning in TOs and knowledge flows

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Tension between environmental dependence, isolation and embeddedness and its impact on the TO’s internal and external relationships Temporal embeddedness and disembeddedness and their impact on how TOs perform and function

Empirical comparison of the efficiency and effectiveness of both temporary and nontemporary teams How various performance indicators are affected by one or a set of drivers of success and why

Interorganizational TOs Classification of TOs along temporal dimensions The impact of the temporal dimensions on the functioning and performance of TOs

Future research opportunities

Temporary organizations: major themes, publications and research opportunities

Theme

Table 2.1

75

Bennis and Slater (1968); Bryman et al. (1987a); Goodman and Goodman (1976); Keegan and Hartog (2004); Keith (1978); Miles (1964); Morley and Silver (1977)

Bechky (2006); Bryman et al. (1987a); Kadefors (1995); Keith (1978); Meyerson et al. (1996); Miles (1964); Ness and Haugland (2005); Palisi (1970)

Koppenjan (2001); Laufer et al. (1999); Parkin (1996); Smith (1993)

Engwall and Westling (2004); Gersick (1988, 1989); Lundin and Söderholm (1995)

Blindenbach-Driessen and van den Ende (2006); Hobday (2000); Turner and Keegan (1999, 2001)

4. Human resource aspects

5. Structure and coordination

6. Decision making

7. Dynamics

8. Project-based organizations

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Functioning of project-based organizations and the drivers of their success

Comparison between sequential and punctuated equilibrium models of TO development to determine which model is more accurate and under what circumstances

Inclusiveness versus efficiency under time constraints Creating support for and commitment to decision-making processes in TOs

Effective coordination mechanisms in TOs Structure in TOs

How TO performance is affected by team member selection and group composition Leadership in TOs including: leadership style, the effects of style on team performance and the moderating effect temporariness has on this relationship

76

Temporary organizations

Temporariness as Short Duration The first approach to understanding temporariness that emerges in extant literature links temporariness to duration. More specifically, the essence of temporary organization is considered to be its short-lived character. Temporary organizations are assumed to have short lifespans, extending from a few weeks to a few years. In a 2001 study, Shenhar (2001b) made this claim explicit. Referring to projects as TOs, he drew on the work of Kerzner (1994) to define TOs ‘as organizational processes of planning, organizing, directing, and controlling resources for a relatively short-term objective established to complete specific goals and objectives’ (Shenhar, 2001b, p. 241). Similarly, Porsander (2000) viewed temporariness as a continuum, with short-lived organizations at one extreme and long-lived ones at the other. Accordingly, Porsander argued that since the organization she studied is closer to the first extreme, it is thus of temporary character. For her, the temporariness continuum is therefore equivalent to the duration continuum. However, duration is an equivocal criterion for distinguishing TOs from their non-temporary counterparts, as the length of duration can vary greatly. For instance, both Kerzner and Shenhar (Kerzner, 1994, as cited in Shenhar, 2001b) found that the duration of some technical projects may exceed fifteen years, suggesting that, in some cases, the lifespan of a TO can actually be longer than that of a non-temporary organization. Based on this, the length of an organization’s lifespan is a relative concept, and its use for discriminating between temporary and non-temporary organizations can be problematic. Nevertheless, understanding temporariness as short duration is quite common in the literature, which either explicitly points to a short lifespan as the distinguishing feature of TOs or does so more implicitly by discussing TOs in terms of the implications that short duration has for their functioning. For example, some of the implications of short duration that the literature mentions include assumptions that there is not enough time to ‘develop a “shared” task-relevant knowledge base’ (Lindkvist, 2005, p. 1198), ‘to plan organizational change’ (Gardiner and Simmons, 1998, p. 39) or ‘to develop long-term trust in interpersonal relationships’ (Munns, 1995, p. 19). It is frequently argued that project members are forced to cut to the chase, or reduce the extent of socializing ‘and quickly engage in “cool” cooperation based on “swift trust”’ (Lindkvist, 2005, p. 1198). In sum, where temporariness is taken to imply a short lifespan, TOs are assumed to have a strong task orientation at the expense of social or emotional ties (Lindkvist, 2005). Another argument commonly referred to within the bounds of this approach is related to communication issues. In contrast to nontemporary organizations, in which communication barriers are thought

Research on temporary organizations

77

to be overcome over time through common experience, the tight schedules on which TOs operate are thought to prevent the development of common experiences that would help overcome cognitive differences (Gardiner and Simmons, 1998). Considering that the overlap in knowledge bases of its members is likely to be very limited, the short lifespan of a TO does not allow sufficient time to create a shared, task-relevant knowledge base (Gardiner and Simmons, 1998; Lindkvist, 2005). Finally, it is argued that temporariness understood as short duration prevents group members from developing superordinate goals – ‘goals that transcend the self-interests of each participant’ (Weick, 1993, p. 644). This is likely to contribute to groups’ vulnerability to disruptions, especially in the early stages of their existence (Weick, 1993). Besides the fact that it is problematic to define temporariness in terms of duration, what is also remarkable in this strand of literature is that rather than studying the specific implications of short duration for the functioning of TOs, duration is largely ignored. Instead the arguments focus primarily on the aspects in which TOs differ from non-temporary organizations. At the same time, it is implied that these differences may be problematic; they are based on some underlying assumptions that what is generally important in some organizations, such as social and emotional ties, a high level of communication and common goals, is also important for other forms of organizations. However, the implications of the lack or lower level of these factors for the functioning and effectiveness of TOs are not made clear. Temporariness as Limited Duration Compared to the understanding of temporariness as short duration, the second understanding of temporariness, which links it to limited duration, is somewhat more prevalent in the TO literature (Grabher, 2002). In this approach, TOs are characterized as being bound by a deadline, and their existence is limited in time by an institutionalized termination (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). In contrast to the short duration approach, the emphasis in the limited duration approach is not on how long a TO exists, but rather on the fact that it will cease to exist at a foreseeable point in time. The termination point can be: a specific moment in time, for example a deadline; a particular event, like the completion of the project goals (for example Bechky, 2006; Whitley, 2006); or a specific state or condition (Miles, 1964). In other words, the limited duration concept does not stress the (short) duration of the TO but rather its ex ante established temporal limitation. As mentioned, this approach is quite prevalent in the extant literature. Morley and Silver (1977, p. 59) defined temporary systems as those ‘limited

78

Temporary organizations

in duration and membership, in which people come together, interact, create something, and then disband’. Their emphasis, therefore, is on the fact that the existence of a TO is limited; that is, after the completion of a TO’s task, it is disbanded (Morley and Silver, 1977). Similarly, Bryman et al. (1987b, p. 13) focused on the ‘limited period of time’ in which the task of a temporary system needs to be completed. Goodman and Goodman (1972, p. 103) viewed temporary systems as ‘groups which work together, only once, on a specific task with a specific end point’. In the same vein, Engwall (2003, p. 789) referred to projects as ‘time-limited organizational structures’. Turner and Müller (2003, p. 1) also identified transience as one of the characteristics of projects, that is, the fact that they have ‘a beginning and an end’. All the above definitions clearly emphasize the termination point of a TO and the fact that this termination point has been determined at the moment of its formation. Interestingly, as with outcomes of studies that approach temporariness from the point of view of short duration, studies in which the temporal limitation is central to temporariness also emphasize scarcity of available time. For example, when Morley and Silver (1977) pointed out the implications temporal limitation has for the organization, they highlighted the need for getting into relationships quickly and dealing with stress. This was also true for Turner and Müller (2003, p. 1), who argued that the consequence of the temporal limitation or transience of organizations is the ‘urgency [. . .] of delivering the desired outcomes within the desired timescales’. This focus on the consequences of temporal limitation related the time pressure is somewhat puzzling because the ex ante defined termination point need not imply time pressure (or awareness of insufficient time for a task). An example of this would be the previously mentioned fifteenyear-long technical projects, where the termination point is very distant. In short, although the limited duration approach defines temporariness in terms of its temporal limitation, its implications appear to be analyzed only in terms of issues related to time pressure. In general, for both approaches the explorations of the implications of temporariness on the functioning and performance of TOs have been very limited. Moreover the most common implication seems to be that a TO’s temporary nature makes its functioning difficult. In summary, the limited duration approach, in contrast to the short duration approach, views organizations as entities that have a predefined termination point at the outset of their existence. Temporariness as Awareness of Impending Termination Besides the distinction between the short duration and limited duration approaches that have been previously identified in the literature (Grabher,

Research on temporary organizations

79

2002), based on our literature review we have defined a third approach, temporariness as awareness of impending termination, which is a subcategory of the limited duration approach. Not only does this approach emphasize the limited duration of temporary organizations, but in addition, and of particular interest here, it looks at the impact of this awareness on the individual and collective behavior of TO members. Miles (1964, p. 438, emphasis added) stressed that in temporary systems, ‘members hold from the start the basic assumption that – at some more or less clearly defined point in time – they will cease to be’. Later, Keith pointed out that ‘[t]emporary systems are created with the understanding that they will be of limited duration’ (Keith, 1978, p. 196, emphasis added). Similarly, Packendorf talked of the ‘predetermined point in time or time-related conditional state when the organization and/or its mission is collectively expected to cease to exist’ (1995, p. 327, emphasis added). Finally, Sapsed et al. called on the earlier work of Bryman et al. (1987a, p. 256) in stressing that ‘it is not so much the temporary character of projects per se that is the most important feature distinguishing them from more permanent systems, but rather the “recognition and anticipation of transience”’ (2005, p. 832, emphasis added). In contrast to the short and limited duration approaches to temporariness, the implications of the awareness of impending termination which we encountered in studies that adopted this approach to temporariness, did not focus on how time pressure leads to, for example, necessity for swift trust or a higher task orientation. Rather, the arguments centered on how the shared awareness of impending termination affects the social processes taking place in the TO. Miles stated this succinctly when he set out to illustrate ‘phenomena which flow from the fact that all participants know from the outset that the system is not permanent, but will terminate at a specified time’ (1964, p. 445). Clearly, therefore, the underlying assumption here is that the social processes taking place in TOs may be quite different from those in non-temporary organizations. Another author who clearly illustrates the importance and implications of the awareness of impending termination is Gersick (1988, 1989), whose findings were discussed earlier. Gersick’s finding that ‘teams did not develop in a universal sequence of activities or stages, as traditional models have predicted’, but rather went through periods of inertia punctuated by drastic moments of transition (1989, p. 276), is evidence of the unique social processes that may develop in a TO as a result of member awareness of the organization’s impending termination. What makes this approach to temporariness unique is that members of a temporary organization from the outset of its existence are aware of, recognize and anticipate the imminent termination or transience of the organization (Bryman et al., 1987a).

80

Temporary organizations

DISCUSSION In this chapter, we have reviewed the extant literature on the concept of temporary organizations and how temporariness is conceptualized. We have discussed how the primary areas and topics related to the functioning of TOs have been addressed, identified the gaps in this work and provided a number of directions for future research. Some promising areas for future research include the exploration of time-related differentiating variables of TOs, further investigation of TO embeddedness in and dependence on its environment, as well as examination of important variables, including TO management structure and its effect on TO dynamics and TO composition as well as member selection. As we pointed out, there is a clear need to study the effect that these variables have on the functioning of and outcomes associated with TOs. Importantly, the study of the effect of those different variables on TO performance needs to take into account various aspects of that performance, such as innovativeness, effectiveness, goal attainment and timeliness. At a more general level, we contend that there is a lack of rigorous and systematic theoretical development in the literature on TOs. A first step to amend this situation would be to assess the applicability of some well-established organization theories to temporary contexts. This exercise would assist in taking stock of those areas of theoretical development that are most needed in temporary organization research. Table 2.1 summarized the findings from the first part of this chapter. Based on our literature review, we were able to identify three distinct approaches to understanding what is considered to be the crucial characteristic of TOs, their temporariness. In the first, temporariness is conceptualized as short duration; the second stresses the limited duration of temporary organizations; and the third looks at temporariness as TO members’ collective awareness of the organization’s impending termination. While the short duration approach does not provide an objective criterion for distinguishing between temporary and non-temporary organizations, the limited duration approach does, by stressing the ex ante defined termination point of the organization. In contrast to these first two approaches, which limit the scope of arguments to the effects of temporariness related to time pressure, the third approach stresses the consequences that the shared awareness of the organization’s imminent extinction has for social processes taking place in the temporary organization. For these reasons, we conclude that this shared awareness approach to temporariness forms the most fertile breeding ground for subsequent inquiry. In addition, we found that for all of these three conceptualizations of temporariness, a thorough examination of the implications of

Research on temporary organizations

81

temporariness for TOs’ functioning, performance and relationship to the wider organizational context is lacking in the current body of literature. We thus conclude that research explicitly studying this temporariness as TO members’ awareness of impending termination and the implications it has for the organization’s functioning and performance, constitutes one of the most prominent avenues for future research.

NOTES *

Acknowledgement The authors wish to thank Rolf Lundin for his valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper. 1. Much of the project management literature and some studies that focus on TOs do not address the nature of temporariness.

REFERENCES Allen, T., Lee, D.M. and M.L. Tushman (1980), ‘R&D performance as a function of internal communication, project management, and the nature of the work’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 27 (1), 2–12. Asheim, B.T. (2002), ‘Temporary organizations and spatial embeddedness of learning and knowledge creation’, Geografiska Annaler, 84B (2), 111–124. Balachandra, R. and J.H. Friar (1997), ‘Factors for success in R&D projects and new product innovation: A contextual framework’, IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management, 44 (3), 276–287. Baum, J.A.C. and C. Oliver (1992), ‘Institutional embeddedness and the dynamics of organizational populations’, American Sociological Review, 57, 540–559. Bechky, B. (2006), ‘Gaffers, gofers, and grips: Role-based coordination in temporary organizations’, Organization Science, 17, 3–22. Bennis, W.G. (1969), ‘Post-bureaucratic leadership’, Trans-action, 6, 44–61. Bennis, W.G. and P.E. Slater (1968), The temporary society. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Blindenbach-Driessen, F. and J. van den Ende (2006), ‘Innovation in project-based firms: The context dependency of success factors’, Research Policy, 35, 545–561. Blake, S.B. (1978), Managing for Responsive Research and Development, San Francisco, CA: Freeman. Bradley, J. White, B.J. and B.E. Mennecke (2003), ‘Teams and tasks: A temporal framework for the effects of interpersonal interventions on team performance’, Small Group Research, 34 (3), 353–387. Brady, T. and A. Davies (2004), ‘Building project capabilities: From exploratory to exploitative learning’, Organization Studies, 25 (9), 1601–1621. Bryman, A., Bresnen, M., Beardsworth, A.D., Ford, J. and T. Keil (1987a), ‘The concept of the temporary system: The case of the construction project’, in N. DiTomaso and S.B. Bacharach (eds), Research in the sociology of organizations, 5, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 253–283. Bryman, A., Bresnen, M., Ford, J., Beardsworth, A. and T. Keil (1987b), ‘Leader

82

Temporary organizations

orientation and organizational transience: An investigation using Fiedler’s LPC scale’, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 13–19. Clegg, S.R., Pitsis, T.S., Rura-Polley, T. and M. Marosszeky (2002), ‘Governmentality matters: Designing an alliance culture in inter-organizational collaboration for managing projects’, Organization Studies, 23 (3), 317–337. Cusumano, M.A. and K. Nobeoka (1998), Thinking beyond lean: How multiproject management is transforming product development at Toyota and other companies. New York, NY: The Free Press. Dvir, D., Lipotevsky, S., Shenhar, A. and A. Tischler (1998), ‘In search of project classification: A non-universal approach to project success factors’, Research Policy, 27, 915–935. Ekstedt, E., Lundin, R.A., Söderholm, A. and H. Wirdenius (1999), Neo-industrial organizing: Renewal by action and knowledge formation in a project-intensive economy. London, UK: Routledge. Ekstedt, E., Lundin, R.A. and H. Wirdenius (1992), ‘Conceptions and renewal in Swedish construction companies’, European Management Journal, 10 (2), 202–209. Ekstedt, E. and H. Wirdenius (1995), ‘Renewal projects: Sender target and receiver competence in ABB “T50” and Skanska “3T”’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11 (4), 409–421. Engwall, M. (2003), ‘No project is an island: Linking projects to history and context’, Research Policy, 32, 789–808. Engwall, M. and G. Westling (2004), ‘Peripety in an R&D drama: Capturing a turnaround in project dynamics’, Organization Studies, 25 (9), 1557–1578. Faulkner, R.R. and A.B. Anderson (1987), ‘Short-term projects and emergent careers: Evidence from Hollywood’, American Journal of Sociology, 92, 879–909. Freeman, M. and P. Beale (1992), ‘Measuring project success’, Project Management Journal, 23 (1), 8–17. Gardiner, P.D. and E.L. Simmons (1998), ‘Conflict in small- and medium-sized projects: Case of partnering to the rescue’, Journal of Management Engineering, 35, 35–40. Gersick, C.J.G. (1988), ‘Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development’, Academy of Management Journal, 31 (1), 9–41. Gersick, C.J.G. (1989), ‘Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups’, Academy of Management Journal, 32 (2), 274–309. Goodman, L.P. and R.A. Goodman (1972), ‘Theatre as a temporary system’, California Management Review, 15 (2), 103–108. Goodman, R.A. and L.P. Goodman (1976), ‘Some management issues in temporary systems: A study of professional development and manpower – The theatre case’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 494–501. Grabher, G. (2002), ‘Cool projects, boring institutions: Temporary collaboration in social context’, Regional Studies, 36 (3), 205–214. Grabher, G. (2004), ‘Temporary architectures of learning: Knowledge governance in project ecologies’, Organization Studies, 25 (9), 1491–1514. Hellgren, B. and T. Stjernberg (1995), ‘Design and implementation in major investment: A project network approach’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11 (4), 377–394. Hobday M. (2000), ‘The project-based organization: An ideal form for managing complex products and systems?’ Research Policy, 29, 871–893.

Research on temporary organizations

83

Jones, C. and B.B. Lichtenstein (2008), ‘Temporary inter-organizational projects: How temporal and social embeddedness enhance coordination and manage uncertainty’, in S. Cropper, M. Ebers, C. Huxham and P. Smith-Ring (eds), Oxford handbook of inter-organizational relationships, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 231–255. Jugdev, K. (2004), ‘Through the looking glass: Examining theory development in project management with the resource-based view lens’, Project Management Journal, 35 (3), 15–26. Kadefors, A. (1995), ‘Institutions in building projects: Implications for flexibility and change’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11 (4), 395–408. Katz, R. and M. Tushman (1979), ‘Communication patterns, project performance, and task characteristics: An empirical evaluation and integration in an R&D setting’, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 139–162. Katz, R. and M. Tushman (1981), ‘An investigation into the managerial roles and career paths of gatekeepers and project supervisors in a major R&D facility’, R&D Management, 11 (3), 103–110. Keegan, A.E. and D.N. Den Hartog (2004), ‘Transformational leadership in a project-based environment: A comparative study of the leadership styles of project managers and line managers’, International Journal of Project Management, 22, 609–617. Keith, P.M. (1978), ‘Individual and organizational correlates of a temporary system’, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 14 (2), 195–203. Kernaghan, J.A. and R.A. Cooke (1990), ‘Teamwork in planning innovative projects: Improving group performance by rational and interpersonal interventions in group process’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 37 (2), 109–116. Kerzner, H. (1994), ‘The growth of modern project management’, Project Management Journal, 25 (2), 6–8. Koppenjan, J.F.M. (2001), ‘Project development in complex environments: Assessing safety in design and decision-making’, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 9(3), 121–130. Kreiner, K. (1995), ‘In search of relevance: Project management in drifting environments’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11 (4), 335–346. Lanzara, G.F. (1983), ‘Ephemeral organizations in extreme environment: Emergence, strategy, extinction’, Journal of Management Studies, 20 (1), 71–95. Laufer, A., Woodward, H. and G.A. Howell (1999), ‘Managing the decision-making process during project planning’, Journal of Management in Engineering, 15 (2), 79–84. Lindkvist, L. (2005), ‘Knowledge communities and knowledge collectivities: A typology of knowledge work in groups’, Journal of Management Studies, 42 (6), 1189–1210. Lundin, R.A. (1995), ‘Editorial: Temporary organizations and project management’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11 (4), 315–318. Lundin, R.A. and A. Söderholm (1995), ‘A theory of the temporary organization’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11 (4), 437–455. McGrath, J.E. (1984), Groups, interaction, and performance. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall. Meyerson, D., Weick, K.E. and R.M. Kramer (1996), ‘Swift trust and temporary groups’, in R.M. Kramer and T.R. Tyler (eds), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 166–195.

84

Temporary organizations

Miles, M.B. (1964), ‘On temporary systems’, in M.B. Miles (ed.), Innovation in education. New York, NY: Teachers’ College, Columbia University, pp. 437–490. Miller, R. and B. Hobbes (2005), ‘Governance regimes for large complex projects’, Project Management Journal, 36 (3), 42–50. Möllering, G. (2003), ‘Regional, institutional and active trust: Ideal-types and the role of suspension’, Paper presented at the European Group for Organization Studies Celloqium (EGOS) July 2003 in Copenhagen. Morley, E. and A. Silver (1977), ‘A film director’s approach to managing creativity’, Harvard Business Review, 55 (2), 59–70. Munns, A.K. (1995), ‘Potential influence of trust on the successful completion of a project’, International Journal of Project Management, 13 (1), 19–24. Muthusamy, S.K. and M.A. White (2005), ‘Learning and knowledge transfer in strategic alliances: a social exchange view’, Organization Studies, 26 (3), 415–41. Ness, H. and S.A. Haugland (2005), ‘The evolution of governance mechanisms and negotiation strategies in fixed-duration interfirm relationships’, Journal of Business Research, 58, 1226–1239. Packendorf, J. (1995), ‘Inquiring into the temporary organization: New directions for project management research’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11 (4), 319–333. Palisi, B.J. (1970), ‘Some suggestions about the transitory-permanence dimension of organizations’, British Journal of Sociology, 21, 200–206. Parkin, J. (1996), ‘Organizational decision making and the project manager’, International Journal of Project Management, 14 (5), 257–263. Pinto, J.K. and J.G. Covin (1989), ‘Critical factors in project implementation: A comparison of construction and R&D projects’, Technovation, 9, 49–62. Pinto, J.K. and S.J. Mantel (1990), ‘The causes of project failure’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 37 (4), 269–276. Pinto, J.K. and D.P. Slevin (1987), ‘Critical factors in successful project implementation’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 34 (1), 22–27. Pinto, J.K. and D.P. Slevin (1988), ‘Project success: Definitions and measurement techniques’, Project Management Journal, 19 (3), 67–73. Porsander, L. (2000), ‘Translating a dream of immortality in a (con)temporary order’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13 (1), 14–29. Project Management Institute (1987), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, Drexel Hill, PA: Project Management Institute. Provan, K.G. and P. Kenis (2008), ‘Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18 (2), 229–252. Sapsed, J., Gann, D., Marshall, N. and A. Salter (2005), ‘From here to eternity? The practice of knowledge transfer in dispersed and co-located project organizations’, European Planning Studies, 13 (6), 831–851. Saunders, C.S. and M.K. Ahuja (2006), ‘Are all distributed teams the same? Differentiating between temporary and ongoing temporary teams’, Small Group Research, 37 (6), 662–700. Scarbrough, H., Swan, J., Laurent, S., Bresnen, M., Edelman, L. and S. Newell (2004), ‘Project-based learning and the role of the learning boundary’, Organization Studies, 25 (9), 1579–1600. Schofield, J. and D.C. Wilson (1995), ‘The role of capital investment project teams in organizational learning’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11 (4), 423–436.

Research on temporary organizations

85

Shenhar, A.J. (2001a), ‘One size does not fit all projects: Exploring classical contingency domains’, Management Science, 47 (3), 394–414. Shenhar, A.J. (2001b), ‘Contingent management in temporary, dynamic organizations: The comparative analysis of projects’, Journal of High Technology Management Research, 12, 239–271. Shenhar, A.J. and D. Dvir (1996), ‘Toward a typological theory of project management’, Research Policy, 25, 607–632. Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., Levy, O. and A.C. Maltz (2001), ‘Project success: A multidimensional strategic concept’, Long Range Planning, 34, 699–725. Smith, M.L. (1993), ‘Decision making for project management’, Project Management Journal, 24 (2), 17–22. Sydow, J., Lindkvist, L. and R. DeFillippi (2004), ‘Project-based organizations, embeddedness and repositories of knowledge: editorial’, Organization Studies, 25 (9), 1475–1490. Thamhain, H.J. and D.L. Wilemon (1987), ‘Building high performing engineering project teams’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 34 (3), 130–137. Turner, J.R. and R.A. Cochrane (1993), ‘Goals-and-methods matrix: Coping with projects with ill defined goals and/or methods of achieving them’, International Journal of Project Management, 11 (2), 93–102. Turner, J.R. and A. Keegan (1999), ‘The versatile project-based organization: Governance and operational control’, European Management Journal, 17 (3), 296–309. Turner, J.R. and A. Keegan (2001), ‘Mechanisms of governance in the projectbased organization: Roles of the broker and steward’, European Management Journal, 19 (3), 254–267. Turner, J.R. and R. Müller (2003), ‘On the nature of the project as a temporary organization’, International Journal of Project Management, 21, 1–8. Turner, J.R. and R. Müller (2005), ‘The project manager’s leadership style as a success factor on projects: a literature review’, Project Management Journal, 36 (2), 49–61. Weick, K.E. (1993), ‘The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628–652. Wheelan, S.A. and C.L. Krasick (1993), ‘The emergence, transmission, and acceptance of themes in a temporary system of interacting groups’, Group and Organization Management, 18 (2), 237–260. Wheelwright, S.C. and K.B. Clark (1992), Revolutionizing Product Development, New York: The Free Press. Whitley, R. (2006), ‘Project-based firms: New organizational form or variations on a theme?’ Industrial and Corporate Change, 15 (1), 77–99.

3

Applying organization theory to temporary organizations Patrick Kenis, Bart Cambré, Gerardus J.M. Lucas and Leon A.G. Oerlemans

Although the phenomenon of temporary organizations is clearly prevalent in contemporary economic and social life (see Chapter 1), our understanding of its development, functioning and outcomes remains unexplored. Theories applicable to temporary organizations (TOs), in particular, are rare and the assumption of organizational permanence continues to prevail in organization theory (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). Hence, there appears to be a great need for theory building to gain better understanding of the phenomenon of temporary organizations. However, before developing new and distinct theories of temporary organizations, it is essential to analyze if and how existing organization theories contribute to our understanding of TOs, or whether organizational temporariness makes them inapplicable to TOs. If existing organization theories sufficiently explain the phenomenon of TOs, there is no need to develop new theories. In this chapter, we will evaluate a selection of organization theories based, specifically, on their explanatory power for temporary organizations. Before doing so, we will first present the theories which we have selected and secondly, we will be more specific on how we have assessed their explanatory power for TOs. In a 1993 study, Evan concluded that there is no single theory dominating the discipline of organization studies (p. 2). Similarly, Aldrich (1999, p. 42) claimed that ‘[p]aradigm proliferation in organization studies has given us a wealth of perspectives from which to view organizations’. Based on this, we can conclude that there are a number of theories that might help us to understand the evolution and functioning of TOs. We have selected the following five: contingency theory, neo-institutional theory, population ecology theory, resource dependence theory and transaction cost theory. We neither aim to be exhaustive in selecting theories, nor do we consider these theories the only important ones in the field of organization studies. The reason we have selected them is because they are most

86

Applying organization theory to temporary organizations

87

often named as central to the contemporary field of organization studies in textbooks and review articles (see Aldrich, 1999; Clegg and Hardy, 2006; Evan, 1993; Fligstein, 1990; Hall and Tolbert, 2005; Knoke, 2001; Scott and Davis, 2006), as well as extensively used and applied in empirical research. These five theories are also representative of the three broad traditions in organizational theorizing: organizations as rational, natural and open systems (see Scott and Davis, 2006). In the following we will evaluate these five theories on their explanatory power for temporary organizations. The evaluation process for each theory will follow three steps. In step one, we will describe the core concepts and main theoretical insights of the theory. In the next step, we will apply these concepts to TOs. At this point, we will assess the extent to which the core concepts and the main independent and dependent variables of a theory can be applied to TOs and, most importantly, whether the predictions of this specific organization theory are applicable to TOs. In the third and concluding step, we will assess the applicability of the theory for the study of TOs. In sum, by the chapter’s conclusion, we will have provided an overall analysis of the usefulness of all the selected organizational theories for studying temporary organizations.

CONTINGENCY THEORY Contingency theory claims that there should be a fit between the contingencies – the particular situation an organization faces – and its structure. The central theoretical argument for this is that the contingencies that an organization faces should shape its structure in order for the organization to be effective and survive. The theory is based on the proposition that organizational outcome is the consequence of a fit or match between two or more factors. The main assumption of contingency theory is that ‘[t]he best way to organize depends on the nature of the task environment to which the organization relates’ (Scott and Davis, 2007, p. 127). A poor fit between structure and environment leads to failure; a close fit leads to success. Early contingency theorists such as Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) argue that different environments place different requirements on organizations. Environments characterized by uncertainty and rapid rates of change in the market or in technologies present different challenges to organizations than placid and stable environments do. Therefore, the more varied the environment, the more differentiated the internal structure of an organization needs to be. Over time, researchers have found more factors upon which the design of an organization is or should be

88

Temporary organizations

based. Because our goal in this chapter is not to present a comprehensive and critical overview of contingency theory (see Donaldson, 1995, 2001; Drazin and van de Ven, 1985), we will concentrate on the most central assumption of contingency theory, explaining the structure of an organization by its technology (or the type of work being performed). While many specific ways of measuring technology have been proposed, it appears that the most important dimensions in relating technology to structure are complexity, uncertainty and interdependence (see Scott and Davis, 2007, p. 126). Complexity refers to the number of different items or elements that must be dealt with simultaneously and is measured by the variety of the inputs, as well as the multiplicity and customization of outputs. Uncertainty or unpredictability refers to the variability of the items or elements upon which work is performed or the extent to which it is possible to predict their behavior in advance. Possible measures of behavior predictability are: the uniformity or variability of inputs, the number of exceptions encountered in the work process and the number of major product changes (see Scott and Davis, 2007, p. 126). Interdependence finally refers to the extent to which items or elements upon which work is performed, as well as work processes, are interrelated so that the changes in the state of one element affect the state of the others (this is generally characterized as pooled, sequential or reciprocal interdependence). Complexity, uncertainty and interdependence differ in the effects they have on the structural properties of organizations (see below) but are alike in at least one respect: each increases the amount of information that must be processed during the course of performing a task. As complexity, uncertainty and interdependence increase, structural modifications need to be made to increase the capacity of the information processing system. In order to analyze the explanatory power of contingency theory for temporary organizations, we have formulated a number of typical contingency theory predictions about the relationship between the characteristics of the work being performed and the structural characteristics of organizations (see Scott and Davis, 2007, p. 124–150): ● ●

●

The greater the technical uncertainty, the less formalization and centralization. The greater the technical complexity, the greater the structural complexity, including occupational and role specialization, departmentalization and divisionalization. The structural response to technical diversity is organizational differentiation. The greater the technical interdependence, the more resources must be devoted to coordination.

Applying organization theory to temporary organizations

89

How likely is it that these predictions apply to TOs? Or, put differently, to what extent is contingency theory helpful in explaining the organizational structure of a TO relative to its environmental contingencies? A first observation is that all of these contingency theory factors are central in the design of TOs (or their internal features), as well as in the environmental conditions of temporary organizations and that the relationships between these are often mentioned in the literature and studies on TOs (for example Fredericks, 2005). Thus, these factors seem relevant in this context. A second observation relates to the score on the dependent (TO structure) and independent (environmental conditions) variables. Much of the literature on TOs assumes that they develop because of high technological complexity, uncertainty and interdependence. In addition, by definition, TOs are assumed to have complex structural features. If this is indeed the case, it implies two things. The first implication is that contingency theory is indeed a good predictor for explaining structural features on the basis of the characteristics of the work to be done; but, second, it implies that contingency theory is not useful in studying TOs since one of the basic assumptions of contingency theory is that the structural features of organizations vary. However, we do not think that relying on sweeping statements about the work to be done by TOs and their structural features is useful. Rather, we think it necessary to take a closer empirical look at the variations in the population of temporary organizations and use the various insights and measures developed within contingency theory in order to do so. A third observation is that the above theoretical predictions seem to fit the case of temporary organizations. For example, it is likely that the greater the technical interdependence in TOs, the more resources must be devoted to coordination. Although at first sight all three theoretical predictions seem to make sense, upon closer scrutiny, the two central characteristics that distinguish temporary from non-temporary organizations undermine the tenability of those predictions. First, TOs being limited in time, it is unlikely that they can and will easily adapt to changes in the contingency factors. In his SARFIT model (Structural Adaptation to Regain Fit), Donaldson (2001) demonstrated that there is always a time lag between changes in the contingency factors and the structural adaptation to these contingencies. Especially in the case of TOs with a relatively short duration (for a more complete discussion, see Chapter 1, this volume), it is unlikely that the temporary organization has the time to structurally adapt to changing circumstances. Secondly, contingency theory is based on the assumption that an organization has the authority and capacity to implement changes in

90

Temporary organizations

its structural features. While this rationality assumption of contingency theory has been criticized frequently in the context of non-temporary organizations, it seems to be even less applicable in the case of TOs. Since we identify TOs as being a set of organizations between whom no hierarchical or authority relationship exists, the question is how changes in structural features might be implemented once the actors realize that the structure must be changed. In sum, whether or not contingency theory can be applied to temporary organizations is inconclusive. On the one hand, the answer is yes. The focus on the task to be accomplished is a fundamental ingredient of a contingency theory approach and this focus on task is also central in the functioning of TOs. On the other hand, the answer is no. A number of assumptions underlying contingency theory, such as availability of time and authority, do not apply to TOs. Consequently, we believe that temporary organizations and contingency theory are not a perfect fit but that a fruitful tension exists, which if explored, might lead to more differentiated knowledge about temporary organizations as well as to a contribution to making contingency theory more adaptive to new organizational forms.

RESOURCE DEPENDENCE THEORY Resource dependence theory (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003) is based on three central themes: the importance of the organization’s environment, the importance of autonomy in making strategic choices to pursue the organization’s interests, and the construct of power for understanding organizational behavior (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003, p. xi–xii). Considering these three themes, resource dependence theory (RDT) can be viewed as an alternative perspective to economics and transaction cost theory, one in which organizational actions are often taken ‘regardless of considerations of profit or efficiency’ (Pfeffer, 1987, p. 27). According to Pfeffer and Salancik (2003), the starting point or independent variables of the RDT are three structural characteristics of environments: concentration, munificence and interconnectedness. Concentration refers to ‘the extent to which power and authority in the environment’ is concentrated or dispersed and munificence is ‘the availability or scarcity of critical resources’ (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003, p. 68). Interconnectedness can be considered as ‘the number and pattern of linkages, or connections, among organizations’ (ibid.). Lower levels of concentration and munificence, and higher levels of interconnectedness, increase the level of environmental uncertainty organizations face. Together, these basic dimensions define the context in which an

Applying organization theory to temporary organizations

91

organization operates. The importance of this context resides in the major assumption of RDT that no organization is self-sufficient, or able to generate all the various resources that it needs (Evan, 1993, p. 9). Therefore, organizations depend on the environment, other organizations to be precise, to obtain the resources to survive (Evan, 1993, p. 8). When competition over scarce resources exists, organizations must manage these exchange relationships with two things in mind: minimizing their dependence on other organizations while maximizing other organizations’ dependence on them. This objective finds reflection in the construct of power, where the power of an organization is directly related to the dependence of other organizations on the focal organization. Thus, this theory presumes a very active view of organizations’ relations to their environments (Aldrich, 1999, p. 67), and how they affect and manipulate it to their own advantage while never being forced into a situation in which no choice is possible. In some respects, ‘organizations “create” or enact their environment rather than being “selected” by the environment’ (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978, p. 260 in: Evan, 1993, p. 9). The interplay between the structural environmental characteristics – concentration, munificence and interconnectedness – and the relationships among social actors, with their conflicts and interdependences, determines the uncertainty the organizations confront (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003, p. 68). Therefore, organizations are forced to develop strategies to reduce this uncertainty. Thus, strategies for avoiding both resource dependence on other organizations and control of the focal organizations by others can be considered the main dependent variables of the RDT. A common strategic solution for avoiding resource dependence and being controlled by other organizations is ‘buffering’ (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003, p. 108), in which an organization tries to exclude all factors that can generate uncertainty. For instance, to successfully buffer, an organization can develop inventories of sufficient size acquired from other organizations while committing its own organization to long-term contracts for output. But buffering alone cannot be considered an effective approach in RDT: ‘[w]hile buffering may provide the organization with the capability to survive periods of uncertainty and stability, buffering does not remove the basic source of vulnerability’ (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003, p. 108). To overcome this, the organization must ‘bridge’ toward other organizations. Evan (1993, pp. 10–11) describes three strategies organizations use to manage their interdependency: 1) absorption of dependence by vertical integration, horizontal integration, mergers and acquisitions; 2) negotiation of dependence by establishing cooperative relations, such as interlocking directorates, joint ventures and cartels; and 3) the utilization of judicial and administrative law channels to press claims against competitors.

92

Temporary organizations

Another way to look at the three strategies is to consider them as being reflective of the organization’s dilemma of autonomy versus dependency (Thompson and McEwen, 1958; Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003, p. 261). While participation in a collective structure provides certainty and stability, it also involves a loss of discretion and control over one’s activities. Hence, to gain control over activities one must surrender some autonomy. The aim of this section is to explore the explanatory power of RDT for temporary organizations. Although RDT has been widely used, TOs have not been mentioned explicitly in the current critiques, limitations and possible future developments of RDT (see Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003). Our analysis will be conducted from two perspectives: the TO confronted with uncertainty and the non-temporary organizations that established a TO. Furthermore, two concepts will be applied to both of these two perspectives, the environment and the strategies for dealing with uncertainty and dependency. The environment, that is, the context of organizations, is the main independent variable of the RDT. The three main characteristics of the environment – concentration, munificence and interconnectedness – allow investigation of the unique contextual embeddedness of TOs. In some cases the environment for a TO is limited to the organizations that establish it and in some instances it is not. A TO that is considered the sum of all establishing non-temporary organizations equals an action set that can be defined as ‘a group of organizations that have formed a temporary alliance for a limited purpose’ (Aldrich and Whetten, 1981, p. 386). In this instance, the resources for the temporary organization are concentrated within a framework with clear boundaries with regard to the dispersion of power and the munificence of resources, and interconnectedness captures the linkages and connections between the establishing organizations only. In contrast, when the TO is related only to parts of the establishing organizations, the context becomes more complex because all parts of those organizations not related to the TO may be considered part of the external environment from the TO’s perspective. In this case, the TO is confronted with a triple challenge for assuring: the availability of resources; the sufficiency of resources, related to the munificence of the environment; and the discretion over resources, which is related to the concentration criterion. In such circumstances, the TO has to deal with a number of critical questions. To what extent do power and authority reside in parts of the establishing organizations not related to the TO? Can the TO rely solely on its connections with the establishing organizations to receive a sufficient amount of resources to operate properly? Is the TO forced to establish linkages with external organizations to fulfill its need for additional resources either at start-up or during operation?

Applying organization theory to temporary organizations

Table 3.1

93

The relationship between resource sufficiency (munificence) and discretion (concentration) over resources for temporary organizations Discretion over resources

Sufficiency of resources

Yes No

Yes

No

Type 1 Type 3

Type 2 Type 4

We consider the sufficiency criterion, or munificence, and the discretion criterion, or concentration, to be very important when studying the topic of resources in TOs. Four situations can be distinguished when these criteria are applied, as presented in Table 3.1. Although limited duration is not a variable mentioned by the RDT, the theory does allow for an analysis of an ambiguous environment, where an organization has both relations with the establishing organizations or parts thereof as well as relations with other organizations, if these exist. To deal with resource dependency in an ambiguous environment, a TO can use various strategies. The appropriate strategy will depend upon the TO’s score on the two variables presented in Table 3.1. A TO that is established with a sufficient amount of resources and with full discretion over their use (Type 1 in Table 3.1) does not need to develop strategies to reduce dependency, even though it does have the power to do so. Strategies to reduce resource dependency are not needed because the TO’s dependence on the establishing organizations is minimal. In such case, the uncertainty that the TO faces is reduced to a great extent. Conversely, a TO with minimal or insufficient resources provided by the establishing organization, and low discretion over their use, confronts a low level of control. Consequently the power over resources resides with the establishing organizations. In these cases (Types 2, 3 and 4 in Table 3.1) the TO must develop strategies for overcoming dependence on and control by the establishing organizations. The applicability and suitability of the resource dependence strategy a TO chooses largely depends upon both previous and future collaborations among the establishing partner organizations. Partner organizations that have collaborated in the past and expect to do so again will likely make strategic decisions on resource transfer that are different from those made by partner organizations with a one-time interest in setting up a TO. For example, when a TO has been set up as a unique one-time project, with neither a shadow of the past nor plans for future collaboration, developing a bridging strategy between the establishing organizations and the TO is

94

Temporary organizations

not an option. Bridging involves intensive contacts. But, if the time frame for a TO is short, there is little possibility for intensive contacts, which is likely to result in low trust levels, making future collaborations unlikely. Therefore, the TO will have no other option than to employ the buffering strategy, that is, to try to protect itself as much as possible from environmental factors that generate uncertainty. However, establishing long-term contracts and providing sufficient inventories of resources will be hard to achieve due to the limited duration of TOs. Compared to TOs with no past or future collaboration among the establishing partners, for those with past and/or future collaborations, other strategies will be more appropriate. Due to the high level of trust among these organizations resulting from the repeated ties, buffering, an operational tool for excluding uncertainty, is unnecessary here. Instead, it would be better to implement bridging strategies. Of the three bridging strategies described by Evan (1993), the negotiation strategy is the only plausible option for minimizing TO’s resource dependency. The extent to which a negotiation strategy can be implemented, however, depends upon the level of detachment from the establishing organizations, the environmental characteristics and the time frame in which the TO is operating. Given the limited duration of a TO, neither of Evans’ other two strategies, utilizing judicial and administrative law channels to press claims against competitors and absorption of dependence by integration, can be applied appropriately. If we now turn to the perspective of the partners that established a TO and ask whether RDT logic can be applied to explain their decision to establish a TO, the answer would be, ‘yes’. After all, joining together and creating a TO, by reducing the environmental uncertainty of the establishing organizations, can be considered as a reflection of a bridging strategy for decreasing resource dependence. In this sense, establishing a TO is a solution to an organization’s problem. Organizations can use a TO to implement tasks they would be unable to accomplish independently. Moreover, they are able to ‘externalize’ potentially destabilizing activities that have uncertain outcomes (see Jolivet and Navarre, 1996). The downside of creating a TO, however, is that the dependence levels of the establishing organizations increase, as more efforts and resources are devoted to coordinating and controlling the TO’s activities. To conclude, it seems that the resource dependence theory provides a useful framework for research into temporary organizations. A TO does fit the basic assumption of RDT that no organization is self-sufficient when it comes to acquiring resources. Furthermore, the core concepts of RDT, such as the social context or environmental characteristics, as well as the strategic decisions aimed at reducing resource dependence, are

Applying organization theory to temporary organizations

95

important topics for a discussion of temporary organizations. After all, RDT focuses on interorganizational relationships as the unit of analysis, so it incorporates all kinds of interorganizational relations, including TOs. However, because limited duration – the most prominent feature of temporary organizations – is not conceptually framed within RDT, the number and scope of dependency reducing strategies that can be applied to TOs will be more limited.

NEO-INSTITUTIONAL THEORY Neo-institutional theory, being prominent in different fields of study, comes in different shapes and forms (Scott, 1987) and has very different connotations and structure in each of these fields (see Hall and Taylor, 1996). Here, we refer to the neo-institutional theory as it has been developed in the field of organization studies (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983, 1991; Jepperson, 1991; Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Scott, 2001). Assuming that a citation count is a valid way of measuring success, we can assume that neo-institutional theory is currently one of the most popular theories. The seminal article by DiMaggio and Powell (1983) is so far the most cited (more than 1700 times) in the American Journal of Sociology. Even so, this theory is fraught with many problems. For example, the causal link between institutional factors and their consequences is often both underspecified and untested; specification of what is institutional and what is not, is often far from clear; and it is generally not very clear whether the institution is the dependent or the independent variable (in the 1983 Powell and DiMaggio article, it is considered to be the independent variable). Limited space does not allow a comprehensive and critical overview of neo-institutional theory here. Therefore, in order to reflect on the relevance of the theory for temporary organizations, we will limit ourselves to its major assumptions and key propositions. One of the tenets of institutional theory is that legitimacy is critical to the evolution of all social systems, be it interest groups, organizations or networks. Institutional theorists argue that building legitimacy is the driving force behind decisions on organizational strategies and structures (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Zucker, 1987) and that societal acceptance of the organization and its subsequent survival depends on its attaining the support of relevant entities in its environment (Baum and Oliver, 1992; Dacin, 1997; Ruef and Scott, 1998). The basis for legitimacy resides in the institutional environment of which organizations are a part. Institutional environments or institutions are defined as a set of norms and values, and conceived of as a source of

96

Temporary organizations

pressures on organizations. According to neo-institutional theory, how organizations react to institutional pressures ultimately influences the likelihood of their survival. These reactions can vary and range anywhere from adaptation through strategic response (see Oliver, 1991) to contributing to institution building itself. Because it can be applied to explaining the actions and behavior of individuals, groups, divisions and also interorganizational relation sets, institutional theory can be described as flexible. Considering this flexibility, there is no reason to believe that the theory would not be applicable to explaining the legitimacy of temporary organizations. The central question is, however, whether TOs are actually subject to the same legitimization pressures that non-temporary organizations face. As will become clear later, the answer to this question is equivocal. Because they are organizations, we can assume that TOs, like all other organizations, have legitimacy building concerns. At the same time, however, and in line with the argument central to this book, TOs are a unique organizational form and thus the specific TO legitimacy building concerns are likely to be distinct from those of more classical organizations. Additionally, besides the issue of legitimacy of the form, it is plausible to expect that the level of legitimacy will vary across actual TOs, that is, the legitimacy of specific entities (see Human and Provan, 2000). If we assume that both the questions are valid, the relevance of neo-institutional theory for TOs becomes apparent. First, with respect to legitimacy of the TO as a form, neo-institutional theory would predict that for TOs to get things done, its organizational form must be legitimate. Although there is little empirical evidence for this assumption, we can expect that the legitimacy of the TOs varies across time, sectors and countries. Just as Human and Provan (2000) found that legitimizing the ‘network concept’ was a key to network success, we can expect that legitimizing the temporary organization concept is also a key to the success of TOs. The differences in how the environment perceives and accepts TOs as a structural form can range from fear to full acceptance. Second, with respect to the legitimacy of the TO as an entity, institutional theory applies also to the internal functioning of organizations, given the commonly held expectations with regard to how organizations should be structured and how they should function (see Meyer and Rowan, 1977). However, it might be argued that rather than institutional requirements, it is the technical requirements like task specificity and time constraints that are more dominant in the organizational processes within temporary organizations. If this is so, the explanatory power of institutional theory would become less relevant. Elsewhere it has been argued that TOs are characterized by ‘atemporality’ (Chapter 5, this volume). Atemporality

Applying organization theory to temporary organizations

97

refers to the fact that TOs develop endogenous logics of functioning unrelated to the past, present or future contexts of the collaborating actors. The higher the atemporality of a TO, the more individual an identity it is likely to develop and the more distinct an entity it will become. However, as a consequence, the TO becomes less recognizable and acceptable and, in effect, less legitimate to its external environment. The atemporal character of an exchange limits TOs’ continuity on two dimensions: social relations and structure (see Elchardus,1990). As for its task structure, after a TO has been set up and its task defined, it moves ‘from relative openness to relative closedness’ (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995, p. 448). Plans and guarding mechanisms are used to isolate the TO from its environment in order to minimize disturbances and obstacles to implementation (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). This isolation is likely to lead to an emergence of norms specific to the TO (Katz, 1982; Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). As the TO’s norms diverge or deviate from those of its environment, the TO’s external legitimacy (as entity) is likely to suffer. As far as social relations are concerned, the two-sided temporal bracketing of a TO limits its links with the past and future (the essence of atemporality), and leads to social isolation. A left-bracketed TO is frequently comprised of organizational representatives with no prior knowledge of each other or the team leader prior to entering the TO (Gardiner and Simmons, 1998; Lindkvist, 2005). Being right bracketed implies that the TO members’ common future perspective is very limited, with little to no shadow of future interactions. This is in line with Elchardus’s argument that atemporal exchange decreases the continuity of social relations, allowing actors ‘to enter into the transaction, irrespective of past relations’ and knowing that ‘the completed transaction should leave no traces for the future’ (Elchardus, 1990, p. 240). In sum, the structural and social isolation of a TO leads to its disembeddedness from the institutional context of its environment. One could conclude that this is a natural social outcome for well-functioning temporary organizations that are more driven by task-related logics and endogenously developed rules and norms (Bechky, 2006) than by external legitimacy. Characteristics of institutional environments in which this task is carried out can also have an impact on the external legitimacy of the TO as entity. Rowan argued (1982) that if new organizational practices such as are likely to arise in a TO are supported by balanced institutional environments (environments with established ideological consensus and harmonious working relations among relevant external actors), these new practices would be more widely and more stably retained by the institutional environments. In this scenario, norms and practices that develop in a TO would be more legitimate than those in unbalanced institutional

98

Temporary organizations

environments. Moreover, a TO that is active in highly regulated environments like the construction industry, or comprised of members from different sectors, such as the public sector, is more prone to pressures than a TO in a less-regulated environment in which for-profit organizations participate (see Frumkin and Galaskiewicz, 2004). In sum, the answer to the question whether neo-institutional theory contributes to understanding the functioning of TOs is not clear-cut. Whether TOs are considered a legitimized form of organizing can be expected to be essential in explaining their prevalence. When it comes to their internal structure and functioning (that is, the entity) legitimacy is expected to become much less of an issue. This is because TOs seem to be governed by task and time constraints and, due to atemporality, they are driven more by the internally developed norms and rules rather than external legitimacy.

TRANSACTION COST THEORY Transaction cost theory (TCT) holds that economic efficiency is the main consideration for how economic transactions are organized. Any governance structure – way of organizing economic transactions – has organizing or transaction costs that depend upon a number of factors. TCT predicts that an organization will choose a governance form based on minimization of cost. Needless to say, the economic efficiency of transactions cannot be the sole consideration for organizing economic transactions. The transaction itself must be beneficial before considering it at all (for the case of non-commercial transactions, break-even or in some cases perhaps a specified loss could be the criterion). Thus, the chosen mode of governance for an economic activity will be the one for which the sum of transaction costs is lowest. The dominant perspective in TCT is the one formulated by Oliver Williamson (1985, 1991, 1996, 1999 and 2002). According to Williamson (1991) in his most recent version of his theory, there are three discrete governance alternatives: market, hybrid and hierarchy. Williamson takes a contractual perspective to these three alternatives and focuses on a specific (set of) transaction(s) (a transaction refers to a specific instance of economic exchange between two parties). He states that economic actors are farsighted and can anticipate future situations. But, because they are also boundedly rational, any contract is incomplete. Given the fact that economic actors are also uncertain whether they can trust their contracting partners from refraining to behave opportunistically, safeguards need to be put in place. A consequence of bounded rationality and opportunism

Applying organization theory to temporary organizations

99

is transaction costs. The sum of transaction costs differs across the three discrete governance choices of market, hybrid and hierarchy because of the varying levels of incompleteness in contracting and differences in the potential for opportunism in each mode of governance. Williamson argues that there are three main factors determining transaction costs: asset specificity, frequency and uncertainty. Asset specificity, the most important of the three, refers to a transaction that requires one of the parties (actor A) to make an investment specific to the dyadic relationship. The party making the investment (actor A) needs to be assured that there will be a return on the investment, which leads to an increase in transaction costs. For the other party (actor B), engaging in this relationship makes similar future contracting decisions more difficult. In meeting the contracting party’s (actor B’s) needs the party to whom the contract is awarded (actor A) increases its capability and gains a competitive advantage over other potential contractors. In effect the situation becomes one of small numbers bargaining in which the bargaining power of the contracting party (actor B) deteriorates (since a decision at time t reduces the number of alternatives at time t+1). Transaction costs increase as a consequence. Williamson’s second main factor for determining transaction costs is frequency. This refers to the number of times a transaction takes place between two parties and, therefore, the price that will be paid for behaving opportunistically. Uncertainty, finally, referring to the stochastic nature of outcomes and changing nature of incentives, is Williamson’s third cost factor and determines the extent to which a contract is incomplete. In essence, the greater the asset-specificity of a transaction, the more frequently it takes place, and the more uncertainty is present, the greater the need for contractual safeguards. Contractual safeguards drive up transacting costs. At a certain point they are so high that it becomes more efficient to organize an activity in-house. This is called the classical make-or-buy decision. In line with Williamson’s logic, temporary organizations would be classified under the hybrid mode of governance.1 This is for transactions requiring more safeguards than those in the market but not enough to require one of the firms to completely absorb the activity. At the same time, however, many temporary organizations are set up for very specific and important activities, such as product or technology development and knowledge transfer. Because such activities can be uncertain and necessitate specific investments, in line with Williamson’s argument, they would be better organized in-house. Williamson’s version of TCT runs into problems because it neglects transaction costs that arise from circumstances specific to hierarchical

100

Temporary organizations

governance. To remedy this shortcoming, Hennart (1993) claims that it is prudent to distinguish between institutions and control mechanisms. The market and the firm are the institutions and price and hierarchy are the control mechanisms. Price rewards economic actors based on output, while hierarchy rewards are based on inputs. Even though the ideal type of market uses only price controls and the pure firm uses hierarchical control exclusively, a mixture of the different control mechanisms is far more common. This leads to the consideration of a range of hybrid forms such as: real estate loans connected to a specific purchase to be made with the borrowed money; stock option rewards on top of a manager’s base salary and contingent upon performance; and many more, making up a diverse plethora of other mixed forms. Thus, in contrast to Williamson, Hennart postulates a continuum of possible governance forms instead of three discrete alternatives. Like Williamson, Hennart bases his TCT on the assumptions of bounded rationality, non-congruent goals of actors and opportunism (Hennart, 1993). And although each of the control mechanisms serve to minimize costs as much as possible, transaction costs feature in both of their models. Nevertheless, Williamson and Hennart differ on how they look at performance and how it varies depending upon the situation. Even when there are price controls, costs can rise from cheating – cheating that takes place because of actors’ incentives to maximize their own profits at the expense of quality. Consequently, economic costs result from the need to measure whether the desired output is delivered as well as from the inaccuracy in executing this measurement (Hennart, 1993). Under hierarchical control, on the other hand, employees are paid a fixed salary. This gives them an incentive to shirk – minimize the effort they expend – and thus costs rise due to the necessity to monitor employees. Given that monitoring is generally not completely effective, additional economic costs to the firm ensue. In this case, rising costs are a direct result of behavior (Hennart 1993). Because the costs resulting from these undesirable behaviors rise non-linearly, it is often efficient to simultaneously use hierarchical and price control mechanisms (Hennart, 1993). This dual perspective, simultaneously looking at cheating and shirking costs, provides an opportunity for analysing failures both of the market and the hierarchy. In light of the above, it should be obvious why and when temporary organizations are created. TOs form when an activity is too expensive to organize in-house, but requires more safeguards than the market can provide. Therefore, the contracting parties set up a TO in which the advantages of market over hierarchy and vice versa are present to the greatest extent, making it the least expensive alternative.

Applying organization theory to temporary organizations

101

As an example of when a TO should be established, Hennart (1988) offers a rationale for using equity joint ventures – which, like TOs, are often limited in duration – for the transfer of knowledge. As Hennart (1988) explains, joint ventures are used when either market-based solutions, such as licensing, do not work or when hierarchical solutions, such as acquisition or knowledge creation, are inferior to a joint venture. If the knowledge to be transferred is difficult to specify, transfer through market-type contracts would be hard since contracts lack the intense and regular contact among knowledge users that an equity joint venture offers. Knowledge that is difficult to transfer is predominantly tacit as well as market- and country-specific (Hennart, 1988). Moreover, the output of such a knowledge transfer process is difficult to measure and to specify, giving rise to cheating and unintended spillover and hence increased transaction costs. In an equity joint venture, in contrast, parties share in the risks and profits and have more insight into how much effort each is expending, hence, providing each with sufficient incentives for holding up their end of the bargain (Hennart, 1988). Acquisition of the knowledge possessing firm is another potential way to transfer knowledge but is usually impractical because most often only the knowledge and not the entire firm is needed. However, the desired knowledge can be firm-specific (Hennart, 1988), meaning that it cannot be acquired separately from the possessing firm’s other components. Moreover, knowledge creation is quite an expensive and uncertain process compared to knowledge transfer. From our discussion of the two different versions of TCT, it is clear that from the point of view of this paradigm, for TO to be chosen as a mode of governance it needs to meet a dual requirement: be superior to both pure or market price control as well as pure hierarchical control or firm governance. Based on our discussion, Williamson’s version of TCT does not address hierarchical failure adequately and therefore cannot fully explain TOs. Because Hennart’s less common perspective takes both hierarchical and market failure into account, it is more general in character than Williamson’s, and it can accommodate mixed form governance choices like TOs. Therefore, TCT supports the view that TOs should be the mode of governance when its transaction costs are lower than they would be under firm or market governance modes. This implies that for organizing some activities, bringing inputs together and combining them in a specific way proves costly under both firm and market modes of governance. In such cases, a compromise between the two modes in the form of a temporary organization might just be one in which the proper mix of advantages of the two basic governance modes are present. Despite these observations, we feel that there are two issues with which TCT cannot cope adequately when applied to TOs as a governance

102

Temporary organizations

structure. The first issue relates to increasing levels of uncertainty and the stability of the hybrid governance structure. In his analysis of the impact of technological innovation – a situation in which a higher uncertainty level is present – on the choice of governance structure, Williamson (1985) concludes that the hybrid form is unstable. Only when very specific conditions apply will parties opt for hybrid governance (examples of specific conditions include high innovation potential for a product, appropriation of cost advantages and asset specificity at a medium level). In all other cases, market or firm governance is preferred. The reason for this is that under high levels of uncertainty, appropriate behaviors of collaborating actors as to, for example, what information and consultation procedures should be used, are unknown and there is a lack of ex ante knowledge on what the relevant tasks, actions and outcomes might be (see Grandori, 2006). The second issue with which TCT cannot cope is when there is a relationship between time and asset specificity. Investments in relationshipsupporting assets are time dependent: actors are more willing to make these investments if they have the expectation that time will allow the recovery of these investments (see Colombo, 2003). When applied to a temporary organization, this implies that the shorter the duration of the temporary organization, the lower the likelihood that parties are willing to make substantial transaction-specific investments and the higher the probability that they will choose non-contractual arrangements. A counterargument could be that shadows of the past and the future could mitigate these effects as repeated ties would justify relation-specific investments. In conclusion, transaction cost theory can be used to explain temporary organizations as a form of hybrid governance. However, this statement is only true when specific conditions apply.

POPULATION ECOLOGY THEORY Until the second half of the 1970s, the dominant approaches in organization theory focused on adaptive change in organizations. In these theories, it is argued that environmental change and uncertainty force organizational decision makers to alter specific features of their organizations with the aim of re-establishing fit with the environment. Moreover, most of these theories, such as transaction cost, contingency and resource dependence theories, link the organization to the institutional or competitive environment (Lewin et al., 2004). Since then, population ecology theory (PET) has emerged, which puts much more emphasis on environmental selection processes to explain organizational change. In contrast to the

Applying organization theory to temporary organizations

Table 3.2

A typology of new organizational forms

No deletion of organizing elements Deletion of organizing elements Source:

103

No addition of organizing elements

Addition of new organizing elements

Imitative entrepreneurship Partial contraction

Partial enlargement Radical recombination

Rao and Singh, 1999: 72.

theories mentioned prior to this, population ecology theory links the organization to developments in the macro environment and uses populations and communities of organizations as the unit of analysis. To study the relevance of population ecology theory for temporary organizations, the first question that must be answered is: are there populations of TOs? There is not a straightforward and simple answer to this question. First, the concept of population has to be defined. Hannan and Freeman (1977, p. 936) define a population of organizations as ‘all organizations within a particular boundary that have a common form’. These boundaries can be determined politically or geographically or by taking product or market characteristics into account. Organizations that share an organizational form have a common blueprint for transforming inputs into outputs, that is they have: 1) a similar formal structure that could include tables of organization and written rules of operation; 2) similar patterns of activity within the organization such as internal task distribution; and 3) a similar normative order such as ways of organizing that are defined as right and proper by both members and relevant sectors of the environment (Hannan and Freeman, 1977, p. 935). The second question to be answered if we are to study population ecology theory for TOs is whether or not TOs are a distinct organizational form. One could argue that this is not the case and that a TO’s organizational form simply replicates that of the establishing organizations. In this instance the TO would be part of the population to which the establishing organizations belong and not a separate form. To further our argument, we build on Rao and Singh’s proposal (1999) that a new organizational form is a recombination of the elements of the organizational blueprint by which a simple typology of recombinations can be designed (see Table 3.2). If the organizational blueprint of a TO contains no addition or deletion of organizing elements, it is simply an imitation of an already existing organizational form and consequently, a part of an existing population

104

Temporary organizations

of organizations. But are there reasons to believe that the blueprints of TOs have, at least to some extent, new organizing elements? Several scholars argue that this is indeed the case. Miles (1964, p. 453) argues that the time-limited setting of TOs results in ‘a high degree of persistency in goal-directed efforts’ and that the ‘goal focus tends to produce a “clean slate effect”, freeing “members” energies to concentrate on a particular aspect of a keenly felt problem’. For movie projects, Bechky (2006, p. 4) shows that TOs, not being governed by lines of authority, are ‘organized around enduring, structured role systems whose nuances are negotiated in situ’. These examples demonstrate that the activity patterns that are part of the organizational blueprint of TOs contain new elements. In terms of Rao and Singh’s typology, this leads to the conclusion that there is at least ‘partial enlargement’, which would qualify TOs as a new organizational form. Consequently, at least some of the TOs have distinct features and belong to a distinct population. Moreover, it can be argued that there are populations of temporary organizations because they conduct distinct activities in specific ways. Here one can think of TOs producing a movie or TOs organizing tourist events. The key question that population ecology addresses is ‘why are there so many kinds of organizations?’ (Hannan and Freeman, 1977, p. 936). By relating environmental, that is, demographic, ecological, institutional and technological factors to the variety of organizational forms and their transformations over time, population ecology theory explains the processes and rates of organizational founding, disbanding and change at the population level. Variation, selection and retention are the most important mechanisms driving these evolutionary processes. An important assumption of population ecology is that organizational forms are perceived as unable to adapt fast enough to environmental change (Hannan and Freeman, 1984; Singh et al., 1986). It is hypothesized that the successes and failures of organizations cannot be attributed to individual managerial action, but rather to an evolutionary selection process. The concepts of internal and external structural inertia are used to explain this process. Internal structural inertia is a result of routines and competencies that have been developed and reinforced in organizations over time. As a result of the existence of this inertia, higher levels of reliability and accountability are generated, which in turn are favored by selection mechanisms (Kelly and Amburgery, 1991). External structural inertia results from organizational embeddedness in the institutional and technological environment. Organizational change at the population level generally refers to the erosion of existing behavioral patterns and routines or the loss of competencies due to structural transformations like technological development. As a result of these developments, the probability of

Applying organization theory to temporary organizations

105

disbanding increases due to the disruption of established routines and core organizational features. A central line of research in population ecology theory has been the impact of organizational aging on disbanding rates in organizational populations. Disbanding is defined as any exit from a population due to failure, merger or planned termination (Hannan and Freeman, 1988). The predominant view of this so-called age-dependency argument is the liability of newness (Stinchcombe, 1965), which is the propensity of younger organizations to have higher disbanding rates. The theoretical mechanism grounding this relationship is that younger organizations are more vulnerable as they lack experience as social actors and routines. Moreover, new organizations lack sufficient levels of influence, legitimacy and stable external organizational embeddedness, which hinders the acquisition of much-needed resources. From a structural inertia perspective, therefore, older organizations have higher levels of reproducibility, which enable them to demonstrate reliability and accountability. Consequently, older organizations are less likely to disband than younger ones. To what extent do the age-dependency arguments apply to temporary organizations? On the one hand, it can be stated that population ecology has non-temporary organizations in mind when discussing the relationship between age and disbanding rates. After all, explaining disbanding and survival rates in populations of organizations only makes sense if one holds the assumption that organizations intend to survive over time and will not be intentionally terminated after accomplishing their task. On the other hand, if it is assumed that the population of TOs consists of projects and activities with differing termination dates – different duration – then population ecology arguments may apply. Disbanding rates of short-term TOs are expected to be higher than those of longer-term TOs because short-term TOs have insufficient time to demonstrate their reliability and accountability. Longer-term TOs have more time to develop routines, formalize internal relationships and institutionalize leadership and power distributions. Consequently, reproducibility and structural inertia will be at higher levels. As selection favors inertia, longer-term temporary organizations will be more likely to survive and succeed. However, the hypothesized negative relationship between TOs’ age and their disbanding rate might be mitigated by ‘repeated ties’ (Gulati, 1995) or the ‘shadow of the past’ (Soda et al., 2004). Because past collaboration of actors in a TO will facilitate the development of shared understandings, routines and rules, reproducibility of even short-term temporary organizations will be higher, lowering the likelihood of failure. So far, TOs have been treated as isolates, having no linkages with the wider environment. However, no ‘project is an island’ (Engwall, 2003) and

106

Temporary organizations

population ecology theory acknowledges that ‘linkages of organizations to a broader institutional context may alter basic causal relationships advanced in organizational ecology’ (Baum, 2005, p. 89). Population ecology holds that organizational forms are more likely to survive if they acquire external legitimacy. Legitimacy enhances the status of an organizational form and facilitates the ability to acquire resources, among others. In other words, on the basis of population ecology theory arguments, organizational forms like the TO have a lower likelihood of failure when they have higher levels of social and transactional interconnectedness with their environment (see Uzzi, 1996). A second important central line of inquiry in ecological research is the relationship between population density, that is, the number of organizations in a population, and population dynamics – the founding and disbanding of organizations. These two constructs are connected through various mechanisms. Initially higher levels of population density (the number of foundings of organizations with a new form) increase the legitimacy of a new population. Due to these higher levels of legitimacy, members of the population have fewer problems acquiring resources because the other actors controlling resources take the new organizational form more and more for granted. As a result, the number of foundings is larger than the number of failures, which in turn leads to a higher level of population density. However, as the population of the new organizational form continues to grow, a situation arises in which population density exceeds the environmental carrying capacity. (Initially there was a surplus of resources and a low level of resource competition between population members. This was replaced with an environment in which resources were scarcer and the level of resource competition between population members increased.) As a consequence of this evolution, founding rates decrease and disbanding rates increase. Combined, these produce a curvilinear effect of population density on the founding and disbanding rates of new organizational forms (Carroll and Hannan, 1989). Theoretically, it is conceivable that the density dependency argument applies to temporary organizations. In the recent past, TOs were new organizational forms in search of external legitimacy. The TO has been promoted as ‘ideally suited for managing increasing product complexity, fast changing markets, cross-functional business expertise, customerfocused innovation and market, and technological uncertainty’ (Hobday, 2000, p. 871). If we look at the increasing attention of academic scholars and practitioners like Bechky (2006) and Grabher (2002) for TOs and comparable organizational forms, such as those that are project based, as evidence for higher net founding rates, we can conclude that the first part of the density dependency model seems to apply. However, the applicability

Applying organization theory to temporary organizations

107

of the theoretical arguments underpinning resource acquisition by TOs is less straightforward. Basically, this has to do with what should be considered to be the relevant environment of TOs (see the Resource Dependence Theory section) and the nature of competition therein. Or to put the question differently: with whom or what and where is a TO competing for relatively scarce resources? To answer this question from a population ecology theory point of view, one must distinguish between intra- and inter-population (or community) competition on the one hand, and the levels of niche overlap on the other. A community is a set of populations that are linked by ecological ties of competition, collaboration and mutual interdependence, such as software and hardware producers. Niche overlap is ‘the confrontation by organizations of a similar set of resources and constraints’ (Baum and Rao, 2004, p. 225). The greater the levels of niche overlap, the more organizations require similar resources, and the more intensely they compete. If these two dimensions are combined, it can be argued that the highest level of competition emerges in the case of high degrees of niche overlap. Moreover, one can maintain that intra-population competition is more intense than inter-population competition, because different populations have a higher likelihood of being situated in more heterogeneous environments. Environmental heterogeneity implies the presence of more diverse sets of resources and constraints that mitigate competition (Baum and Rao, 2004). Applying the same logic leads to the conclusion that the lowest level of competition can be found in the quadrant in which inter-population and low degree of niche overlap meet. If we apply these arguments to temporary organizations, TOs can compete for resources with other TOs (same population). These TOs can be both temporary projects initiated inside establishing organizations or interorganizational temporary collaborations. Moreover, a population of TOs competes for resources with a population of establishing organizations that clearly form a community based on their organizational and institutional ties. Even if it is assumed that there is a high degree of niche overlap in both cases, the competition in the latter case will be less intense. This line of thought is strengthened by the argument that organizations establish TOs to conduct specific tasks or to achieve specific goals that the establishing organizations are unable to conduct or achieve. This implies that establishing organizations have an interest in stimulating a high performance from the TO, most likely because that resource provision will be positively influenced. Consequently, the relationship between density level and founding and disbanding is stronger for those TOs that have to acquire resources in the same population. To conclude, if one accepts the idea that there are populations of

108

Temporary organizations

temporary organizations, then population ecology theory can be relatively easily applied to the temporary organization. Important ecological concepts such as age (duration of the temporary organization), density (the number of temporary organizations in a population), and founding (starting temporary organizations), can be easily applied. Moreover, the same seems to be true for the theoretical mechanisms connecting ecological concepts – relationships between age and density, and between age and inertia. The ecological concept of disbanding rate is, however, much more difficult to apply. As was explained earlier, disbanding is any form of exiting a population. As a consequence, disbanding is a multidimensional construct encompassing actual failure (for example, bankruptcy), merger or a planned termination of activities (for example, changing markets). In all cases, population ecology theory focuses on populations comprising of organizations that strive for long-term continuity. However, in TOs, termination is planned following goal achievement or task accomplishment. Therefore, we conclude that the disbanding construct used by population ecology theory basically does not capture this planned termination notion.

CONCLUSION In this concluding section we assess the explanatory power of a selection of existing organization theories for studying the phenomenon of temporary organizations. To this end we summarize our findings in Table 3.3. In the table, we describe the unit of analysis, central focus and central assumptions of each theory. Next, we evaluate the applicability and generalizability of each of these theories to TOs. A selection of existing organization theories was analyzed to find out the extent to which these could be used to study temporary organizations. Using applicability and generalizability as the main criteria, this assessment turns out to produce mixed results. As far as applicability is concerned, our analyses show that in most cases, existing organization theories are applicable to TOs. However, this is much less so when it comes to generalizability. With the exception of resource dependence theory, it is far from easy to arrive at generally applicable statements because, in many cases, theories are useable only under specific conditions. There are at least two possible related explanations for this conclusion. First, most theories try to explain the structure and behavior of nontemporary organizations. The moment temporariness is introduced, the logics of the theories in this chapter no longer apply. In other words, although the dependent and independent variables of the selected theories

109

Unit of analysis

Organization

Contingency theory

Differentiation and coordination

Centralization vs decentralization

Strategy – structure fit

Organizational structure – environmental contingency fit

Central focus

Core theory

Contingency theory is based on assumption of time and authority Independent variable – characteristics of the technology or work performed by a TO

Centralized structure most suited for low task uncertainty and vice versa

Ambiguous Contingency theory is very ‘task oriented’ Yes Dependent variable – structure of the TO

Structure should fit environmental requirements in order for the TO to be successful

Organization can adapt structures and strategies to external requirements

Generalizability

Applicability

Temporary organization

Central assumptions

Temporary organization case

Overview of the five theories and their applicability and generalizability to TOs

Theory

Table 3.3

110

Organization within its environment

Resource dependence theory

Bridging

Buffering

Reduction of environmental uncertainty

Central focus

Core theory

Unit of analysis

(continued)

Theory

Table 3.3

Independent variable – concentration, munificence and interconnectedness

Permanent organization perspective – TO is a bridging strategy

Organizations pursue selfinterest

Organizations have latitude for discretion

Organization can affect environment within constraints

Enacted environment to reduce uncertainty

Yes Dependent variable – buffering and bridging strategies reduce uncertainty

Temporary organization perspective – organizational unit can reduce uncertainty

No organization is self-sufficient

Applicability

Temporary organization

Central assumptions

Strategies: unique, onetime TOs – buffering; other TOs – buffering and bridging

Rather high: TO strategy depends on the level of discretion over and the sufficiency of resources

Generalizability

Temporary organization case

111

Neoinstitutional theory

Population within organizational field Emphasis on institutional, not technical environment

Explaining homogeneity of organizational forms and practices

Legitimacy dominates efficiency

Organization seeks legitimacy

Change is constrained

Pressures that are mimetic, coercive or normative emanate from the environment

Organization becomes homogeneous and isomorphic

TO as a legitimate organizational form Independent variable – legitimacy

Yes – Dependent variable – almost anything

No – TOs are internally task and time driven

Yes and no – Yes – TO needs to be externally legitimized

112

Transactions within and between organizations

Transaction cost theory

Costs of negotiating, monitoring and enforcing contracts

Asset specificity, uncertainty Static

Efficient transacting as a source of competitive advantage

Bounded rationality

Independent variable – uncertainty, asset specificity and frequency causing transaction costs

Yes – Dependent variable – governance form

TO as a specific type of hybrid governance

Opportunism

Structuring firm boundary Alignment of transactions and governance structures

Applicability

Temporary organization

Central assumptions

Depends on TO duration

Yes and no – Depends on level of uncertainty. High levels are problematic

Generalizability

Temporary organization case

Central focus

Core theory

Unit of analysis

(continued)

Theory

Table 3.3

113

Source:

Population

Evolution as variation, selection and retention

Process and rates of founding and disbanding

Explaining existence of many kinds of organizations

Density dependence

Liability of newness and smallness

Organizations are unable to adapt fast enough

Environmental determinism

Elaboration of Lewin, Weigett and Emery (2004), Table 5.1.

Population ecology theory

TO as a partly new organization form

Do TOs really constitute populations?

Independent variable – ecological factors

Partially – Dependent variable – birth and death of TO populations

Are TOs really inert?

Rather low – Concept of disbanding is problematic

114

Temporary organizations

seem to apply to TOs, the theoretical mechanisms connecting both types of variables differ. Second, and related to the first point, it can be argued that time plays a role in the selected theories, but its treatment is usually peripheral. The emergence of TOs and other temporary phenomena is indicative of the need to consider time in organization theory to a greater extent. We agree with Ancona et al. (2001, p. 245) that ‘this [temporal] lens offers its own set of variables and relationships, its own view of specific phenomena, and its own set of parameters to guide managerial action’. It is, therefore, our conclusion that there is a need for organization theoretical thinking on time, in general, and in the context of temporary organizations in particular.

NOTE 1. Here we take the temporary organization as the unit of analysis, and not the transactions it conducts with third parties.

REFERENCES Aldrich, H.E. (1999), Organizations Evolving. London: Sage Publications. Aldrich, H.E. and D.A.Whetten (1981), ‘Organization-sets, action-sets, and networks: making the most of simplicity’, in Nystrom, P.C. and W.H. Starbuck (eds), Handbook of Organizational Design, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 385–408. Ancona, D.G., Goodman, P.S., Lawrence, B.S. and M.L. Tushman (2001), ‘Time: A new research lens’, Academy of Management Review, 26 (4), 645–663. Baum, J.A.C. (2005), ‘Organizational ecology’, in Clegg, S.R. and C. Hardy (eds), Studying Organization: Theory and Method, London, UK: Sage Publications, pp. 71–108. Baum, J.A.C. and C. Oliver (1992), ‘Institutional embeddedness and the dynamics of organizational populations’, American Sociological Review, 57, 540–559. Baum, J.A.C. and H. Rao (2004), ‘Evolutionary dynamics of organizational populations and communities’, in Scott Poole, M. and A.H. van de Ven (eds), Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation, New York, US: Oxford University Press, pp. 212–258. Bechky, B. (2006), ‘Gaffers, gofers, and grips: Role-based coordination in temporary organizations’, Organization Science, 17, 3–22. Carroll, G.R. and M.T. Hannan (1989), ‘Density dependency in the evolution of populations of newspaper organizations’, American Sociological Review, 54, 524–541. Clegg, S. and C. Hardy (2006), Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Sage Publications. Colombo, M.G. (2003), ‘Alliance form: A test of the contractual and competence perspectives’, Strategic Management Journal, 24 (12), 1209–1229.

Applying organization theory to temporary organizations

115

Dacin, M.T. (1997), ‘Isomorphism in context: The power and prescription of institutional norms’, Academy of Management Journal, 40, 46–81. DiMaggio, P.J. and W.W. Powell (1983), ‘The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160. DiMaggio, P.J. and W.W. Powell (1991), ‘Introduction’, in Powell, W.W. and P.J. DiMaggio (eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago, US: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–38. Donaldson, L. (1995), American Anti-Management Theories of Organization: A Critique of Paradigm Proliferation. New York, US: Cambridge University Press. Donaldson, L. (2001), The Contingency Theory of Organizations. Thousand Oaks, US: Sage Publications. Drazin, R. and A.H. van de Ven (1985), ‘Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 30 (4), 514–539. Elchardus, M. (1990), ‘The temporalities of exchange: The case of self-organization for societal governance’, in B. Marin (ed.), Generalized Political Exchange: Antagonistic Cooperation and Integrated Policy Circuits, Boulder, US: Westview Press, pp. 231–255. Engwall, M. (2003), ‘No project is an island: Linking projects to history and context’, Research Policy, 32, 789–808. Evan, W.M. (1993), Organization Theory: Research and Design. New York, US: Macmillan Publishing Company. Fligstein, N. (1990), The Transformation of Corporate Control. Cambridge, US: Harvard University Press. Fredericks, E. (2005), ‘Infusing flexibility into business-to-business firms: A contingency theory and resource-based view perspective and practical implications’, Industrial Marketing Management, 34 (6), 555–565. Frumkin, P. and J. Galaskiewicz (2004), ‘Institutional isomorphism and public sector organizations’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14 (3), 283–307. Gardiner, P.D. and J.E.L. Simmons (1998), ‘Conflict in small- and mediumsized projects: Case of partnering to the rescue’, Journal of Management in Engineering, 14 (1), 35–40. Grabher, G. (2002), ‘The project ecology of advertising: Tasks, talents and teams’, Regional Studies, 36, 245–262. Grandori, A. (2006), ‘Innovation, uncertainty and relational governance’, Industry and Innovation, 13 (2), 127–133. Gulati, R. (1995), ‘Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances’, Academy of Management Journal, 38, 85–112. Hall, P.A. and R.C.R. Taylor (1996), ‘Political science and the three new institutionalisms’, Political Studies, 44 (5), 936–957. Hall, P.A. and P.S. Tolbert (2005), Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes. Upper Saddle River, US: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Hannan, M.T. and J. Freeman (1977), ‘The population ecology of organizations’, American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929–964. Hannan, M.T. and J. Freeman (1984), ‘Structural inertia and organizational change’, American Sociological Review, 49, 149–164. Hennart, J.-F. (1988), ‘A transaction cost theory of equity joint ventures’, Strategic Management Journal, 9 (4), 361–374.

116

Temporary organizations

Hennart, J.-F. (1993), ‘Explaining the swollen middle: Why most transactions are a mix of “market” and “hierarchy”’, Organization Science, 4 (4), 529–547. Hobday, M. (2000), ‘The project-based organization: An ideal form for managing complex products and systems?’ Research Policy, 29 (7–8), 871–893. Human, S.E. and K.G. Provan (2000), ‘Legitimacy building in the evolution of small-firm multilateral networks: A comparative study of success and demise’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 327–365. Jepperson, R.L. (1991), ‘Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism’, in Powell, W.W. and P.J. DiMaggio (eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago, US: University of Chicago Press, pp. 143–163. Jolivet, F. and C. Navarre (1996), ‘Large-scale projects, self-organizing and metarules: Towards new forms of management’, International Journal of Project Management, 14 (5), 265–271. Katz, R. (1982), ‘The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 81–104. Kelly, D. and T.L. Amburgery (1991), ‘Organizational inertia and momentum: A dynamic model of strategic change’, Academy of Management Journal, 34, 591–612. Knoke, D. (2001), Changing Organizations: Business Networks in the New Political Economy. Boulder, US: Westview. Lawrence, P. and J. Lorsch (1967), ‘Differentiation and integration in complex organizations’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 12 (1), 1–30. Lewin, A.Y., Weigelt, C.B. and J.D. Emery (2004), ‘Adaptation and selection in strategy and change’, in Scott Poole, M. and A.H. van de Ven (eds), Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation, New York, US: Oxford University Press, pp. 108–160. Lindkvist, L. (2005), ‘Knowledge communities and knowledge collectivities: A typology of knowledge work in groups’, Journal of Management Studies, 42, 1189–1210. Lundin, R.A. and A. Söderholm (1995), ‘A theory of the temporary organization’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11 (4), p. 437–455. Meyer, J.W. and B. Rowan (1977), ‘Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony’, American Journal of Sociology, 83 (2), 340–363. Miles, M.B. (1964), ‘On temporary systems’, in M.B. Miles (ed.), Innovation in Education, New York, US: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, pp. 437–490. Oliver, C. (1991), ‘Strategic responses to institutional processes’, Academy of Management Review, 16 (1), 145–179. Pfeffer, J. (1987), ‘A resource dependencies perspective on intercorporate relations’, in Mizruchi, M.S. and M. Schwartz (eds), Intercorporate Relations, New York, US: Cambridge University Press, pp. 25–55. Pfeffer, J. and G.R. Salancik (1978), The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective, New York, US: Harper and Row. Pfeffer, J. and G.R. Salancik (2003), The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective, Stanford, US: Stanford Business Books. Rao, H. and J.V. Singh (1999), ‘Types of variation in organizational populations: The speciation of new organizational forms’, in Baum, J.A.C. and B. McKelvey (eds), Variations in Organization Science: In honor of Donald T. Campbell, Thousand Oaks, US: Sage, pp. 63–77.

Applying organization theory to temporary organizations

117

Rowan, B. (1982), ‘Organizational structure and the institutional environment: The case of public schools’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 27 (2), 259–279. Ruef, M. and W.R. Scott (1998), ‘A multidimensional model of organizational legitimacy: Hospital survival in changing institutional environments’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 877–904. Scott, R.W. (1987), ‘The adolescence of institutional theory’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 32 (4), 493–511. Scott, R.W. (2001), Institutions and Organizations, 2nd ed., Thousand Oaks, US: Sage Publications. Scott, R.W. and G.F. Davis (2007), Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and Open System Perspectives, New Jersey, US: Pearson Education. Singh, J.V., House, R.J. and D.J. Tucker (1986), ‘Organizational change and organizational mortality’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 31 (4), 587–661. Soda, G., Usai, A. and A. Zaheer (2004), ‘Network memory: The influence of past and current networks on performance’, Academy of Management Journal, 47 (6), 893–906. Stinchcombe, A.L. (1965), ‘Social structure and organizations’, in J.G. March (ed.), Handbook of Organizations, Chicago, US: Rand McNally, pp. 153–193. Thompson, J.D. and W.J. McEwen (1958), ‘Organizational goals and environment’, American Sociological Review, 23, 23–31. Uzzi, B. (1996), ‘The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect’, American Sociological Review, 61, 674–698. Williamson, O. (1985), The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York, US: The Free Press. Williamson, O. (1991), ‘Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives’, Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 36 (2), 269–296. Williamson, O. (1996), ‘Economics and organization: A primer’, California Management Review, 38 (2), 131–146. Williamson, O. (1999), ‘Strategy research: Governance and competence perspectives’, Strategic Management Journal, 20 (12), 1087–1108. Williamson, O. (2002), ‘The theory of the firm as governance structure: From choice to contract’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16 (3), 171–195. Zucker, L.G. (1987), ‘Institutional theories of organizations’, Annual Review of Sociology 13, 443–464.

PART II

Conceptual insights into temporary organizations

4

Time matters: the impact of ‘temporariness’ on the functioning and performance of organizations René M. Bakker and Martyna Janowicz-Panjaitan Live neither in the past nor in the future, but let each day’s work absorb your entire energies, and satisfy your widest ambition. – Sir William Osler, to his students

INTRODUCTION In increasing numbers, firms are setting up temporary organizations (TOs), to reach strategic and operational goals and to keep up with the fast pace of change in the technological and market environment (see Brady and Davies, 2004). Examples of these inter- or intra-organizational TOs may include sports event organizers, trial juries, cockpit crews, movie sets, construction projects and theatre groups among others (Bechky, 2006; Meyerson et al., 1996; Miles, 1964). TOs1 have been variously defined as ‘a set of diversely skilled people working together on a complex task over a limited time period’ (Goodman and Goodman, 1976, p. 494), as systems ‘limited in duration and membership, in which people come together, interact, create something, and then disband’ (Morley and Silver, 1977, p. 59) and as ‘structures of limited duration that operate within and between permanent organizations’ (Keith, 1978, p. 195). TOs are often projected as a new and promising form for economic action (Grabher, 2002; Sydow et al., 2004) and as ideal loci of learning and innovation (Brady and Davies, 2004; Ibert, 2004). Moreover, TOs have become commonplace in many and diverse industries (Chapter 2, this volume) and are a focus of a nascent field of scientific study. In order for TOs to be considered a truly unique organizational form warranting systematic scientific inquiry, there needs to be an element 121

122

Temporary organizations

exclusive to TOs that distinguishes them from other organizational forms. Based on a review of extant literature, Janowicz-Panjaitan, Bakker and Kenis (Chapter 2, this volume), identified temporariness as the crucial, unique characteristic of TOs. They defined temporariness as the finite time limit on the existence of TOs (for instance in the form of a deadline), which has been defined at, or prior to, the TO’s formation. They concluded that the implications of temporariness for a TO’s functioning, performance and link to the wider organizational context are currently lacking in the literature. There is thus room for theory development linking elements of time to TOs. This theory development should move beyond the discussion of temporal phases in TOs and beyond normative counsel on how to best pace projects. It is for these reasons that we start from the premise that to truly understand temporary organizations, one needs to consider the role of temporariness and its effects. Consequently, our goal in this chapter is twofold. First, we aim to explore the phenomenon of time and temporariness in TOs in depth. Second, we will formulate propositions concerning the effect of temporariness versus non-temporariness on TO functioning and outcomes. In so doing, this chapter echoes the recent call for bestowing upon time and temporality a more prominent place in organization studies (see Bluedorn and Denhardt, 1988; George and Jones, 2000) and in research on TOs in particular (Chapter 2, this volume). In this chapter we propose temporariness to be a temporal element which has a strong impact on the functioning and performance of organizations. That time-limiting effects in organizations might be intriguing can be witnessed in research by Sutton (1987) on ‘dying organizations’, organizations that announce that they will cease to exist within a limited time. Sutton demonstrated that, contrary to management’s predictions, the effort members invested in their work, after having been made aware of the impending termination of the organization, remained constant in some instances and even increased in many others. How temporariness impacts organizations is the focus of this chapter.

TIME IN ORGANIZATIONS Numerous examples illustrate the profound impact temporal matters have on our (organizational) lives. The annual spring shift to daylight saving time has been shown to result in an average increase in traffic accidents of approximately 8 per cent (Grekin and Coren, 1996), and the nuclear catastrophe at Chernobyl and the Exxon Valdez oil spill have been linked to, amongst others, disrupted circadian rhythms (Mitler et al., 1988). A

Time matters: the impact of ‘temporariness’ on organizations

123

particularly salient example of how temporal matters can impact our lives is quoted in Labianca et al. (2005, p. 677) and concerns scientists working on Mars Rovers at the Jet Propulsion Lab, who work Martian days, which are 37 minutes longer than earth days. Although a 37 minute difference in day length may seem a minor adjustment, Jet Propulsion Lab scientists suffered from severe jetlag-like complaints within just days of working on the project, which eventually necessitated a change in the programming of the scientists’ working week. In Western culture, clock time has come to be the dominant perspective on time. This dominant view of time (also referred to as ‘natural’, ‘objective’, ‘even’ or ‘chronological’ time) is characterized by the assumption that time is independent from mankind and relates to ‘Newtonian assumptions of time as abstract, absolute, unitary, invariant, linear, mechanical, and quantitative’ (Orlikowski and Yates, 2002, p. 685). This perspective of time is now accepted without question and has become so fully institutionalized in contemporary Western society that alternative perspectives are hard to recognize and grasp (see Bluedorn and Denhardt, 1988). This perspective on time should neither be taken for granted, nor obscure other, more subjective, points of view. According to Mainemelis (2001), social scientists agree that time as an external dimension, independent of humans, does not exist. All of us have probably felt the sensation of time passing slowly at some point – when waiting for a delayed flight for example – or, conversely, of experiencing time ‘fly’ when having fun. Flaherty (1987, p. 313) captures this subjectivity of time nicely by describing how clock time can be viewed as an externalization of the inner experience that James (1892) referred to as the intra-subjective ‘stream of consciousness’: As you read these words, reflect on the following: that in so doing, you are marking time. You need not consult your watch in order to accomplish this feat; its movements are merely externalizations of that kaleidoscopic stream of experience that you distil into an image of duration.

Bergson (1910) elucidated that stimuli from the environment are processed by our consciousness, linked to one another and experienced as inner duration, or durée. After our consciousness has created durée, it is subsequently projected back to external space: Bergson saw this process as a kind of cinematographic operation: consciousness takes several snapshots of reality: it keeps a record of them by means of inner duration; it arranges them successively side by side to form a reel; and it projects the reel back to space ‘in high speed’, creating the illusion of a uniform linear movement that progresses through an invisible medium of ‘time’ . . . . Time, however, only exists in the apparatus (Mainemelis, 2001, p. 550, emphasis original).

124

Temporary organizations

Therefore, it should be clear that our clock does not produce time, we do. Besides being intra-subjective, time also has an inter-subjective capacity. Durkheim (1912) proposed that our individual temporal experiences are shaped by collective rhythms in society. In fact, some degree of consensus on time is needed to maintain social order2 (Flaherty, 1987). The experience of time can become inter-subjective through socialization, as demonstrated by several studies, including Bluedorn and Denhardt (1988), Hall and Hall (1990) and Kluckhohn (1953), which show how time perspectives tend to converge within, but diverge across cultures. As examples, consider the difficulties many Northern Europeans experience doing business in Africa and Southern Spain when faced with the different interpretations of deadlines and time urgency inherent to ‘Africa time’, or the ‘mañana’ culture sometimes ascribed to Southern Spain. For the purposes of our discussion, we will treat time as an abstract notion with both intra-subjective capacity – varying in and between individuals – and an inter-subjective capacity; socialization in groups forms and constrains our time perspectives (resulting in variation between groups and cultures). These notions of intra- and inter-subjective capacities form the basis for our discussion of time in organizations. A number of researchers have been calling for a more prominent place for the impact of time in organization studies (George and Jones, 2000; Orlikowski and Yates, 2002). Their rationale is that although time is a major dimension of social organization (Zerubavel, 1979) and ‘as fundamental a topic as any that exists in human affairs’ (Bluedorn and Denhardt, 1988, p. 316), it has yielded relatively few systematic research endeavors in organization and management studies, despite some notable exceptions (Bluedorn and Denhardt, 1988; Butler, 1995; Gersick, 1988, 1989; Hassard, 1991, 1996; Labianca et al., 2005; McGrath and Rotchford, 1983; Perlow, 1999; Zerubavel, 1979). Moreover, studies tend to incorporate the role of time as a factor only marginally, rather than focus on it as key variable (Ancona and Chong, 1996). Because contemporary Western organizations are embedded in a society in which an objective clock time perspective prevails, it is no surprise that, for organizations, clock time is the dominant time perspective on which they operate and the dominant view from which they are studied (George and Jones, 2000). Just as the dominant time perspective in organizations is a consequence of their embeddedness in society, ‘joining a formal work organization represents the final stage in conditioning the individual to an “organized” time consciousness’ (Hassard, 1996, p. 366). Rather than mere recipients of a clock time preoccupied society, organizations can be seen as producing and reinforcing its prevalence. It so happens that clock time holds advantages for production systems: it both standardizes

Time matters: the impact of ‘temporariness’ on organizations

125

a common operating framework for synchronizing activities, and commodifies labor as a factor of production (Hassard, 1989), as epitomized in Frederick Taylor’s time and motion studies in 1911 (Taylor, 1911 [1967]). There has not always been an obsession with clock time. In traditional economies, work systems were task oriented (Hassard, 1989). With the advent of industrialization however, the focus of organizations shifted from man to machine and efficiency. Mass production and speed became dominant and the clock became the major instrument for coordination and control, giving rise to metaphors such as ‘time is money, time is a limited resource, and time is a valuable commodity’ (McGrath and Rotchford, 1983, p. 66). Ever since this transformation, modern economies, unlike traditional ones, have been time oriented, as reflected, among others, in 9 to 5 working days, 15 minute coffee breaks, ‘overtime’ and two-day weekends. Although the prevalence of clock time appears undeniable, a number of writers have suggested that not all organizations experience time in a similar fashion. For instance, the ‘plurality of social times’, as advocated by Hassard (1989), distinguishes between the micro-social times of groups and communities and the macro-social times of systems and institutions, because, although society runs on clock time, ‘groups and organizations may . . . have different collective experiences of time’ (George and Jones, 2000, p. 660). In another study, Clark (1985) suggested that time is idiosyncratic to organizations, meaning that each organization has its own highly local event time, whether for the organization as a whole or merely for its sub-parts. Similarly, Hassard (1989) has noted the difference between management’s obsession with linear clock time and calculations of duration on the one hand, and the work floor using their knowledge of event cycles to produce time, on the other hand. Zerubavel (1979) has shown how the temporal structure of ‘private’ and ‘public’ time differs between doctors and nurses in hospitals. Finally, Lee and Liebenau (1999) report on findings that indicate that sub-parts of organizations, professional groups and organizations can differ in the time parameters of their organizational culture. The above examples indicate the existence of what Ancona et al. (2001) have labeled ‘temporal zones’, both within and between organizations. In essence, a temporal zone can be seen as a sub-part of an organization that is relatively homogeneous internally, while distinct from its environment with respect to temporal parameters such as time horizons, time pressure, time perspectives, temporal norms, pace, rhythm, cycle, scheduling, pressure, flexibility, scarcity, urgency and/or autonomy (Ancona et al., 2001). A perfect example of a temporal zone is provided by Roy (1960). In this study Roy showed how a different interpretation of time emerged at the

126

Temporary organizations

level of groups of factory workers. In order to make it through the long days of tedious factory work, the group invented its own event-based system in which they created concepts such as ‘peach time’, ‘banana time’, ‘window time’, ‘pick up time’ and ‘fish time’, each accompanied by specific role-playing interactions to punctuate the infinitely stretching work day. Instead of ‘the day being endless durée it was regulated in a series of social activities’ (Hassard, 1996, p. 333) limiting the experienced time horizons. Temporal zones may emerge spontaneously, as was the case with ‘banana time’ in Roy’s study (1960), or be brought into existence intentionally. With respect to the latter, Ancona and colleagues (2001) proposed that temporal zones in organizations are designed to achieve ‘temporal fit’ with specific environments or task demands, ‘grouping together activities sharing the same temporal parameters, such as pace, time horizon and cycle’ (Ancona et al., 2001, p. 525) while differentiated with respect to temporal parameters in their environment. That such differentiation in temporal parameters may emerge with regard to teams or work groups, such as temporary organizations, is supported in a number of studies. For instance, Labianca et al. (2005, p. 678) argue, that ‘[w]hen a team comes into existence, it establishes a temporal schema that differentiates its members’ understanding and experience of time and deadlines from that of others’. This is in line with Ancona and Chong’s contention (1996, p. 259) that ‘in an organization there might be a dominant temporal cycle, . . . and numerous other cycles such as team cycles’. This theory is supported by research that shows that teams tend to pace themselves in a unique way (Gersick, 1988, 1989). This finding has important implications for TOs, and Bluedorn and Denhardt (1988, p. 304) build upon it by making it explicit that there are ‘temporal rhythms among various classes or groups within organizations’, and that ‘small groups, classes or organizations may be thought of as having temporal boundaries that distinguish them from others’ (Bluedorn and Denhardt, 1988, p. 307). This is clearly the case for temporary groups. As proposed in the introduction, we consider the temporariness of TOs to be their defining characteristic. Temporariness and the unique approach to time and timing that it implies render TOs temporally distinct from non-temporary organizations. Several authors support this contention. The concept of atemporality, as recently applied to TOs by JanowiczPanjaitan, Kenis and Vermeulen (Chapter 5, this volume), implies that temporal distinctiveness arises in TOs from their being sheltered from the past, present and future. This is based on the notion that, by virtue of their ex ante specified ending point, TOs have a ‘right-bracketed’ time frame (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995), and therefore do not anticipate a future. In addition, TOs often have a clearly fixed starting point, and in the

Time matters: the impact of ‘temporariness’ on organizations

127

extreme, are made up of people who have never worked together before (Goodman and Goodman, 1976). This implies that TOs, more often than not are also ‘left-bracketed’, lacking a common history. This signifies that ‘a temporary organization is decoupled from other past, contemporary, or even future sequences of activities’ (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995, p. 446). Miles (1964) refers to this shelter as creating a ‘temporal bubble’, which distinguishes the TO from its permanent environment, delineating a temporal zone. Such temporal zones may have similarities to ‘liminal spaces’, which are in this case, paraphrasing Turner (1977), social spaces betwixt and between positions arrayed by ongoing organizations (see also Tempest and Starkey, 2004). From a view of TOs as temporal zones, we will argue that TO members operating in such a liminal space will develop specific ways of functioning, with consequences for the outcomes of the TO as a whole.

TEMPORARINESS: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUNCTIONING OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF TOS Thus far, we have treated temporariness as an organization-level variable. In fact, a number of different levels of time can be distinguished, including an individual and an organizational level (Das, 1993) among others. These different levels are not independent of each other; rather, they are likely to interact: inter-subjective, aggregated time levels shape and constrain individual, subjective time orientations. In fact, as Das (1993) notes, the more interesting phenomena occur at the intersection of the different temporal levels. The role of the individual, while taking center stage in management and organization studies, is often neglected when studying temporal matters (Das, 1993). In this section, we will look at the implications of temporariness for individual members, and explore the impact that these micro processes have on the relationship between temporariness and performance. Based on Coleman (1990), we thus attempt to understand the macro relationship between temporariness and performance by focusing on micro behavior: the behavior of TO members in an organization that is temporary (see Figure 4.1). Specifically, we propose that three phenomena form the micro foundation for the relation between the temporariness of TOs and their performance. In TOs, compared to members of non-temporary organizations, members are likely to focus more on the present than on the past and future (P1); members are more likely to experience timelessness (P2); and members will entrain less to external temporal cycles in the environment (P3). We argue that by considering these three micro

Performance of TO vs. non-temporary organizations: - Creative problem solving / innovation (P4) - Sedimenting knowledge (P5)

Temporariness as ex ante defined time limit on organization’s existence

Temporariness as members’ awareness of impending termination

TO members’ level of -Focus on present (P1) - Timelessness (P2) - Entrainment (P3) compared to members of non-temporary organizations

Figure 4.1

Organizational level: system

Temporary organizations

Individual level (action)

128

Effect of temporariness on organizational performance: micro foundations

mechanisms, we can infer the influence that temporariness is likely to have on a TO’s performance. Specifically, we propose that temporariness is likely to have a positive effect on creative problem solving (P4) and a negative effect on knowledge sedimentation (P5). The performance effects will be discussed in detail in the following section. The central argument of this section on the implications of temporariness for the functioning of individual TO members is that a temporal zone perspective on TOs allows us to view them as distinct forms, where members operate in a protective bubble, guarded from the shadow of the future and the burdens of the past (Miles, 1964).3 This bubble has a twofold effect on TO members. On the one hand, members are ‘apart’ or distinct from the rest of the organization(s) while, on the other hand, they are ‘together’, and, therefore, collectively share the temporary character of the TO (Miles, 1964). This twofold effect results in the creation of group boundaries, as labeled in Social Identity Theory (see Taifel and Turner, 1979). Viewing TOs as temporal zones, we propose that distinct features are likely to arise in them which have important implications for their functioning (see Bechky, 2006). In fact, past research has shown that unique practices (Scarbrough et al., 2004) and distinctive norms (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995) can indeed emerge in TOs. We build on an understanding of temporariness as an organizational-

Time matters: the impact of ‘temporariness’ on organizations

129

level variable, which leads to an individual-level awareness of impending termination among TO members (Chapter 2, this volume). Because of this awareness, we believe that members in TOs and those in non-temporary organizations perceive and deal with the past, the present and the future differently, or what Twenge et al. (2003, p. 410–411) refer to as ‘time orientation’. Specifically, we argue that in temporary organizations, a strong orientation toward the present is likely to emerge among its members. The subjectivity and malleability of its members’ time orientation is an important consideration in the study of time orientation in temporary organizations. When focusing on people’s time orientation, it should be noted that it is both subjective and malleable (Ebert and Prelec, 2007). Moreover, ‘future and past events have an impact on present behavior to the extent that they are actually present on the cognitive level of behavioural functioning’ (Nuttin, 1985, p. 54, emphasis added). We posit that TO members’ awareness that termination of the TO is looming, after which time essentially ends for the TO as well as for the individual’s membership in the group, is likely to diminish the effect of future anticipations on TO members’ current behavior. It is as if from the perspective of a TO member, both toward the task and his/her fellow TO members, there is no shared future beyond the TO’s termination point. Or as Lundin et al. (2002, p. 136) put it, in TOs ‘the future is bounded by the project’s end’. One might suppose that if there is no, or very little expectancy of future collaboration, there may be little to no importance placed on the consequences of present actions for the future, simply because the TO is unlikely to be in the future. Moreover, a long-term vision and long-range planning of activities seem counterintuitive in a temporary setting. In addition, in a temporary context in which members work on a clearly defined task that must be accomplished within a limited time, there is little opportunity for the postponement of activities. Taken together, these circumstances render it likely for members of a temporary group to focus less on the distant future and more on the present. For reasons similar to their decoupling from the future, TOs are often decoupled from the past, because TOs have a clearly fixed starting point and are often composed of members who have rarely or never worked together before (Goodman and Goodman, 1976). Therefore, TO members most often lack a common history. In this ‘left-bracketing’ model, the lack of common history prior to the starting point of the TO implies that its members lack a common experience and the opportunity to have developed trust, but equally do not have to carry any ‘burdens of the past’ (Miles, 1964). In fact, the time brackets imposed by the TO’s temporariness rid the TO members of a ‘shadow’ of a common past and future (Miles, 1964). Temporary systems, therefore, likely create a narrowed

130

Temporary organizations

time perspective among their members: ‘the person lives more in the psychological present, coping with immediate demands and simultaneously forgetting the past and neglecting plans for the future’ (Miles, 1964, p. 457–458). This phenomenon of being ‘concerned . . . with the immediate present and the proximate future’ is the essence of a present-time orientation, also referred to as ‘closed time’ (Ancona et al., 2001, p. 524). In summary, by creating a distinct temporal zone or bubble, TO members are freed from the expectancy of a common future as well as from the weight of a common past. Therefore, it follows that: Proposition 1: All things being equal, members of temporary organizations focus more on the present (rather than on the past or future) as compared to members of non-temporary organizations. A stronger orientation to the present, rather than the past or future, can be linked to a stronger focus on the depth of experience rather than its sequence. Mainemelis (2001) suggests that there are two dimensions to the experience of time – its depth and its succession – and that a tradeoff exists between the two. In other words, because of limited attention resources, ‘the more one’s consciousness focuses on succession, the less attention it invests in the depth of the here-and-now experience, and vice versa’ (Mainemelis, 2001, p. 551). The succession of time relates to its stream from the past to the future. In ordinary settings, members of organizations link each unfolding moment to the past and the future, creating a sequence. In temporary settings, although the basic mechanism is likely to be similar, for TO members the past and future are limited to the temporal brackets created by the beginning and termination point of the TO. Therefore, members are likely to have less opportunity, and perhaps less inclination to sequence or link current events to those preceding and following the existence of the TO. This trade-off between depth and succession of duration, allows greater depth of experience. To counter the risk of sounding esoteric, consider how not worrying about the long-term future of one’s project frees up ‘brain space’ to focus fully on the present. The combination of greater depth of current experience, less attention to sequencing and matching one’s sense of duration to clock time is likely to result in an experience of timelessness. Mainemelis (2001, p. 548) defined timelessness as ‘the experience of transcending time and one’s self by becoming immersed in a captivating present-moment activity’. The total engagement in a task that timelessness implies bears close resemblance to the concept of flow as developed by Csikszentmihalyi (1975) and Csikszentmihalyi and LeFevre (1989). In experiencing timelessness, a person becomes totally immersed in the task at hand, a state which

Time matters: the impact of ‘temporariness’ on organizations

131

‘mobilizes one’s entire attention resources and physical energy toward only one stimulus, which is the present-moment activity’, accompanied by a temporary loss of self-consciousness and sense of time (Goleman, 1997 in Mainemelis, 2001, p. 556). As Mainemelis (2001) notes, one prominent way in which timelessness thus manifests itself is by individuals experiencing distorted perceptions of duration. Prior research has demonstrated that under various circumstances, a given period of time may seem to pass faster or slower (Flaherty, 1987). The underlying argument for this phenomenon is found in cognitive psychological models such as the cognitive timer model (Glicksohn, 2001; Zakay, 1989). The logic of this model is that attention and arousal are codependent (Kahneman, 1973). As such, if one activity requires more extensive attention, less attention is available for other tasks, both tapping into the same pool of attentional resources (Glicksohn, 2001). Individuals constantly – more-or-less consciously – try to match their produced sense of duration to a clock, by virtue of a cognitive timer, and thus withdraw from the attention pool. As a consequence, when more attention needs to be invested in non-temporal cognitive processing – for instance when an individual is engaged in a stimulating task – less attention is available for the cognitive timer, resulting in distorted duration perceptions (Glicksohn, 2001). This trade-off between attention devoted to cognitive timing and attention committed to stimulating tasks is similar to the trade-off between the depth and succession dimensions of time. When focusing on an activity occurring in the present moment (proposition 1), less attention is granted to the succession of time as recorded by the cognitive timer, and more attention is put into the depth of the experience, likely resulting in distorted perceptions of duration4 and the experience of timelessness. Moreover, timelessness is likely to occur when there is ‘a psychological space in which one can become immersed in the present-moment activity without worrying about future consequences’ (Mainemelis, 2001, p. 555). By virtue of their temporariness, TOs draw members into the present rather than into the past or future. In essence then, the past and future only ‘distract one’s attention from the depth of the here-and-now direct experience’ (Mainemelis, 2001, p. 559), limiting the opportunity for the experience of timelessness. In other words, when not taking into account the past and future, members focus on the depth of the present moment, and as ‘other concerns fade . . . the participant often reports that he is working at the heights of his powers’ (Miles, 1964, p. 463).5 It follows that: Proposition 2: All things being equal, members of temporary organizations are more likely to experience episodes of timelessness as compared to members of non-temporary organizations.

132

Temporary organizations

Entrainment has been defined as ‘the adjustment of the pace or cycle of one activity to match or synchronize with that of another’ (Ancona and Chong, 1996, p. 251). Entrainment implies that while groups or organizations have their own endogenous temporal cycles, these cycles are captured by dominant, external ‘pacers’. Working together, these captured cycles ‘establish an entrained rhythm that then “pulls” many other cycles into synchrony’ (Ancona and Chong, 1996, p. 253), increasing these cycles’ dominance. Just like any other temporal zone, TOs are entrained to the pace and cycles of their environment. However, there are reasons why TO members entrain relatively less with their environment than members of non-temporary organizations. Ancona and Chong (1996) argued that entrainment depends on the presence of external cues in the environment as well as the system’s openness to those external cues. The temporariness of a system is likely to influence the system’s openness to those cues. Chong (1995) found that those teams that were ‘buffered from their external environment paced themselves through internal mechanisms and the task at hand’, while ‘teams that were not buffered from the external environment . . . exhibited entrainment to external rhythms’ (Ancona and Chong, 1996, p. 264). According to them (p. 270), organization members, groups and organizations ‘that are more open to their environment will be more likely to entrain to that environment than those with impermeable boundaries’ that buffer against entrainment. We propose that the protective brackets of TOs that shelter them from the past and future are likely to act as buffers and limit TO members’ concern with external cycles that stretch beyond the TO’s existence. In fact, some scholars have observed that members of TOs tend to display unique pacing procedures (Gersick, 1988; Miles, 1964) distinct from those observed in the permanent contexts that envelop them. Examples of this include Gersick’s model (1988), which shows that teams with explicit deadlines ‘pace themselves to temporal milestones’ (Ancona and Chong, 1996, p. 264), suggesting that a group’s time consciousness can strongly differ from that of its context. TO members’ present-time orientation thus makes them less prone to the temporal parameters prevalent in their environment. This implies that due to their awareness of impending termination and the strong focus on the immediate activity that it tends to elicit, members of TOs are likely to pay relatively less attention to external temporal cues. Therefore, the extent of their entrainment is likely to be lower. Whereas non-temporary organizations tend to be strongly entrained to dominant cycles (Ancona and Chong, 1996), members of TOs are unlikely to devote much attention to cycles extending beyond the point of their termination. The same argument could be made with respect to the TO’s past. Thus, all things being

Time matters: the impact of ‘temporariness’ on organizations

133

equal, by virtue of their temporariness, cycles outside the TO members’ system, such as culturally prevalent clock time milestones, are likely to have less impact on the TO’s endogenous cycles, such as members’ pace of work or setting intermediate deadlines, than is the case in non-temporary organizations. Therefore, it follows that: Proposition 3: All things being equal, members of temporary organizations are likely to be less entrained to cycles in the environment as compared to members of non-temporary organizations.

TEMPORARINESS: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF TOS By applying propositions 1 through 3, we will show that the ways in which individuals function in a TO can affect the performance of the whole organization. We begin this discussion with the assumption that the individuallevel processes described above aggregate to group-level outcomes (see Figure 4.1). More specifically, we argue that due to temporary organization members’ stronger focus on the present, higher likelihood of experiencing timelessness and relatively low level of entrainment, TOs can produce more beneficial outcomes than non-temporary organizations; specifically, increased output of creative solutions, a higher innovative output and superior knowledge creation. At the same time, however, temporariness may also make it more difficult for a TO to sediment knowledge into the wider organizational context than is the case in non-temporary organizations. Creative Solutions, Innovation and Knowledge Creation Compared to non-temporary organizations, TOs provide a context in which creativity, innovation and knowledge creation can emerge more readily. First, creativity, innovation and knowledge creation in TOs are likely to be boosted by a present-time orientation. Increased focus on the present is an outcome of limited attention resources; the less attention one needs to invest in the succession of events and linking them to the past and future, the more deeply one can focus on the task at hand (Mainemelis, 2001). As an example of this outcome, Labianca et al. (2005) found that ‘atypical’ deadlines, meaning deadlines that require more cognitive processing because of an awkward start and end time – such as 4:07 rather than 4:00 – result in lower performance on tasks. Labianca and colleagues explained this finding by arguing that the cognitive processing involved in atypical deadlines constitutes a cognitive distraction from the task to be

134

Temporary organizations

completed. A present-time orientation is thus likely to result in a surplus of cognitive attention available for the task at hand. A second reason why TOs provide a context for creativity, innovation and knowledge creation was suggested by Mainemelis (2001, p. 548): ‘scholars . . . have suggested over the years that the timeless intensity of the present moment is a gateway to creativity and joy’. More specifically, timelessness suspends two factors that are detrimental for the generation of novel and useful ideas: fear of failure and fear of negative judgment: What usually kills or blocks one’s creativity is lack of courage to explore novel or countercultural ideas, paralyzing anxiety about one’s performance, and premature rejection of one’s insights as inadequate or not worthy of further elaboration. The loss of self-consciousness . . . prevents the arousal of such fears and judgments and facilitates the playful and imaginative engagement in the task (Mainemelis, 2001, p. 559).

In 1964 Miles (p. 455) added to this belief when he suggested that the temporariness of TOs also directly alleviates the fear of experimenting. The penalties for making mistakes are reduced. Since life in the temporary system ‘is not for keeps’ the participant ordinarily feels freer to experiment, in the knowledge that other members of the system will not be around later to punish his acts, should his experimentation threaten them in some way.

This statement suggests that by virtue of the timelessness experience, temporariness, both directly and indirectly, lessens the creativity hampering fears of failure and negative judgment among TO members, leading to increased creativity and knowledge creation. Finally, besides the positive consequences regarding the provision of order and coordination, entrainment to external pacers can have negative implications as well. One negative implication is that entrainment may hamper creativity (Ancona and Chong, 1996, p. 278). When all organizational parts or all partnering organizations are dominated by one pacer as a consequence of entrainment, their actions can become artificially unified. This could keep them from functioning in a manner that temporally ‘fits’ the specific task and leads to optimal results. Under conditions of entrainment, alternative temporal scenarios are suppressed because the entire organization is wrenched into the same temporal cycle. Moreover, since entrainment reflects repeated patterns, it emphasizes routine over innovation (Ancona and Chong, 1996). The effect of entrainment, creating temporal order and unity through repeating cycles and rhythms, is likely to lessen ‘the probability of searching for, and finding, creative solutions and new modes of operation’ (Ancona and Chong, 1996, p. 278). As we argued

Time matters: the impact of ‘temporariness’ on organizations

135

in the previous section, because TOs are likely to be less entrained to external pacers, they are likely to create the temporal space in which creativity and innovation can flourish. Based on these assumptions, by virtue of their greater present-time orientation, higher probability of timelessness and lower entrainment, we argue that all things being equal, temporariness of TOs is likely to produce higher levels of creativity and innovation compared to non-temporary organizations. Consequently, we propose that: Proposition 4: All things being equal, temporary organizations are better able to develop creative solutions and create innovative output as compared to non-temporary organizations. Knowledge Sedimentation in the Non-Temporary Context The same characteristics that render TOs appropriate vehicles for unleashing creativity, innovation and knowledge creation might have negative consequences for sedimenting knowledge in the wider context. Prior research has recognized the problems involved in sedimenting knowledge from organizational forms with inherently limited duration. Therefore, the challenge is to sediment knowledge in a wider organizational context before the TO is terminated, before its members are designated to a different task (Grabher, 2004) or return to their parent organizations. From this perspective, the role of the TO in sedimenting knowledge is just as crucial as that of the parent organization’s. Scarbrough et al. (2004) have demonstrated how knowledge sedimentation is hindered by unique practices likely to arise in TOs. One example is learning boundaries, which are a result of practices being bound to specific projects. Moreover, creation and sedimentation of knowledge appear to hinge on different logics, which lead to a trade-off between creating and maintaining knowledge (Grabher, 2004; Scarbrough et al., 2004). We argue below why TOs constitute a form of organizing especially vulnerable to knowledge dispersion and how their temporariness and the unique temporal phenomena it evokes, contribute to this vulnerability. Sedimentation is related to the preservation of knowledge for use after the TO ceases to exist. As we have argued, long-term planning is contrary to the very character of TOs. Activities or goals that extend beyond the termination point of the TO, such as knowledge sedimentation, are thus likely to be of low relevance for TO members. Considering the TO members’ focus on the present, sedimenting knowledge outside the TO’s boundaries for future use is unlikely to be of immediate concern. Therefore, the present-time orientation that TOs are likely to promote renders the issues of knowledge sedimentation less relevant to TO members than for the members of non-temporary organizations.

136

Temporary organizations

Similarly, we have argued that the experience of timelessness derived from the total immersion in a captivating present-time activity (Mainemelis, 2001, p. 548), is more likely to be experienced in a temporary setting. In the experience of timelessness, one’s entire attention and energy is directed toward the singular activity in which one is engaged, rendering the issue of knowledge sedimentation secondary. Thus, given the importance of both timelessness and the focus on the present in TOs, little consideration is likely to be given to other distracting tasks, such as the codification of knowledge for sedimentation. To the present-time focus of members, as well as timelessness, we include a third impediment to knowledge sedimentation in TOs – the low level of entrainment to external cycles that TOs are likely to exhibit. Lower entrainment implies that the TO operates according to cycles that are distinct from those in its environment, and the TO is therefore likely to be ‘out of sync’ with that environment. One of the frequently cited tools for assuring knowledge sedimentation is to embed the TO in non-temporary structures (Engwall, 2003; Grabher, 2004; Scarbrough et al., 2004). However, lower levels of entrainment mean they will be less embedded in non-temporary structures, reducing the likelihood of successful knowledge sedimentation. Ancona et al. (2001, p. 525) point out that integration and coordination across temporal zones that are ‘differentiated on the basis of conceptions of time and the way actors relate to time’, are highly prone to conflict. This conflict, in turn, can inhibit interactions between the temporal zones and thus the successful sedimentation of knowledge (Ancona et al., 2001). In short, the positive effects of a present-time orientation, episodes of timelessness and lower levels of entrainment on creative problem solving, need to be weighed against the negative consequences for sedimenting knowledge for the TO as a whole. In light of the above, our final proposition states: Proposition 5: All things being equal, temporary organizations are less able to successfully sediment knowledge in the wider context as compared to non-temporary organizations.

CONCLUSIONS In this chapter, we have developed a temporal perspective on TOs inspired by the unique role of time for this particular organizational form (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). By proposing a temporal perspective on TOs and by exploring its possible implications for their functioning at the level of the individual and performance at the organizational level, we have contended that time matters greatly for understanding this unique form of organization.

Time matters: the impact of ‘temporariness’ on organizations

137

With our analysis we have attempted to contribute to a deeper understanding of TOs by emphasizing their temporal dimension, temporariness, which had been called for in prior research (Chapter 2, this volume). Studying this defining attribute of TOs will, in our view, help to legitimize the field of TO research and place it more solidly in the mainstream of organization studies. Also, having begun to unpack the implications of temporariness for the functioning and outcomes of TOs, we have developed a number of propositions which will hopefully inspire future research. In a broader context, this research furthers the idea that organizations should be viewed through a temporal lens, hopefully leading to more research on the impact of time on organizations, which remains understudied. In particular, we call for research on the temporal design of organizations. We could imagine an organization made up of consciously created temporal zones, where the differentiating factors are the temporal parameters rather than a specific product or service, as is the case in divisions or departments. Such an organization could be thought of as having fast-paced, short-cycled zones entrained to a rapidly changing environment and dealing with short-term goals and shorttime horizons. These zones could then be balanced by stable, slower-paced, long-cycled zones with administrative duties, entrained to the fiscal year or seasonal cycles (see Ancona et al., 2001). As a complementary third type of temporal zone, TOs could be set up which, as was the topic of the present discussion, are apt vehicles to achieve non-routine or even one-off goals and tasks which require creativity, innovation and knowledge creation. In our view, such temporal differentiation in organizational design could be a valid alternative to other forms of coordination. The study of time and temporality in TOs can also be linked to the emerging literature on teams which has recently started to explore the differences between teams based on time (see Bradley et al., 2003; Saunders and Ahuja, 2006). Despite the importance of examining temporality in TOs, the generalizability of our theorizing and propositions to all temporary organizations may be limited. First, our propositions mainly pertain to TOs that involve full-time members. TOs whose members work part time on a project – and the rest of their time in the permanent organization – or TOs that require constant elaborate interaction with the permanent organization, are likely to reduce the emergence of in-group dynamics and the impact of temporariness on the processes described in this chapter. Similarly, our propositions are likely to be attenuated by the reality that some TOs are part of routine, continuous collaboration within or between organizations. Such TOs are made up of the same or similar groups of people over and over again. The same caveat can be applied to TOs that stretch over extremely long periods of time, more and more resembling non-temporary

138

Temporary organizations

rather than temporary systems. We think, however, that these repeated and infinitely stretching projects, to some extent violate TOs’ principle characteristic of temporariness. In fact, as Bradley et al. (2003) have noted, short-term, temporary teams working together on tasks of long duration, develop skills and motivations usually found in ongoing, non-temporary teams. Nevertheless, it should be noted that our proposed effects are likely to occur mostly in pure TOs that focus on rare or ‘one-of-a-kind’ tasks to be accomplished within a limited time frame, with a group of people who share either a limited, or no future of working together. The third and last limitation we see in our propositions is that they are conditional on subsequent empirical research and that the empirical base for many of our propositions is sparse and has never been applied to TOs. Studying the propositions in this chapter would require substantial effort, and, because of their varied nature, require a diverse set of methodologies for data collection and analysis. Considering the prevalence of temporary organizations and the ever-increasing need for creativity and innovation in less time, we believe that the payoff would be substantial.

NOTES 1. In line with the rest of this volume, we will refer to temporary organizations as TOs despite the fact that this label is somewhat problematic. The term ‘organizations’ has many characteristics, some of which are applicable here and some that are not. In this chapter, TOs should rather be viewed as temporary social systems, in which people come together as representatives of organizations, to perform a task under the explicit condition that it is known from the outset that this social system will exist for a limited duration. 2. As is the extreme case with clock time in our contemporary society. 3. Although we readily acknowledge that this is but one possible view of TOs. 4. In fact, there is empirical evidence that there is an association between a stronger orientation towards the present and a distorted perception of duration, in which the present is rated to last longer than usual (Twenge et al., 2003). 5. Finally, it is worth stressing that in addition to immersion in present activity, other factors, such as clear goals and few distractions (Mainemelis, 2001), are considered to be conducive to experiences of timelessness. Both of these factors have been linked to some extent to TOs. However, since we do not view them as exclusive to TOs, we do not focus on them in our analysis. Instead, we only focus on temporariness, which is exclusive to TOs.

REFERENCES Ancona, D. and C.L. Chong (1996), ‘Entrainment: Pace, cycle, and rhythm in organizational behavior’, Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 251–284. Ancona, D.G., Okhuysen, G.A. and L.A. Perlow (2001), ‘Taking time to integrate temporal research’, Academy of Management Review, 26 (4), 512–529.

Time matters: the impact of ‘temporariness’ on organizations

139

Bechky, B.A. (2006), ‘Gaffers, gofers, and grips: Role-based coordination in temporary organizations’, Organization Science, 17 (1), 3–21. Bergson, H. (1910), Time and free will: An essay on the immediate data of consciousness, (F. L. Pogson, Trans), New York, US: Harper and Row. Bluedorn, A.C. and R.B. Denhardt (1988), ‘Time and organizations’, Journal of Management, 14 (2), 299–320. Bradley, J., White, B.J. and B.E. Mennecke (2003), ‘Teams and tasks: A temporal framework for the effects of interpersonal interventions on team performance’, Small Group Research, 34 (3), 353–387. Brady, T. and A. Davies (2004), ‘Building project capabilities: From exploratory to exploitative learning’, Organization Studies, 25 (9), 1601–1621. Butler, R. (1995), ‘Time in organizations: Its experience, explanations and effects’, Organization Studies, 16 (6), 925–950. Chong, C. (1995), ‘Temporal patterns of change in groups’, unpublished PhD dissertation, Sloan School of Management, US. Clark, P.A. (1985), ‘A review of the theories of time and structure for organizational sociology’, in S.B. Bacharach and S.M. Mitchell (eds), Research in the sociology of organizations, Greenwich, US: JAI, pp. 35–80. Coleman, J. (1990), Foundations of social theory, Cambridge, US: Harvard University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975), Beyond boredom and anxiety, San Francisco, US: Jossey-Bass. Csikszentmihalyi, M. and J. LeFevre (1989), ‘Optimal experience in work and leisure’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 815–822. Das, T.K. (1993), ‘Time in management and organizational studies’, Time and Society, (2), 267–274. Durkheim, E. (1912), The elementary forms of the religious life, New York, US: Free Press. Ebert, J.E.J. and D. Prelec (2007), ‘The fragility of time: Time-insensitivity and valuation of the near and far future’, Management Science, 53 (9), 1423– 1438. Engwall, M. (2003), ‘No project is an island: Linking projects to history and context’, Research Policy, 32 (5), 789–808. Flaherty, M.G. (1987), ‘Multiple realities and the experience of duration’, The Sociological Quarterly, 28 (3), 313–326. George, J.M. and G.R. Jones (2000), ‘The role of time in theory and theory building’, Journal of Management, 26 (4), 657–684. Gersick, C.J.G. (1988), ‘Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development’, Academy of Management Journal, 31 (1), 9–41. Gersick, C.J.G. (1989), ‘Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups’, Academy of Management Journal, 32 (2), 274–309. Glicksohn, J. (2001), ‘Temporal cognition and the phenomenology of time: A multiplicative function for apparent duration’, Consciousness and Cognition, 10 (1), 1–25. Goleman, D. (1997), Emotional intelligence, New York, US: Bantam Books. Goodman, R.A. and L.P. Goodman (1976), ‘Some management issues in temporary systems: A study of professional development and manpower – the theater case’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21 (3), 494–501. Grabher, G. (2002), ‘Cool projects, boring institutions: Temporary collaboration in social context’, Regional Studies, 36 (3), 205–214.

140

Temporary organizations

Grabher, G. (2004), ‘Temporary architectures of learning: Knowledge governance in project ecologies’, Organization Studies, 25 (9), 1491–1514. Grekin, R.J. and S. Coren (1996), ‘Traffic accidents and daylight savings time’, New England Journal of Medicine, 335, 355–357. Hall, E.T. and M.R. Hall (1990), Understanding cultural differences. Yarmouth, US: Intercultural Press. Hassard, J. (1989), ‘Time and industrial sociology’, in P. Blyton, J. Hassard, S. Hill and K. Starkey (eds), Time, work and organization, London, UK: Routledge, pp. 13–34. Hassard, J. (1991), ‘Aspects of time in organization’, Human Relations, 44 (2), 105–125. Hassard, J. (1996), ‘Images of time in work and organization’, in S.R. Clegg and C. Hardy (eds), Studying organization, London, UK: Sage, pp. 327–344. Ibert, O. (2004), ‘Projects and firms as discordant complements: Organisational learning in the Munich software ecology’, Research Policy, 33, 1529–1546. James, W. (1892), ‘The stream of consciousness’, in W. James (ed.), Psychology, Cleveland, US and New York, US: World, pp. 391–414. Kahneman, D. (1973), Attention and effort, Englewood Cliffs, US: PrenticeHall. Keith, P.M. (1978), ‘Individual and organizational correlates of a temporary system’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 14 (2), 195–203. Kluckhohn, F. (1953), ‘Dominant and variant value-orientations’, in C. Kluckhohn, H.A. Murray and D.M. Schneider (eds), Personality in nature, society and culture, New York, US: Alfred A. Knopf, pp. 342–357. Labianca, G., Moon, H. and I. Watt (2005), ‘When is an hour not 60 minutes? Deadlines, temporal schemata, and individual and task group performance’, Academy of Management Journal, 48 (4), 677–694. Lee, H. and J. Liebenau (1999), ‘Time in organizational studies: Towards a new research direction’, Organization Studies, 20 (6), 1035–1058. Lewin, K. (1951), Field theory in social science, New York, US: Harper and Row. Lundin, R.A. and A. Söderholm (1995), ‘A theory of the temporary organization’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11 (4), 437–455. Lundin, R.A., Söderholm, A. and T. Wilson (2002), ‘On the conceptualisation of time in projects’, Projects and Profits, 2 (12), 49–57. Mainemelis, C. (2001), ‘When the muse takes it all: A model for the experience of timelessness in organizations’, Academy of Management Review, 26 (4), 548–565. McGrath, J.E. and N.L. Rotchford (1983), ‘Time and behavior in organizations’, in L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw (eds), Research in organizational behaviour, Greenwich, US: JAI Press, pp. 57–101. Meyerson, D., Weick, K.E. and R.M. Kramer (1996), ‘Swift trust and temporary groups’, in R.M. Kramer and T.R. Tyler (eds), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research, Thousand Oaks, US: Sage pp. 166–195. Miles, M.B. (1964), ‘On temporary systems’, in M.B. Miles (ed.), Innovation in education, New York, US: Teachers College, Columbia University, pp. 437–490. Mitler, M.M., Carskadon, M.A., Czeisler, C.A., Dement, W.C., Dinges, D.F. and R.C. Graeber (1988), ‘Catastrophes, sleep, and public policy: Consensus report’, Sleep, 11(1), 100–109. Morley, E. and A. Silver (1977), ‘A film director’s approach to managing creativity’, Harvard Business Review, 55 (2), 59–70.

Time matters: the impact of ‘temporariness’ on organizations

141

Nuttin, J.R. (1985), Future time perspective and motivation: Theory and research method, Hillsdale, US: Erlbaum. Orlikowski, W.J. and J. Yates (2002), ‘It’s about time: Temporal structuring in organizations’, Organization Science, 13 (6), 684–700. Perlow, L.A. (1999), ‘The time famine: Towards a sociology of work time’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (1), 57–81. Roy, D.F. (1960), ‘Banana time: Job satisfaction and informal interaction’, Human Organization, 18 (4), 158–168. Saunders, C.S. and M.K. Ahuja (2006), ‘Are all distributed teams the same? Differentiating between temporary and ongoing distributed teams’, Small Group Research, 37 (6), 662–700. Scarbrough, H., Swan, J., Laurent, S., Bresnen, M., Edelman, L. and S. Newell (2004), ‘Project-based learning and the role of learning boundaries’, Organization Studies, 25 (9), 1579–1600. Sutton, R.I. (1987), ‘The process of organizational death: Disbanding and reconnecting’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 542–569. Sydow, J., Lindkvist, L. and R. DeFillippi (2004), ‘Project-based organizations, embeddedness and repositories of knowledge: Editorial’, Organization Studies, 25 (9), 1475–1489. Taifel, H. and J.C. Turner (1979), ‘An integrative theory of intergroup conflict’, in W.G. Austin and S. Worchel (eds), The social psychology of intergroup relations, Monterey, US: Brooks/Cole, pp. 33–47. Taylor, F.W. (1911 [1967]) The Principles of Scientific Management, New York: Norton. Tempest, S. and K. Starkey (2004), ‘The effects of liminality on individual and organizational learning’, Organization Studies, 25 (4), 507–527. Turner, V. (1977), The ritual process, Ithaca, US: Cornell University Press. Twenge, J.M., Catanese, K.R. and R.F. Baumeister (2003), ‘Social exclusion and the deconstructed state: Time perception, meaninglessness, lethargy, lack of emotion, and self-awareness’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (3), 409–423. Zakay, D. (1989), ‘Subjective time and attentional resource allocation: An integrated model of time estimation’, in I. Levin and D. Zakay (eds), Time and human cognition: A life-span perspective, Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier, pp. 365–397. Zerubavel, E. (1979), ‘Private time and public time: The temporal structure of social accessibility and professional commitments’, Social Forces, 58(1), 38–58.

5

The atemporality of temporary organizations: implications for goal attainment and legitimacy Martyna Janowicz-Panjaitan, Patrick Kenis and Patrick A.M. Vermeulen

INTRODUCTION Temporary organization (TO), a form of organizing that has been practiced for centuries, has been receiving increasing scholarly attention in recent years. While many questions related to TOs remain unanswered (Chapter 2, this volume), one thing has become clear – applying theories and concepts developed for non-temporary organizations to temporary organizations has limitations. While it is possible to apply some of these established theories to the study of temporary organizations, their generalizability diminishes drastically when temporariness – the distinguishing feature of TOs – is taken into account (Chapter 3). This is because temporariness is likely to lead to the emergence of some unique phenomena not encountered or encountered to a much lesser degree in non-temporary settings. Considering the above and the relative scarcity of theories specific to TOs, our understanding of the consequences that temporariness has for the functioning and outcomes of an organization is still limited. One reason for this limited understanding is the lack of consensus on what temporariness really means. As Janowicz-Panjaitan, Bakker and Kenis (Chapter 2) show, while temporariness is a term frequently encountered in the extant literature, its definition is ambiguous. For some scholars, temporariness is the short duration of an undertaking; others view it as the presence of the ex ante limited duration of an organization. And within the latter group, a number of scholars go further and stress the unique social processes that are likely to emerge when members of a TO are aware of its impending termination (Chapter 2). In this chapter we adopt the last of these three views of temporariness – TO members’ awareness of the organization’s impending termination – and argue that this leads to the emergence of a unique phenomenon, namely, atemporality. 142

The atemporality of temporary organizations

143

Atemporality is a sociological concept which refers to the fact that TOs develop an endogenous logic of functioning unrelated to the past or future of the collaborating actors. We demonstrate the usefulness of this concept for understanding TOs by arguing that the level of atemporality is likely to affect two outcomes: goal attainment and external legitimacy. In what follows we first discuss the definition of atemporality in detail and argue that the degree of atemporality affects how the TO functions. Finally, we formulate propositions in which we argue that the atemporal character of temporary organizations affects their goal attainment and legitimacy. We conclude by discussing the implications of our analysis and suggesting some areas of investigation for future research.

ATEMPORALITY OF TEMPORARY ORGANIZATIONS We define temporary organization as a group of two or more non-temporary organizations that jointly carry out a task or share risk in order to provide a service or manufacture a product, with the duration of this collaboration being explicitly and ex ante fixed, either by a specific date or conditional upon completion of the task (see the Introduction to this volume). This implies that TOs are defined by the fact that they end at an ex ante determined point in time. Combined with the fact that TOs also have a clearly defined starting point (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995), this implies that TOs are temporally bounded. While the right-censoring shelters the organization and its members from the shadow of the future, the left-censoring shelters it from the shadow of the past. We argue that the presence of the temporal boundaries and their sheltering effect lead to the development of social processes that differ from the social processes that occur beyond these boundaries. Consequently, TOs are not only temporally bounded but also ‘socially bounded’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992, p. 126, emphasis theirs). Because the boundaries created around a temporary organization are primarily temporal and not, for example, physical (see for example Douglas’s 1986 description of a plane crash in the Andes Mountains), we propose using the concept of atemporality to depict the fact that within temporal boundaries, a different local rationality will develop. The concept of atemporality has been propagated by Elchardus and defined as the absence or irrelevance of a memory that can influence the identity of the actors; an immunity against the effects of time, and . . . their influence on the redefinition of the relationship; the expectation that the exchange will return to a zero-state in which none of the parties is indebted to the others. (Elchardus, 1990, p. 247)

144

Temporary organizations

Thus, the concept of atemporality entails that previous and future interactions will only have a limited effect on what happens within the TO, allowing new local rationalities and practices to develop. The point is not so much that atemporal exchange erases or abolishes the past, but rather that ‘[i]t sets up the possibility of exchanges that can be conducted as if memory is irrelevant and the passage of time has no effects’ (Elchardus, 1990, p. 247, emphasis added). The concept of atemporality has not been explicitly mentioned in the literature on temporary organizations. However, numerous theoretical and empirical indications can be found that point to its relevance. Miles (1964), for example, talks about the temporal limitation of a TO serving as a buffer from the shadow of the future. He thus refers to the sheltering effect that a predefined termination point has on limiting the impact of the future on current interactions among temporary organizations’ members. While Miles focuses on the ex ante specified ending point, Lundin and Söderholm stress the clearly fixed starting point of TOs. They argue that together, the left and right brackets imposed on TOs’ existence decouple it ‘from other past, contemporary, or even future sequences of activities’ (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995, p. 446). Miles (1964) goes on to suggest that the extent of a TO’s decoupling from the past and future, and thus the effect that such decoupling has on its functioning and outcomes, is likely to vary across organizations. This variation captures the extent of influence that the environment is allowed to have on the functioning of the TO, be it in terms of provision of resources (see Lundin and Söderholm, 1995), influence on the way the tasks are carried out, or any other way. This suggests that the atemporal character of a TO should be viewed as a continuum, reflecting the extent to which it develops new local rationalities. A higher degree of atemporality implies a greater divergence of a TO’s operation from that of the surrounding systems. In what follows we will argue that TOs not only vary in their level of atemporality but that these differences can affect their functioning and consequently important outcomes such as goal attainment and legitimacy. We illustrate our argument for both goal attainment and legitimacy since both are univocally considered important aspects in the functioning of organizations.

ATEMPORALITY AND GOAL ATTAINMENT IN TEMPORARY ORGANIZATIONS Four effects identified in the literature can be related to the goal attainment of temporary organizations: superior energy output, recklessness,

The atemporality of temporary organizations

145

propensity for change and reduction of role conflicts (Miles, 1964). In what follows, we will show that the atemporality level can be considered an antecedent to all four factors. Superior Energy Output The first effect conducive to goal attainment that extant literature points to as being specific to temporary organizations is superior output of energy. Miles (1964, p. 457) argued that ‘in temporary systems [. . .] the restrictions in time, goal, personnel, and space, and the protection from external stress, help to create conditions for vigorous, productive work; a kind of “committed hypotheticality”’. In line with that, Bechky (2006) demonstrated that film sets can be considered ‘total institutions’ (referring to Goffmann, 1961) since they are physically and temporally isolated from the outside world. Although such isolation can be a source of external stress, it also decouples the film set from the outside world to such an extent that conflicts of loyalty are no longer an issue and, consequently, all energy can be directed to the TO. Also, while going over budget frequently (as is the case for many TOs) may be a source of stress, it may also simply reflect little concern about the external constraints. In the same vein, Miles (1964) argued that because people in a temporary system are isolated from their environment, a quasi-hypothetical way of approaching problem solving is possible. Isolation of the TO is a mechanism that minimizes outside disturbance, thus assuring an uninterrupted completion of the task (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). It is also argued that this isolation of a temporary system allows its members to ‘escape the restraints of historical time and place’ (Miles, 1964, p. 457), which is the essence of atemporality. Although Miles himself did not refer to the concept of atemporality, it is easy to see how the escape from the restraints of historical time and space is analogous to this concept. We thus argue that ‘greater energy output devoted to the immediate activity’ (Miles, 1964, p. 458), is a function of the TO’s atemporal character. Atemporality, may also contribute to what Csikszentmihalyi (1975) has described as experience of ‘flow’. This is defined as periods of time that involve ‘intense intrinsic motivation in which currently experienced challenges are equal to one’s capabilities and skills . . . (e.g. Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Csikszentmihalyi and LeFevre, 1989)’ (George and Jones, 2000, p. 661). Therefore, the experience of flow – the motivation to use one’s capabilities to the fullest – may further stimulate superior energy expenditure. It is also worth stressing that the flow phenomenon is often associated with an altered experience of time, as the intensive work and high level of stimulation may affect how that amount of time elapsed is perceived

146

Temporary organizations

(Miles, 1964). ‘When in flow, people are often unaware of the passage of time and are surprised when, once out of the flow experience, they realize how much clock time has actually passed’ (George and Jones, 2000, p. 661). This effect is further reinforced by the removal of the familiar time markers from the environment, which is one of the aspects of atemporality (see Miles, 1964). The recognition that distorted perceptions of time may be a consequence of the atemporal character of temporary organizations highlights the importance of viewing time as a social construction rather than an absolute phenomenon. This way of looking at time is in line with the conceptualization of temporariness as awareness of impending termination. In summary, one of the reasons atemporality can be expected to result in greater effectiveness in a TO’s goal attainment is because it can lead to superior energy output. An alternative argument could be that TO effectiveness results from the tight schedule and time pressure (Chapter 2, this volume). In this case, however, we attribute superior effectiveness to the narrowing of TO members’ time perspective. In other words, superior effectiveness is not only due to tight schedules and time pressure but also to the greater energy output as TO members live ‘more in the psychological present, coping with immediate and simultaneously forgetting the past and neglecting plans for the future’ (Miles, 1964, p. 458). Recklessness The second effect that is related to goal attainment and that literature associates with TOs is recklessness. This is a direct result of TO members’ awareness of the organization’s isolation from the past, future and surrounding environment. Miles (1964) argued that isolation of a temporary system: supplies a very strong protective function. The penalties for making mistakes are reduced. Since life in the temporary system is ‘not for keeps’, the participant ordinarily feels freer to experiment, in the knowledge that other members of the system will not be around later to punish his acts, should his experimentation threaten them in some way. (Miles, 1964, p. 455)

Based on this logic, it is likely that the temporary character of a TO can result in a higher propensity for risk taking. The severing of the links with the past and the future leads to a climate where TO members perceive lower risk and thus have greater freedom to experiment. Consequently, superior goal attainment can be expected. TOs may vary considerably in the degree of their members’ recklessness, which is illustrated well in Bechky’s study of film projects (2006).

The atemporality of temporary organizations

147

One of the important findings in this study is that relationships within the TO are guided by the expectation of future employment opportunities, which, combined with the structural characteristics of total institutions described above, is an important element for explaining how film projects are effectively coordinated. From the atemporality perspective, the fact that the expectation of future interactions is so important indicates that film projects have a lower degree of atemporality than the situation Miles had in mind and, thus, a likely lower degree of recklessness. Future research should determine whether recklessness always contributes to goal attainment. For some settings it might be considered undesirable. For example, in incident command systems used to fight large fires (see Bigley and Roberts, 2001), which can be viewed as temporary organizations, risk taking is considered to be something to be avoided. The point might be, however, that regardless of whether or not risk taking is necessary, temporary organizations are more able than non-temporary ones to initiate it. Higher Propensity to Change The third distinct characteristic of TOs that is related to goal attainment is high propensity to change; individuals involved in TOs have a much higher propensity to change than those involved in non-temporary organizations. According to Lewin (1951, as referred to in Miles, 1964) ‘the creation of changes in persons [requires] changing of the cultures in which the person finds him or herself’ (Miles, 1964, p. 454). This can be accomplished by isolating a person or a group of people from their usual environment, which has the effect of ‘shear[ing] away the person’s (or group’s) preoccupation with, and allegiance to, “things as they are”’ (Miles, 1964, p. 454). By isolating members from their usual contexts and pursuits, TOs create conditions for reducing resistance to change that results from their attachment to the ways of the permanent system1 (Miles, 1964). Based on the above discussion, we conclude that the higher the atemporality of a TO, the greater the propensity to change at the individual or group levels. In turn, this lowered adherence to things as they are is likely to stimulate new ideas and novel solutions, increasing a TO’s goal attainment. This does not imply that change is always desirable but that it can be more easily mobilized if necessary. Lower Role Conflict The atemporal character of a TO may reduce the role conflicts experienced by its members. This is the fourth and final effect specific to temporary

148

Temporary organizations

settings to which the literature points and which is related to goal attainment. On the one hand, involvement in a TO has been associated with greater role-related strain for a person compared with a non-temporary organization. It has been argued that this is due to simultaneous involvement in a permanent organization and a TO (Keith, 1978). On the other hand, there are authors who argue the opposite. Miles (1964, p. 455) posited that ‘isolation reduces the role conflicts to which members are ordinarily prey in their permanent organizations’. On the basis of the empirical study by Bechky (2006), one can conclude that in TOs, role conflict is low because role structures are the result of negotiation within the TO itself (Weber, 1977). Consequently, the more the roles are based on negotiations within the TO, the higher the degree of atemporality and the higher the degree of goal attainment. This suggests that rather than role conflict being either high or low, it will differ across TOs. We argue that this variability is a function of the TO’s atemporal character – the more isolated the TO is from its environment, the lower the role conflicts and strain related to them are likely to be. This should in turn lead to greater goal attainment by the temporary system. To summarize, we argue that the isolation of the TO from its environment and the severing of its links with the past and the future – atemporality – result in higher energy output, greater risk taking, higher propensity for change and fewer role conflicts, all of which jointly result in greater goal attainment by the TO. Consequently, the more atemporal in character a TO is, the stronger its effect; higher isolation of the TO from the past, future and its environment yields a greater positive effect on its goal effectiveness. Therefore, we propose the following: Proposition 1: Everything else being equal, the more atemporal a TO is, the higher its goal attainment is likely to be.

ATEMPORALITY AND THE EXTERNAL LEGITIMACY OF TEMPORARY ORGANIZATIONS Legitimacy is critical to the evolution of all social systems – interest groups, non-temporary and temporary systems. Neo-institutional organization theorists argue that legitimacy building is the primary force driving organizations’ decisions concerning strategy and structure (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Zucker, 1987). Furthermore, societal acceptance of the organization and its subsequent survival are posited to depend on its attaining the support of relevant entities in the environment (Baum and Oliver, 1992; Dacin, 1997; Ruef and Scott, 1998).

The atemporality of temporary organizations

149

However, the effect of ‘different institutional aspects of the environment, such as traditions, norms, values, and procedures taken-for-granted in the organization’ has received little attention in the literature on TOs (Engwall, 2003, p. 790). Like all other organizational forms, a TO does not operate in a vacuum. We thus investigate the question of the TO’s external legitimacy with a special focus on the concept of atemporality and what it implies for the organization’s acceptance in the environment. The external legitimacy of a TO can be defined as a function of the legitimacy of its form and its legitimacy as an entity (see Human and Provan, 2000). Legitimacy of form implies that the external environment accepts the TO as a coordination mechanism (see Human and Provan, 2000). Given the wide application of TOs in many organizational fields, they appear to be a well-established and legitimate form of organizing. Although highly pertinent, the question of whether this degree of legitimacy varies across countries, sectors and sizes of organizations, among other categories, lies outside the scope of this chapter. More relevant in the present context is the legitimacy of the TO as an entity, since practice shows that high enthusiasm for a TO as an organizing mechanism does not always coincide with its smooth functioning in, and its acceptance by, the broader environment. Legitimacy of the entity has to do with the need for it to develop an identity that would be recognizable and acceptable to its environment (Human and Provan, 2000). We argue that the legitimacy of a TO as an entity is strongly affected by its atemporal character. The higher the atemporality of an organization, the more individual an identity it is likely to develop and the more distinct an entity it is likely to become. Consequently, it becomes less recognizable and acceptable to its external environment. TOs whose actions and activities are in accordance with their environment – thus less atemporal – are prone to be more legitimate, because they stay on recognizable and acceptable paths (see Hargadon and Douglas 2001). Such activities are better imaginable by external constituents and increase legitimacy. As Elchardus (1990) pointed out, the atemporal character of an exchange limits the TO’s continuity on two dimensions: social relations and structure. Starting with the latter, after a TO has been set up and its task defined, it moves ‘from relative openness to relative closedness’ (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995, p. 448). Plans and guarding mechanisms are used to isolate the TO from its environment in order to minimize disturbances and obstacles to implementation (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). The isolation of a TO is likely to lead to an emergence of norms specific to the TO (Katz, 1982; Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). As the temporary organization’s norms and ways of operating – structure – diverge or deviate from those of its permanent environment, the legitimacy of the TO is likely to be negatively affected.

150

Temporary organizations

Besides structure, atemporality also affects the TO’s continuity of social relations and leads to social isolation. The fact that a TO is left-bracketed results in its frequently being made up of individual team members having no prior knowledge of each other or the team leader prior to entering the organization (Gardiner and Simmons, 1998; Lindkvist, 2005). Its being right-bracketed, in contrast, implies that the TO members’ common future perspective is very limited. This is in line with Elchardus’s argument that atemporal exchange decreases the continuity of social relations and allows actors ‘to enter into the transaction, irrespective of past relations’, knowing that ‘the completed transaction should leave no traces for the future’ (Elchardus, 1990, p. 240). This detachment from the past and future social relations is likely to result in lower legitimacy of the TO as an entity. The greater the temporary organization’s isolation from past and future social relationships and from the structure of its environment – the stronger its atemporal character – the lower its external legitimacy will be. This leads us to the following proposition: Proposition 2: With everything else being equal, the more atemporal a TO is, the lower its external legitimacy as an entity is likely to be.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION This chapter began by arguing that the atemporal character of TOs is an important antecedent for their outcomes. We proposed that atemporality refers to a situation in which a social system is isolated from the memory of the past and the shadow of the future, as well as from the structures of its environment. In order to support our claim that atemporality is a relevant and useful variable for understanding TOs, we theorized about implications that atemporality may have for their internal functioning and consequent outcomes, as well as TOs’ relationship with the environment. With respect to the former, we showed how greater atemporality of a system may lead its members to superior energy expenditure, greater recklessness, higher propensity to change and lower role conflict, all contributing to higher goal attainment by a TO. Regarding the latter, we argued that the atemporal character of a TO implies its social and structural isolation from the environment, with higher atemporality negatively affecting the external legitimacy of the TO as an entity. This analysis led us to formulate two propositions – that atemporality is positively related to TOs’ goal attainment and negatively related to TOs’ legitimacy as an entity – which can be subject to direct empirical investigation by future research.

The atemporality of temporary organizations

151

These propositions could be tested in a number of ways: for example, on a sample of interorganizational project teams of various levels of atemporality. Atemporality in such a context could be gauged by the extent to which individuals involved in the TO have prior knowledge of each other or the probability of working with some of the same team members in the future. Another indicator of atemporality might be whether its members perform tasks just for the TO or for the TO and other entities. Still another way to look at the atemporality of a TO would be to measure the two-way information and resource flow between the temporary and non-temporary settings in the implementation phase. Finally, the physical location of the team could also be an indicator of the TO’s level of isolation from its environment. Lastly, the operationalizations of total institutions proposed by Bechky (2006) could be helpful here. There are a number of implications flowing from our propositions. First it is important to stress that the two aspects we investigated, goal attainment and external legitimacy of the TO as an entity, are not independent of each other. A TO’s relationship with the environment is likely to affect its internal functioning and outcomes and vice versa. Also, a TO’s external legitimacy and the support that it assures affect the internal interactions of the entire system and the ability to achieve its tasks (see Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). At the same time, a TO’s internal interactions are likely to affect its relationship with the environment. Both its social processes and the distinctive norms that are likely to develop as a result, are likely to diverge from those of the environment, thus negatively affecting the external legitimacy of the TO as entity. Based on our propositions, it is clear that there is a tension between simultaneously maximizing both goal attainment and the external legitimacy of a temporary organization as an entity. Whereas an increase in a TO’s atemporality has a positive effect on goal attainment, at the same time it negatively affects external legitimacy. It is interesting to consider under what conditions this tension would be strong, and when is it likely not to be an issue. One would expect that in those cases where the arguments of neo-institutional theory are less applicable (for example, in the case of a trivial process where a clear relation between input and output exists), the tensions between goal attainment and the legitimacy of the TO as an entity would be less of an issue. It could also be argued that the shorter the absolute lifespan of a TO, the less likely it is that the institutional environment would be relevant, since its lifetime is too short to be judged by the environment. One could even adopt the position that neo-institutional theory focuses mainly on ‘whether the [entity] is able to survive’ (Human and Provan, 2000, p. 329, emphasis added). Given the fact that TOs are meant to die, legitimacy would be less of an issue for them. Moreover,

152

Temporary organizations

future research should find out how organizations deal with this tension when it is prevalent. For instance, is it an option to aim for a medium score on goal attainment and a medium score on the external legitimacy of the TO as an entity? Or is a sequential solution possible – first concentrate on goal attainment and then on external legitimacy, or vice versa? Another point worth stressing is that in the context of TOs, the legitimacy of a TO as an entity may be more important after its dissolution than during its existence. Although Engwall (2003) argued that a project with lower legitimacy may face problems obtaining the necessary resources from its environment to achieve its tasks, we sympathize with Lundin and Söderholm’s position (1995) that after the TO has been set up, guarding mechanisms are used to isolate it from external disturbance and thus assure unobstructed implementation. From this perspective, putting the plan in place prior to implementation guards against the possible negative effects that decreasing external legitimacy of the TO may have on resource availability. In contrast, we would argue that the external legitimacy of the TO after its termination can be crucial for facilitating the transfer and adoption of the solutions worked out by the TO to the non-temporary surroundings. After the TO achieves its task and dissolves, ‘some transmission of experiences, i.e. from a product development team to a production organization, from renewal task forces to line managers, from one construction site to another, etc.’ will be called for (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995, p. 449). From this perspective, the tension between the goal attainment and external legitimacy of a TO as an entity comes down to the trade-off between its superior task effectiveness and the difficulty of subsequent transfer of its outcomes, such as solutions, experiences and knowledge, to the nontemporary context. This issue has been the subject of investigation in the innovation literature in terms of the ‘not-invented-here’ syndrome or the problem of part–whole relationships (Van de Ven, 1986). By taking the concept of atemporality explicitly into consideration, we have been able to provide a theoretical analysis explaining this phenomenon, not in functional terms – for example as related to stimulating innovation – but rather from the perspective of organizational theory. In general, our analysis allows reconciliation of the contradictory approaches to viewing projects, a common form of TO. While the emphasis has traditionally been ‘on extraordinary and time-limited characteristics’ of a project leading to ‘a conception of the project as a unique phenomenon in every aspect’, more recent studies call ‘into question the popular notion of projects as unique and solid units with distinctive demarcations to their organizational environment’ (Engwall, 2003, p. 803). We argue that the extent to which a TO is unique and clearly demarcated from its

The atemporality of temporary organizations

153

environment is a matter of degree, specifically the degree of atemporality. Put differently, it is not a question of whether TOs are unique and clearly demarcated or nor, but rather the extent to which this is the case, as atemporality is a continuous variable.

NOTE 1. The adjective ‘permanent’ has been used by Miles (1964) and in order to remain true to his argument we use this term. However, we believe that no organization is or is intended to be permanent and therefore prefer to refer to organizations other than temporary as ‘non-temporary’, rather than ‘permanent’. This is true throughout the remainder of this chapter and, for the purposes of this chapter, we consider ‘non-temporary’ and ‘permanent’ to be equivalent.

REFERENCES Baum, J.A.C. and C. Oliver (1992), ‘Institutional embeddedness and the dynamics of organizational populations’, American Sociological Review, 57, 540–559. Bechky, B.A. (2006), ‘Gaffers, gofers, and grips: role-based coordination in temporary organizations’, Organization Science, 17, 3–21. Bigley, G.A. and K.H. Roberts (2001), ‘The incident command system: highreliability organizing for complex and volatile task environments’, The Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1281–1299. Bourdieu, P. and L. Wacquant (1992), An introduction to reflective sociology, Chicago, US: University of Chicago Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975), Beyond boredom and anxiety: the experience of play in work and games, San Francisco, US: Jossey-Bass. Csikszentmihalyi, M. and J. LeFevre (1989), ‘Optimal experience in work and leisure’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 815–822. Dacin, T.M. (1997), ‘Isomorphism in context: the power and prescription of institutional norms’, Academy of Management Journal, 40, 46–81. DiMaggio, P. and W.W. Powell (1983) ‘The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160. Douglas, M. (1986), How institutions think, New York, Harper and Row. Elchardus, M. (1990), ‘The temporalities of exchange: the case of self-organization for societal governance’, in B. Marin (ed.), Generalized political exchange: antagonistic cooperation and integrated policy circuits, Boulder, US: Westview Press, pp. 231–255. Engwall, M. (2003), ‘No project is an island: linking projects to history and context’, Research Policy, 32, 789–808. Gardiner, P.D. and E.L. Simmons (1998), ‘Conflict in small- and medium-sized projects: case of partnering to the rescue’, Journal of Management Engineering, 35, 35–40. George, J.M. and G.R. Jones (2000), ‘The role of time in theory and theory building’, Journal of Management, 26, 657–684.

154

Temporary organizations

Goffman, E. (1961), Encounters: two studies in the sociology of interaction, Indianapolis, US: Bobbs-Merrill. Hargadon, A.B. and Y. Douglas (2001), ‘When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 476–501. Human, S.E. and K.G. Provan (2000), ‘Legitimacy building in the evolution of small-firm multilateral networks: a comparative study of success and demise’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 327–365. Katz, R. (1982), ‘The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 81–104. Keith, P.M. (1978), ‘Individual and organizational correlates of a temporary system’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 14, 195–203. Lewin, K. (1951), Field theory in social science, New York, US: Harper. Lindkvist, L. (2005), ‘Knowledge communities and knowledge collectivities: a typology of knowledge work in groups’, Journal of Management Studies, 42, 1189–1210. Lundin, R.A. and A. Söderholm (1995), ‘A theory of the temporary organization’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11, 437–455. Meyer, J.W. and B. Rowan (1977), ‘Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony’, American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363. Miles, M.B. (1964), ‘On temporary systems’, in M.B. Miles (ed.), Innovation in education, New York, US: Teachers College Press, pp. 437–490. Ruef, M. and W.R. Scott (1998), ‘A multidimensional model of organizational legitimacy: hospital survival in changing institutional environments’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 877–904. Van de Ven, A. (1986), ‘Central problems in the management of innovation’, Management Science, 32, 590–607. Weber, M. (1977), ‘The social psychology of the world religions’, in H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (eds), From Max Weber, London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 267–301. Zucker, L.G. (1987), ‘Institutional theories of organization’, Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 443–464.

6

Proximity in temporary organizations Joris Knoben and Tobias Gössling

INTRODUCTION Between 1990 and 2006, academic and business research about collaboration increased by roughly 725 per cent. During this time there was also an increasing emphasis on interorganizational collaboration (IOC) in the academic literature.1 The underlying reason for this increased attention is that IOC has become a common phenomenon. Simply stated, organizations increasingly tend not to do their tasks themselves but in collaboration with others. IOC is a term used to describe the collaboration between two or more organizations that is distinct from both market interaction and hierarchical relationships (see Powell et al., 1996; Lawrence et al., 2002). Not all IOCs are similar, however. Many different types of IOCs exist, all with specific characteristics, different levels of importance and different (expected) outcomes. Proximity is one of several core concepts used in IOC research. There is a large and growing body of empirical literature that shows that different forms of proximity have an impact on the functioning and outcomes of IOCs (see Knoben and Oerlemans, 2006, for an overview). To a large extent this proximity literature treats all IOCs alike, all having the same ways of organizing. However, as stated above, there are many different types of IOCs whose characteristics are likely to impact the role and importance of different forms of proximity. In this chapter, we reject the homogeneity assumption that all IOCs are alike. To illustrate our position, we focus on one form of IOC, temporary organizations (TOs) and the concept of proximity. TOs are defined here as a group of non-temporary organizations collaborating to accomplish a joint task with the duration of the collaboration explicitly and ex ante fixed, either by a specific date or condition on the completion of the task for which it was undertaken (see the Introduction to this volume). The specific characteristics of TOs, such as their ex ante fixed duration, are likely 155

156

Temporary organizations

to cause differences in both the level of several forms of proximity, as well as in their impact on the functioning of the TO as compared to other forms of IOC. Therefore, we discuss the following research question: What are the differences between TOs and other IOCs and what are the implications with regard to different forms of proximity? In answering this question, we add to the TO literature in two ways – first by explaining the composition of TOs in terms of proximity and showing that TOs are a prime example of how the composition of IOCs can vary, and second, regarding the role of proximity in IOCs by focusing on the characteristics of a specific form of IOC (TOs) and relating these characteristics to the roles of different forms of proximity in this form of IOC. By doing so, we also shed light on the question of whether IOCs should be treated as a homogeneous group or whether certain types of IOCs need to be distinguished, especially with regard to different forms of proximity in IOCs. In order to understand the role of proximity in TOs, we first need to define and discuss the two concepts in use. Therefore, we begin this chapter with a discussion of different forms of proximity in IOCs, followed by a discussion of the characteristics of TOs. Subsequently, the characteristics of TOs will be linked to these different forms of proximity. In summation, we will formulate propositions regarding the role of these forms of proximity in TOs that will be illustrated with descriptive data. This chapter concludes with a brief discussion and reflection.

PROXIMITY IN INTERORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION The discussion of consequences of proximity is known in several distinct disciplines (Boschma 2005) and can be applied to persons, organizations, regions, societies, states, cultures and others (Heath et al., 1998; Kallscheuer, 1995). However, in this chapter we are limiting the discussion to proximity among organizations. Proximity as the concept of nearness between organizations has several dimensions. Although all of these dimensions refer to being close to something measured on a certain dimension, they are certainly not identical (Knoben and Oerlemans, 2006). The first distinction in proximity of organizations is between spatial and non-spatial dimensions (Gössling, 2004; O’Leary and Cummings 2007). This distinction can be further divided into the several forms of non-spatial proximity that influence the quality and intensity of relationships, as well as their consequences. While many different types of non-spatial proximity with overlapping

Proximity in temporary organizations

157

or even contradictory definitions are used in the literature, in this chapter we will limit our discussion to two forms distinguished by Knoben and Oerlemans (2006) that are argued to be the most relevant in IOCs. Based on an extensive literature review, they distinguish organizational from technological proximity. The main difference between these two types is that organizational proximity deals with the issue of how actors interact, whereas technological proximity deals with the issue of what they exchange and the potential value of these exchanges. In the next paragraphs, we discuss first spatial proximity, followed by a more detailed discussion of the different forms of non-spatial proximity. Spatial Proximity Spatial proximity, sometimes also denoted as territorial, geographical, local or physical, is the most frequently used dimension of proximity in the organizational literature. The spatial dimension of proximity is relatively easy to define and measure since it involves measuring local distances between actors and eventually relating them to infrastructure conditions like road access, density and overall mobility (Yilmaz et al., 2002). Mobility is necessary because spatial proximity is commonly defined as the extent to which two collaborating actors can have daily face-to-face relations without prohibitive costs. As a result, a spatial distance of, for example, 15 km implies a different level of spatial proximity in a rural area than in a dense urban area. The consequences of spatial proximity between organizations, especially for collaboration, are well known (Oerlemans et al., 2001). First, organizations are more likely to collaborate with partners with whom they have a high level of spatial proximity than with very distant partners (Freel, 2003; Sohn, 2004). Moreover, spatial proximity facilitates face-to-face interactions (both planned and serendipitous) and can thereby have a positive influence on the quality and quantity of communication (Freel, 2003). Faceto-face contacts especially favor interaction with a high level of information richness and facilitate the exchange of tacit knowledge between actors (O’Leary and Cummings, 2007; Torre and Rallet, 2005). As a result, geographically proximate relations are argued to facilitate knowledge exchange better than non-proximate relations and, therefore, are also argued to be more beneficial for firm innovativeness (Oerlemans and Meeus, 2005). Organizational Proximity Organizational proximity is defined as the set of explicit or implicit routines that allow coordination without having to define beforehand how to

158

Temporary organizations

do so. This concept encompasses several other forms of proximity that are found in the literature: institutional, cultural and social proximity, among others (Knoben and Oerlemans, 2006). These forms of proximity are integrated into a single concept because they all assume that shared routines, values, norms, cultures and relations facilitate interactions between actors. Empirical research regarding this conceptualization of organizational proximity has shown that these different forms of proximity can indeed be captured by this overarching concept and can be found in studies that include Knoben and Oerlemans (2008) and Knoben et al. (2008). The reasoning behind the importance of organizational proximity for IOCs is that they are more efficient and lead to better results when the organizational context of interacting partners is similar because this similarity facilitates mutual understanding. Institutional proximity, for example, enables a better understanding of the institution-based behavior of the partner (Gössling, 2007). As such, organizational proximity generates a capacity to combine information and knowledge from the collaborating parties and to transfer tacit knowledge and other non-standardized resources between collaborating parties. Thus, this form of proximity is seen as a prerequisite for dyadic and collective learning and in the joint creation of new resources and innovation (Kirat and Lung, 1999). Technological Proximity In contrast to spatial and organizational proximity, which deal with how organizations interact, technological proximity deals with what is exchanged in these interactions. It is defined as the level of overlap of the knowledge bases of two collaborating actors (Knoben and Oerlemans, 2006) and is based on shared technological experiences and knowledge bases. Technology can be defined as those tools, devices and knowledge that mediate between inputs and outputs (process technology) and/or that create new products or services (product technology) (Tushman and Anderson, 1986). Technological proximity refers not to the technologies themselves, but to the knowledge actors possess about these technologies. The importance of technological proximity at the dyadic level is explained by the concept of relative absorptive capacity (Lane and Lubatkin, 1998). Contrary to the general concept of absorptive capacity, which assumes that a firm’s capacity to learn depends only on the firm itself, the concept of relative absorptive capacity states that this capacity also depends on the source of the knowledge exchanged. The dyadic level of technological proximity implies that firms must have comparable knowledge bases in order to be able to recognize the opportunities offered by collaboration, but a different specialized knowledge

Proximity in temporary organizations

159

base in order to permit effective and creative utilization of new knowledge (Colombo, 2003). In other words, firms need to be similar enough in knowledge bases to be able to recognize the opportunities that the other actors’ knowledge gives, but different enough to contribute new knowledge to the IOC. The more different firms are in knowledge bases, the more there is to learn, but the more difficult it becomes to learn as well. In this context, we propose an inverse u-shape relationship between different dimensions of technological proximity and knowledge spillovers (Nooteboom et al., 2007). The Interplay Between Forms of Proximity Although the three proposed dimensions of proximity can be separated theoretically as well as empirically, they can still interact with each other. First, spatial proximity alone can have relatively little impact on the relationship between two actors if there is no other proximity or similarity between the two actors at all. For example, Vetlesen (1993) discusses the empirical phenomenon of social interaction between groups that share a high level of spatial proximity but have no perceived shared group membership. In such cases, identification with the other group is completely lacking, signaling the absence of relationships between the actors. Nevertheless, there is some empirical evidence that spatial proximity of organizations by itself has a positive impact on collaboration activities and success (Knoben et al., 2008). The effects of spatial proximity between organizations are also dependent upon whether the actors are in urban or rural areas. Urban areas with a high degree of density show better collaboration outcomes and higher innovative performance than those in rural areas (Gössling and Rutten, 2007). However, generally speaking, spatial proximity alone is not a sufficient reason for organizations to collaborate. This assumption, again, is supported by empirical research about the effects of spatial proximity on collaboration (see Oerlemans and Meeus, 2005). Spatial proximity functions as a moderator for the relationship between non-spatial proximity and collaboration variables. The effect of geographical proximity on the relationship between non-spatial proximity and the likelihood of collaboration success is a prime example of this. Different types of proximity can have an impact on the relationship between actors, strengthening or weakening collaboration at certain points. For example, two collaborating partners that are geographically dispersed face difficulties arranging face-to-face contacts. Firms that are proximate on the technological and organizational dimension might be able to substitute these face-to-face contacts with modern communication

160

Temporary organizations

technologies and thereby overcome the problems caused by large geographical distances (Knoben and Oerlemans, 2008). For firms with low levels of technological or organizational proximity, however, trying to do so might result in even more problems due to miscommunication and misinterpretations of electronic communication (Cramton 2001; O’Leary and Cummings, 2007). In addition to analyzing (the effects of) spatial proximity alone or to analyzing the interactions between different types of proximity, one can also study proximity and its impact between actors by analyzing how the dimensions of proximity interact over time. In this regard, there is a lively debate regarding the importance of spatial proximity in IOCs. Several works, including Torre and Rallet (2005) and Torre (2008), have put forward the notion of temporary spatial proximity, which is triggered by the increased mobility of individuals, information and goods (Gallaud and Torre, 2004). As a result of this increase in mobility, the constraints of collaborating over large geographical distances can be overcome through travel, which among other benefits would enable geographic proximity for a short period of time, without the prohibitive costs of permanent co-location. This implies that actors need not be in constant geographical proximity when collaborating, but meetings, short visits and temporary co-location might allow actors to build other forms of proximity, in particular organizational proximity, which subsequently allows collaboration over large geographical distances. A key argument in this reasoning is that organizational proximity can be consciously developed over time. That firms can indeed learn to collaborate is shown empirically in several papers such as Lambe et al. (2002) and Man (2005). However, doing so requires time and resources, so disappointing results at the beginning of an IOC should be seen as an opportunity to learn and not as failure. The interaction between different types of proximity over time is especially interesting in the context of this chapter because it can be argued that time plays a peculiar role in TOs. In the next section, this characteristic of TOs will be elaborated on.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF TEMPORARY ORGANIZATIONS Having described the different forms of proximity that are relevant in IOCs, we turn to the definition of TOs and a description of how some of their particular characteristics are likely to impact on these different forms of proximity. In our focus on collaboration between organizations, we have limited

Proximity in temporary organizations

161

our research to specific forms of TOs. TOs do not have to be IOCs. Examples of non-IOC TOs can be found in the discussions about virtual teams and self-employed entrepreneurs, wherein TOs involve collaboration between individual experts, organized around a certain task, for a certain purpose and with a defined deadline that determines the end of the organization (Gössling 2003). Hence, we will narrow down the concept as it appears in the literature to date and consider TOs to be a specific form of IOC (see Asheim, 2002; Grabher, 2002). It is worth mentioning that many IOCs cease to exist at a specific time. The reasons for termination may be multiple. For example, conflict and poor performance, as well as miscommunication during a partnership, are typical reasons for termination (for a literature study see Oerlemans et al., 2007). The crucial difference between TOs and other IOCs is that the termination is predetermined and related to goal achievement in TOs, but not in IOCs. It is known from the literature that TOs are commonly formed for a complex task which requires that the participants be chosen based on the unique expertise they can contribute to achieving the task. Consequently, TOs are often considered to be suitable organizational forms for collaborative research and development projects. There are two main reasons why TOs are argued to be suitable for organizing interorganizational knowledge exchange and innovation. First, a collaborative form of organizing is suitable because research and development is an expensive and risky undertaking and combining efforts allows for both a higher chance of success and shared risk. Moreover, a temporary form of organizing is suitable because successful innovation requires different types of knowledge from several different sources. The kind of knowledge, and thus the types of partners that need to be brought together, is likely to differ between projects. The benefits of spreading risk and sharing knowledge lead to the conclusion that TOs are an appropriate way of collaborating on research and development projects. The validity of this line of reasoning is taken from information from a dataset that was constructed in order to get an overview of both the incidence of TOs among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and the main characteristics of the TO and the participating organizations in SMEs (see Chapter 1, this volume). Several striking characteristics of TO actors can be identified in the dataset, and they will be discussed in this section; these characteristics will also be linked to the importance of different forms of proximity in TOs. A first important characteristic of TOs is their sectoral distribution. When looking at this distribution (see Table 1.6 in Chapter 1), it is apparent that especially in the other services sector, consisting mainly of cultural services, TOs are a relatively common phenomenon. The same is true to

162

Temporary organizations

a lesser extent for construction sectors. On the other hand, TOs are relatively rare in the hotel and catering and the transport and communication services. The data also seem to indicate that, irrespective of the sector, TOs are often used to conduct collaborative research and development. This is substantiated by the fact that the majority of TOs (55 per cent) have either innovation or the acquisition of knowledge, or both, as an explicit goal (see Tables 1.9 and 1.23 in Chapter 1). Given this, it is perhaps not surprising that about 65 per cent of TOs consist of three or more organizations (see Tables 1.11 and 1.12 in Chapter 1). Unique or innovative tasks often require many different types of knowledge and expertise. One or two organizations are unlikely to possess all the required resources, so a relatively large number of actors need to be brought together. In this sense, the relatively large number of actors in TOs is likely to be the result of the types of activities that are carried out within them rather than being a characteristic of TOs. Nevertheless, it is clearly different from regular IOCs, which predominantly (70 per cent) consists of dyads (Dialdin, 2003). Given the relatively large number of organizations participating in TOs, as well as their strong focus on knowledge exchange and creation, it is expected that the contact frequency between the participating organizations will be relatively high. Knowledge exchange between and mutual knowledge development among different organizations require high amounts of coordination and communication (O’Leary and Cummings, 2007). Moreover, given the argument that the knowledge developed by research and development and required for innovation is most easily exchanged through face-to-face contacts, the frequency of such contacts is also expected to be high. The available data reflect these facts. In almost 40 per cent of TOs, there is daily contact between some of the participating organizations (see Table 6.1 and Table 1.26 in Chapter 1). More than 20 per cent of this group have daily face-to-face contact. In IOCs that are not temporary, the number of daily face-to-face contacts is much lower.2 In TOs, the percentage of collaborations with daily face-to-face contacts is even higher than the percentage of IOCs with daily contact, independent of the method of contact. Due to the high need for coordination and subsequent face-to-face communication, TOs are expected to consist of predominantly geographically proximate actors. It is therefore not surprising that when focusing on the geographical composition and scope, almost 90 per cent of TOs consist of domestic firms. By comparison, 40 per cent of the regular IOCs contain international partners (Hagedoorn, 1996). In this respect, most TOs also have a relatively small geographical scope of operations. Over 50 per cent

Proximity in temporary organizations

Table 6.1

Contact frequency in TOs and IOCs (%) Contact frequency in TOs

Frequency Daily Weekly Monthly Less than monthly Never

Table 6.2

163

Contact frequency in IOCs

Face-to-face

Non-face-to-face

Non-face-to-face

21.6 37.7 33.6 6.9 0.3

38.7 44.4 13.6 2.8 0.5

16.8 58.4 18.2 6.6 0.0

Geographical scope of TOs (%)

Geographical scope of operations Local Regional National European Worldwide

21.3 37.5 26.4 6.3 8.5

of the TOs focus exclusively on regional or local markets, whereas only 15 per cent also take foreign markets into account (see Table 6.2). These data, combined with the small geographical scope of TO operations, seem to indicate that many TOs are and act highly localized. Perhaps the most salient characteristic of TOs is that they are temporary. Half of the TOs in our research formed for a relatively short-lived, single-shot task or goal (Tables 1.27 and 1.32 in Chapter 1). While the lifespan of TOs ranges from zero to 30 years, about 60 per cent collaborate for less than three years and almost 40 per cent of the partners in these TOs have never worked together before (Table 1.33 in Chapter 1). Of the 60 per cent that have worked together before, the majority (60 per cent) did so two or fewer times (see Table 1.34 in Chapter 1). Nevertheless there were also some TOs in which the participating organizations had collaborated 200 times before. This illustrates that some TOs are really recurring events but that the majority are short-lived collaborations in which new partnerships are often formed rather than relying solely on previous ones. The above examples illustrate that there is a wide range of TOs, from those collaborating for the first time to those which have collaborated repeatedly, plus many in between. There are TOs that are aimed at knowledge exchange and acquisition between formerly unfamiliar partners,

164

Temporary organizations

but there are also TOs that perform recurring routine-like tasks and that consist of partners that have worked together many times before. Between these two extreme cases lies a continuum of TOs that can be described by their level of atemporality. Atemporality is a quality of TOs that results from the temporal boundaries created around them and is reflected in a variable level of detachment from the past, present and future courses of activity and social and institutional isolation (see Chapter 5, this volume). Hence, TOs that consist of partners that have never worker together before, that work on a short-lived, single-shot task and have no intention of collaborating in the future have a higher level of atemporality as compared to TOs with a routine, repetitive and recurring character. In other words, atemporality exists in the absence of the shadow of the past and the shadow of the future. In the next section we discuss the degree to which the atemporality of a TO will affect the role that different types of proximity play in TOs.

PROXIMITY IN TEMPORARY ORGANIZATIONS The subsequent discussion relates the characteristics of TOs to the role of different types of proximity. Eventually this discussion leads to a number of propositions that we pose and propose for further research on TOs. We start the discussion with several general propositions that compare TOs to IOCs.3 Then one of the most prominent characteristics of TOs, their level of atemporality, will be used to derive propositions regarding TOs with different levels of atemporality. It is remarkable that so many TOs consist of more than two actors, whereas the majority of the general group of IOCs consists of dyads. This relatively large number of actors involved is likely to lead to high coordination requirements. According to the proximity literature, such coordination requires organizational and/or geographical proximity. Moreover, both the sectoral distribution of TOs, as well as the main goals of the TOs as put forward by their participants, indicate that joint research and development, as well as knowledge exchange, are common activities within TOs. The exchange of tacit knowledge, which requires a high level of geographical proximity, is argued to be significantly facilitated by face-to-face contacts. Recent insights, however, show that this need for geographical proximity can be partially alleviated by high levels of organizational proximity as well. These findings lead to the following propositions: Proposition 1: The actors in TOs will have higher levels of geographical proximity as compared to the actors in other forms of IOC.

Proximity in temporary organizations

165

Proposition 2: The actors in TOs will have higher levels of organizational proximity as compared to the actors in other forms of IOC. In line with the previous propositions, the majority of TOs that participated in our research possessed a relatively high level of geographical proximity. Striking, however, is the fact that there are many TOs in which the partners did not have any, or at least little prior experience, implying that the shadow of the past is absent in many TOs. Organizational proximity, however, is a feature that develops throughout the collaboration. This implies that TOs with little prior collaborative experience, that is, having a high level of atemporality, are likely to exhibit lower levels of organizational proximity, leading to the following proposition: Proposition 3: The higher the level of atemporality in a TO, the lower the level of organizational proximity of the actors involved. Many TOs have a short time frame. This characteristic is especially interesting in the context of proximity, because research has shown that high levels of organizational proximity are often built over time during collaboration and are facilitated by frequent and/or durable collaborations (Knoben and Oerlemans, 2006). This leads to the following proposition: Proposition 4: The shorter the duration of a TO, the lower the level of organizational proximity of the actors involved. Given the high need for frequent coordination in TOs, as put forward earlier, spatial proximity is likely to correlate positively with the level of atemporality of a TO for several reasons. First, the availability of information about partners, including existence, quality and credibility, is lower at higher levels of atemporality, although there is a need for this kind of information for partnering and collaboration. For proximate actors, the availability of such information is higher than for distant actors. Second, even though atemporality implies the lack of prior experience, network connectedness might be present. Actors could be connected via existing social networks and structural holes (Burt, 1992). The likelihood of such connectedness is higher for geographically proximate actors as opposed to distant actors. Third, contracting, monitoring, enforcement and reinforcement are of relatively high importance when the shadow of the future is absent. In the case of spatial proximity, the possibilities for these four assets are relatively high and the costs relatively low as compared with distant partners. This will all lead to a search and partnering behavior that

166

Temporary organizations

focuses first and foremost on nearby solutions, especially at low levels of organizational proximity (see proposition 3). Roughly the same line of reasoning can be applied to the effect of the duration of a TO on the level of geographical proximity – the shorter the lifespan of the TO, the lower the opportunity to build organizational proximity (see proposition 4). Given the need for coordination within TOs, actors within shorter-lived TOs are therefore expected to have higher levels of geographical proximity. These lines of reasoning lead to the following propositions: Proposition 5: The higher the level of atemporality in a TO, the higher the level of geographical proximity of the actors involved. Proposition 6: The shorter the duration of a TO, the higher the level of geographical proximity of the actors involved. With respect to technological proximity, the impact of atemporality is somewhat more complicated. In addition to other factors, atemporality captures the low degree to which organizations rely on solutions developed by their partners in the past. Therefore, higher atemporality implies less reliance on solutions developed by or with partners in the past. Also, organizations in TOs with a high level of atemporality are less likely to expect to learn from each other or to develop technologies that they can commonly use, since common use of technologies implies longer-lasting relationships. The available data on TOs indicates that mutual knowledge exchange and learning are important activities. However, without data on the level of interorganizational learning, it is hard to draw any inferences regarding the level of technological proximity that is likely to be found in TOs as compared to IOCs. What can be derived is that when atemporality is high, organizations are less likely to show high levels of technological proximity. Based on this we can conclude the following: Proposition 7: The higher the level of atemporality in a TO, the lower the level of technological proximity the actors will exhibit.

CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this chapter is to shed light on the role of proximity in temporary organizations and in particular on how proximity is likely to vary across different types of TOs. Most important, our analysis is based

Proximity in temporary organizations

167

on the assumption that TOs are one form of IOC whose characteristics are likely to influence the role of different forms of proximity in this interorganizational setting. This research challenges IOC research to put more emphasis on differences between IOCs instead of treating all IOCs as equals. Rejecting the assumption that an IOC is a homogeneous concept, we propose and go on to show how specific characteristics of an IOC affect the roles of different forms of proximity. Much IOC research implicitly assumes a relatively low degree of atemporality by stressing the shadow of the past as a positive precondition for partnering, and trust and the shadow of the future as forces for trust building, trustworthy behavior, collaborative learning and even isomorphism. Our research sheds more light on conditions for partnering and the different forms of proximity by treating both the shadow of the past and future, not as givens but as variables. In this regard, three forms of proximity, geographical, organizational and technological, were introduced and discussed. The relevant characteristics of TOs in this respect are: ● ● ● ●

the number of participating organizations, which is higher as compared to regular IOCs, the strong focus on research and development and knowledge exchange, the relatively small geographical scope of operations, and the lack of previous contacts and the short time frame of some of the TOs with divergent levels of atemporality and duration.

On the one hand, these characteristics of TOs emphasize the need for tight coordination in TOs and therefore the need for high levels of geographical and organizational proximity. Conversely, and especially for TOs with high levels of atemporality, the possibilities for building and sustaining high levels of organizational proximity are likely to be limited, further enhancing the need for geographical proximity in TOs. Even though these lines of reasoning illustrate that TOs are specific forms of IOCs for which existing insights regarding the roles of different forms of proximity do not necessarily hold, the propositions that are derived from these lines of reasoning need to be tested on empirical data. In doing so, TOs would need to be compared to other forms of IOC, and TOs with different levels of atemporality should be compared to each other. This analysis would help us understand the exact role of proximity in TOs and would provide insights into the extent to which atemporality and temporariness influence the collaborative behavior of organizations. As such, it would provide a valuable contribution to an underexplored field in the scientific literature.

168

Temporary organizations

NOTES 1. Based upon a search on scholar.google.com regarding the terms in the respective periods: Table 6.3

Prevalence of research on collaboration and proximity in academic literature

Search term Collaboration Interorganizational collaboration Proximity and collaboration Proximity and interorganizational collaboration

1990

2006

Factor

11 800 10 760 2

85 500 270 8190 53

7.25 27.0 10.8 26.5

2. The argument is based on a dataset of IOCs that is discussed extensively in Knoben (2008). 3. IOCs are not argued to be homogeneous in all aspects. However, with respect to the aspect of proximity, research literature treats IOCs as homogeneous. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that, as treated in the literature, IOCs cannot be regarded as the perfect control group for TOs since they contain both non-TOs and TOs.

REFERENCES Asheim, B.T. (2002), ‘Temporary organisations and spatial embeddedness of learning and knowledge creation’, Geografiska Annaler, Series B: Human Geography, 84 (2), 111–124. Boschma, R. (2005), ‘Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment’, Regional Studies, 39 (1), 61–74. Burt, R.S. (1992), Structural Holes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Colombo, M.G. (2003), ‘Alliance form: A test of the contractual and competence perspectives’, Strategic Management Journal, 24 (12), 1209–1229. Cramton, C.D. (2001), ‘The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration’, Organization Science, 12 (3), 346–371. Dialdin, D. (2003), Multifirm Alliance Formation and Governance Structure: Configural and Geometric Perspectives, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois (dissertation). Freel, M. (2003), ‘Sectoral patterns of small firm innovation, networking and proximity’, Research Policy, 32 (5), 751–770. Gallaud, D. and A. Torre (2004), ‘Geographical proximity and circulation of knowledge through interfirm cooperation’, in R. Wink (ed.), Academia–Business Links: European Policy Strategies and Lessons Learnt, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 137–158. Gössling, T. (2003), ‘Real virtuality’, in C. M. Scott and W.E. Thurston (eds), Collaboration in Context, Calgary: Institute for Gender Research, pp. 91–101. Gössling, T. (2004), ‘Proximity, trust, and morality in networks’, European Planning Studies, 12 (5), 675–689.

Proximity in temporary organizations

169

Gössling, T. (2007), ‘Inside relationships: A review of institutional approaches towards multi-organisational partnerships, alliances, and networks’, in T. Gössling, L.A.G. Oerlemans and R.J.G. Jansen (eds), Inside Networks, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 13–44. Gössling, T. and R. Rutten (2007), ‘Innovation in regions’, European Planning Studies, 15 (2), 253–270. Grabher, G. (2002), ‘Cool projects, boring institutions: Temporary collaboration in social context’, Regional Studies, 36 (3), 205–214. Hagedoorn, J. (1996), ‘Trends and patterns in strategic technology partnering since the early seventies’, Review of Industrial Organization, 11 (5), 601–616. Heath, R.L., Seshadri, S. and L. Jaesub (1998), ‘Risk communication: A two-community analysis of proximity, dread, trust, involvement, uncertainty, openness/ accessibility, and knowledge on support/opposition toward chemical companies’, Journal of Public Relations Research, 10 (1), 35–36. Kallscheuer, O. (1995), ‘And who is my neighbour? Moral sentiments, proximity, humanity’, Social Research, 62 (1), 99–127. Kirat, T. and Y. Lung (1999), ‘Innovation and proximity: Territories as loci of collective learning processes’, European Urban and Regional Studies, 6 (1), 27–38. Knoben, J. (2008), Firm Mobility and Organizational Networks: Innovation, Embeddedness, and Economic Geography, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Knoben, J. and L.A.G. Oerlemans (2006), ‘Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: A literature review’, International Journal of Management Reviews, 8 (2), 71–89. Knoben, J. and L.A.G. Oerlemans (2008), ‘Ties that spatially bind? A relational account of the causes of spatial firm mobility’, Regional Studies, 42 (3), 385–400. Knoben J., Oerlemans, L.A.G. and R.P.J.H. Rutten (2008), ‘The effects of firm relocation on firm performance’, Economic Geography, 84 (2), 157–183. Lambe, C.J., Spekman, R.E. and S.D. Hunt (2002), ‘Alliance competence, resources, and alliance success: Conceptualization, measurement, and initial test’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30 (2), 141–158. Lane, P.J. and M. Lubatkin (1998), ‘Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning’, Strategic Management Journal, 19 (6), 461–477. Lawrence, T.B., Hardy, C. and N. Phillips (2002), ‘Institutional effects of interorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions’, Academy of Management Journal, 45 (1), 281–290. Man, A.-P. de (2005), ‘Alliance capability: A comparison of the alliance strength of European and American companies’, European Management Journal, 23 (3), 315–323. Nooteboom, B., Van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V. and A. van den Oord (2007), ‘Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity’, Research Policy, 36 (7), 1016–1034. O’Leary, M. and J.N. Cummings (2007), ‘The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams’, MIS Quarterly, 31 (3), 433–452. Oerlemans, L.A.G., Gössling, T. and R.J.G. Jansen (2007), ‘Tie failure: A literature review’, in T. Gössling, L.A.G. Oerlemans, and R.J.G. Jansen (eds), Inside Networks, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 195–221. Oerlemans, L. and M. Meeus (2005), ‘Do organizational and spatial proximity impact on firm performance?’, Regional Studies, 39 (1), 89–104.

170

Temporary organizations

Oerlemans, L.A.G., Meeus, M.T.H. and F.W.M. Boekema (2001), ‘On the spatial embeddedness of innovation networks: An exploration of the proximity effect’, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 92 (1), 60–75. Powell, W.W., Koput, K.W. and L. Smith-Doerr (1996), ‘Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41 (1), 116–145. Sohn, J. (2004), ‘Do birds of a feather flock together? Economic linkage and geographic proximity’, The Annals of Regional Science, 38 (1), 47–73. Torre, A. (2008), ‘On the role played by temporary geographical proximity in knowledge transmission’, Regional Studies, 42 (6), 869–889. Torre, A. and A. Rallet (2005), ‘Proximity and localization’, Regional Studies, 39 (1), 47–59. Tushman, M.L. and P. Anderson (1986), ‘Technological discontinuities and organizational environments’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 31 (3), 439–465. Vetlesen, A.J. (1993), ‘Why does proximity make a moral difference?’ Praxis International, 12 (1), 371–386. Yilmaz, S., Haynes, K.E. and M. Dinc (2002), ‘Geographic and network neighbors: spillover effects of telecommunications infrastructure’, Journal of Regional Science, 42 (2), 339–360.

7

Structure in temporary organizations Jörg Raab, Joseph Soeters, Paul C. van Fenema and Erik J. de Waard

INTRODUCTION Organizational structures have been one of the main topics in research on organizations throughout the 20th century, for example in bureaucratic theory (Weber, 1972) or contingency theory (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967) and recently in research on intraorganizational networks (Raider and Krackhardt 2002). Organizational structures are shaped by and constituted of stabilized patterns of social interaction that are common in most organizations. However, in temporary organizations, because of their limited duration, social interaction may not get stabilized. Therefore temporary organizations (TOs) are often assumed to be organized differently from non-temporary organizations. The main reason for these differences lies in the organizational members’ awareness of the TOs’ impending termination, which changes time horizons, utility calculations and perceptions of relationships, leading to different social processes and interactions. Thus it is their limited duration that makes TOs different. They ‘develop an endogenous logic of functioning unrelated to the past or future of the collaborating actors’ (Chapter 5, p. 143). The existing theory on organizational structures emphasizes rules and regulations, task specialization, centralization and decentralization, hierarchies, power dependencies and the grouping of units (Mintzberg, 1979, 1983). This theory was developed to understand features of organizations, but without making an explicit distinction between temporary and nontemporary organizations. Literature on TOs (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995; Chapter 5, this volume), however, suggests that key organizational features such as structure may be different for TOs compared to nontemporary organizations. In this chapter, we will concentrate on the structural properties of TOs and attempt to identify these features and discuss how and why they might be different from those of non-temporary organizations. However, making general conclusions about structural features of 171

172

Temporary organizations

TOs as compared to non-temporary organizations is difficult. Contrary to the assumptions underpinning older literature on TOs (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995) and similar to non-temporary organizations (Mintzberg, 1979), there are a large variety of TOs. For instance, ad hoc or ephemeral organizations as specific types of TOs, usually emerge spontaneously to overcome the effects of large-scale disasters in communities. These organizations are unusual in that they need to develop their organizational structures while simultaneously trying to perform their work. Hence, they are expected to be less formalized, more fluid, and allow more freedom for the organizational members to acquire and deploy resources than nontemporary organizations are said to be (Thompson, 1967, p. 52–53). Other TOs operate in the context of knowledge-intensive product development. This is the case with manufacturing cars and aircraft, software implementation and management of creative arts and sports. As consciously created organizational forms are usually preceded by longer planning periods, these TOs are likely to display more stable elements of organizational structure. Therefore, to find out how TOs’ structural features are different from those of non-temporary organizations, we need to take into account different types of TOs and the differences in structure between them. Despite the large variety of TOs, they share some common features that distinguish them from non-temporary organizations. In particular, the limited duration of TOs is one such feature. It might alter the perceptions, rationalities, interaction patterns and behavior of the actors involved. In addition, there might not be sufficient time to generate the required resources and skills internally. Therefore, organizational contributions such as knowledge, material resources and people have to come from outside the TO itself, often from non-temporary organizations. Since structure is patterned interaction that is also influenced by what happens in the environment, the critical question we address here is the extent to which the structural features of TOs differ from those of non-temporary organizations. Moreover, the theoretical relationships between factors influencing the structure of organizations and the resulting structure as expected from traditional organization theory may also differ. Thus, the objective of this chapter is to examine the relationship between the temporary character of TOs and structure, and to compare structural features within the group of TOs but also with those of nontemporary organizations. Given the variety of temporary organizations, we first develop a typology of TOs. We then discuss these different forms in order to come to specific propositions on elements of organizational structuring in the various types of TOs. Last, we will compare central structural features common to all TOs with those of non-temporary organizations.

Structure in temporary organizations

173

A TYPOLOGY OF TOS Like all other organizations (Lammers and Hickson, 1979), TOs are structurally alike in many respects, but unlike in many others. To sort out the differences and similarities, we develop a typology of TOs (see Table 7.1). Drawing on the available literature on structure in TOs, the first distinction we make revolves around the question of whether individuals or organizations constitute a TO (representativeness of actors contributing to the TO). This analytical distinction is necessary to take the resourcefulness and coordination challenges of contributors into account, since, as stated above, one of the defining characteristics of TOs is the fact that they often exclusively depend on other organizations for resources, such as manpower, finance and knowledge (Chapter 8, this volume) or they have to mobilize resources temporarily from individuals. Therefore, it makes a great difference whether these contributions come from individuals who temporarily commit to a TO or from organizations that contribute people and resources for a limited amount of time in order to achieve a certain task. Compared to individual persons, organizations represent a pooling of resources, and so face additional coordination problems which lead to the institutionalization of rules and behavior. Since individual organizational members are only temporarily involved in the TO, they are more likely to ‘take these institutions with them’ than individuals who are not members of an organization. Individual-based TOs emerge ever more frequently in the modern knowledge economy (Barley and Kunda, 2004). Independently operating technical, creative or administrative professionals in the world of arts, sports, information and communication technology (ICT), and general management are the nexus of TOs with specific goals: the production of a theater play, a picture or a festival, the recording of an album, the implementation of a software system, or the organization of a major organizational effort such as launching a new product or conducting a political campaign. As such, the work of these professionals is fixed in time, and they will need to earn their livings by stringing assignments over time. Comparable to Mintzberg’s (1979) notion of the operational adhocracy, organization-based TOs, on the other hand, are based on the temporary contributions of manpower, resources and organizational units provided by parent organizations over a limited period. Construction firms engaging in large-scale building projects, high-tech companies developing a new technology collaboratively and armed forces contributing troops to an international military mission are well-known examples of such resource contributions of parent organizations. These TOs are in fact temporary interorganizational constellations; the work is of a limited duration but the organizational contributors are not.

174

Extensive

Organization-based (interorganizational) TOs

Type 2 Hastily formed interorganizational TOs Based on formal permanent organizations using their activation and absorptive capacities in an improvising manner to fight unexpected disasters and terrorist attacks. Type 3 Profession-based TOs Type 4 Structurally prepared interorganizational TOs Large-scale construction projects, military Formed by contracting individual itinerant experts and coordinated by role expectations, deployments and rescue teams striving for career prospects and tight coupling, such as in flexibility and using modularity as one of the more important principles of organizing. the film industry, theater and ICT.

Type 1 Ad hoc or ephemeral spontaneous TOs Voluntary action by individuals and informal groups when coping with e.g. natural or manmade disasters.

Individual-based TOs

Representativeness of actors contributing to the TO

A typology of TOs distinguishing different patterns of structuring work activities

Preparedness of Limited actors contributing to the TO:

Table 7.1

Structure in temporary organizations

175

The second distinction refers to the extent to which the TOs are prepared for the work they seek to accomplish (Table 7.1). Recent literature has on the one hand examined TOs as they have emerged from immediate environmental demands caused by: sudden unexpected emergencies such as natural disasters, tsunami and earthquakes; epidemic outbreaks; or terrorist attacks such as the one on the US on 11 September 2001. In general these TOs will be formed without much prior planning in order to deal almost immediately with ad hoc events that constitute unique once in a lifetime events. Our concern here is primarily with the fact that TOs under these conditions face challenges for which they are not fully prepared. On the other hand, TOs may also be the product of non-temporary organizations preparing themselves to provide and deploy manpower and resources in case of planned-for and expected needs and events. Here the tasks of TOs are essentially repetitive (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995), and as we will discuss, these TOs are likely to be more formally structured. In Table 7.1, we have combined both distinctions, leading to a two by two matrix in order to specify the configuration of features of organizational structure in TOs. Of course our typology does not claim to be the only way of distinguishing different types of TOs. For example, the typology developed by Jones and Lichtenstein (2008) partly diverges from ours in emphasizing the duration of the TOs, where we stress the importance of individual- versus organization-based TOs. Both typologies converge in the preparedness (or recurrence) dimension of TOs. Of course, like Jones and Lichtenstein (2008) we will also address the issue of duration in this chapter, as it is an important dimension in TOs. For the representativeness dimension, the resource bases and coordination challenges depend on whether the TO is individual- or organization-based. Individual-based TOs depend on individual contributors to combine their talents, skills and other resources and to learn in a process of direct interaction. For instance, movie productions function as intense tightly synchronized efforts aimed at creating synergy in the sense of strong artistic and commercial impact (Bechky, 2006). Organizationbased TOs, operating through their representatives participating in the TO, are characterized by the same processes as individual-based TOs plus the fact that coordination involves the support of participating organizations for resources. For example, in the aftermath of the flooding in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, local and national authorities, such as FEMA, collaborated with the armed forces as well as with numerous other organizations from the United States and abroad. The preparedness dimension circumscribes the level of preparedness of actors contributing to the TO at the beginning of its existence. While a TO always starts a new task formally from scratch, the actors actually might

176

Temporary organizations

not. As a recent survey of the prevalence of TOs among small and mediumsized firms in the Netherlands has shown, a considerable number of TOs are actually repeated collaborations between the same actors (Chapter 1, this volume). This means that these TOs are the consequence of recurrent or repeated activities which the parent organizations (or individuals) can prepare themselves for. The knowledge accumulated in previous similar projects, the relationships and trust that have been built and so on, are thus transferred to the next project. This is often the case for projects in creative industries, where several people tend to work together over multiple projects. In addition, organizations might come together before a problem actually occurs and discuss possible scenarios for dealing with such a problem and coordinating activities without forming an organization. A TO is set up only when the problem actually occurs, as for example in disaster management. Nonetheless, the contributing organizations go into the TO much better prepared compared to a situation in which the problem hit completely unexpectedly. Preparedness therefore refers both to the preparedness of the contributing entities – individuals or organizations – as well as to the coordinating capacity of earlier established interpersonal or interorganizational relationships between these entities. Next, we elaborate on the different aspects related to the temporariness of temporary organizations in order to better specify which of these aspects impact structural features in what way. In addition, based on the distinctions in Table 7.1, we describe and analyze features of organizational structure for the types of TOs in each of the four cells, and then compare them with other types of TOs as well as with organizations not involved in temporary work.

IDENTIFYING TEMPORARINESS AND TOS The fact that TOs are of a temporary nature involves several aspects relevant for the set-up, functioning and structuring of a TO. The duration of a TO, for example, can vary substantially. On the one hand, organizations may exist for a very limited time – from several hours to several days, and up to several weeks as in the case of those set up to cope with disasters. On the other hand, some temporary organizations exist for several years or longer, especially in those cases where time might not be the most important driver but rather the goal of reaching a certain state or achieving a certain result. Some projects, like large construction projects or complex research projects, take years to complete. Since a large proportion of the structural features of organizations is based on repeated interaction between organizational actors, the time span available for the interaction

Structure in temporary organizations

177

and therefore the duration of temporary organizations is likely to have an effect on their structural features. Thus, duration matters (Jones and Lichtenstein, 2008). In addition, the types of TOs described above demonstrate that temporary organizations are often of a repeated nature. They take the form of latent organizational structures that are activated for a limited period, go dormant for an undetermined amount of time, and then are activated again when necessary. Examples of this phenomenon include intra- or inter-organizational task forces that are repeatedly used for restructuring efforts or mainly interorganizational configurations that deal with disaster management. Thus, TOs vary substantially in their temporal and structural embeddedness (Jones and Lichtenstein 2008), which is the key feature and the theoretically most important aspect of TOs, since it leads to different social dynamics compared to non-temporary organizations. In their most extreme version, TOs have no past and no future; they are thus atemporal (Elchardus, 1988). Atemporality has been conceptualized as the extent to which an organization is both institutionally and socially insulated with regard to the past, present and future (Elchardus, 1988). The social and institutional contexts at all three temporal reference points, past, present and future, have therefore the potential to separately influence the cognition and rationalities of actors within a TO and subsequently their interactions and the TO structure. If, for example, several organizations have already worked together on numerous projects, their past interactions and experiences will have a significant impact on their behaviors and interactions in current and future TOs. The atemporality with regard to the past is therefore low. Conversely, one may think of a workshop of people who only meet once on a weekend outside their regular social environments, or what Miles (1964) has referred to as a ‘person changing system’ (Miles, 1964, p. 447). This group will have very high overall atemporality since there is no past and no expectation of future collaboration. The group will develop its own procedures and institutions, which are terminated with the end of the workshop. In contrast to a single weekend workshop, for TOs with potentially repeated collaborations, the expectation of possible future interactions is critical for explaining their present actions and patterns of interaction, including the formation of structures. This corresponds to types 3 and 4 in Table 7.1, where the preparedness to become active in a TO is high. In these types, atemporality with regard to the future will therefore be low or decrease over time. The extent to which and the circumstances in which a joint history and a possible joint future of actors have an effect on

178

Temporary organizations

actors’ rationalities and cooperative behavior have been widely discussed in the social sciences and economics literature as ‘shadow of the past’ and ‘shadow of the future’ (Axelrod, 1984; Miles, 1964). In both types 3 and 4 of TOs, the existence of future goals has a direct impact on whether or not the TOs’ parties will reconvene and work together again. Having discussed the implications of temporariness for TOs in general, we now proceed to discuss the structural features of different forms of TOs, compared to non-temporary organizations and to each other.

THE FOUR TYPES OF TOS Type 1: Ad Hoc or Ephemeral Spontaneous TOs Sometimes the world is struck by disaster, natural or man-made. The Indonesian tsunami in December 2004 and the flooding from Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005 are two well-known examples. In both cases, TOs were formed to assist in the relief efforts that followed. Quite often the official response to such disasters is inadequate, or simply too slow. When this happens, individuals and groups, often with low levels of preparedness, become critical to the rescue effort. These emergent response groups frequently have no pre-existing structures such as group membership, tasks, roles or expertise that can be specified ex ante (Majchrzak, et al., 2007, p. 147). The TO that is set up to respond to such a disaster is thus only to a very limited extent related to the institutional and social environment from the past. Atemporality with regard to the past is therefore high. Lanzara (1983) described how individuals and informal groups responded to a massive, unexpected earthquake in southern Italy in 1980. This disaster resulted in 4000 deaths, 8000 injuries and 250 000 people homeless. Official government organizations were slow to act. In an outburst of national solidarity, thousands of volunteers flocked to the stricken area. These volunteers – students, priests, unemployed people, school teachers, medical doctors and nurses, engineers, electricians and plumbers – spontaneously coalesced into official and unofficial organizations, informal groups and agencies. Many of these autonomous groups worked closely with each other as well as with official institutions such as the military and the Red Cross. These collaborative efforts, however, were not a synergetic response to the disaster (Lanzara, 1980, pp. 73–75). In fact, the ‘spaghetti’ of groups, institutions, and agencies often created more problems than they solved, sometimes even hindering one another in the resulting turbulence and chaos, often deliberately in the competition over scarce resources.

Structure in temporary organizations

179

Because of their instantaneous, unprepared, informal, fluid and very temporary character, Lanzara called such organizations ephemeral, in much the same way as Thompson (1967) used the term ad hoc or synthetic organizations. Lanzara’s example of an ephemeral organization is one of many in the organizational studies literature that focuses on natural disasters. For example, the highly visible refugee disaster in Albania in 1999 and in Rwanda in the mid-1990s were studied by Bollen (2002). The breakdowns in emergency response at all levels of the United States government following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was the subject of a paper by Majchrzak et al. in 2007. However, ad hoc or ephemeral TOs emerge not only in response to disasters but also for example as an attempt to create a positive aesthetic experience that is subsequently shown on video websites.1 These so-called flash mobs – individuals connecting in an ad hoc way through internet and mobile technologies to stage a performance at public places2 – convey a lawless aesthetic experience (Lorand, 1989, 2000) drawing on minimal structures. Many of these TOs are fluid and may take advantage of technology to accomplish a mission. The following is an illustration: Hey guys, We are writing to you from Shutdown Day, inquiring about organizing our worldwide global Flash Mob campaign for the year, scheduled to be held on the 3rd of May 2008. The idea is to simultaneously co-ordinate and organize a Flash Mob campaign in select locations worldwide. Since you have a well-established and large community in your city, and the requisite experience with those locations, your help and coordination would be surely appreciated! (The Urban Prankster Network, 2008).

This example suggests that, although there are central people initiating flash mobs, collective organizing, non-hierarchical, voluntary and informal (minimal rules) coordination prevail. This type of TO may also emerge as a form of protest and frustration that has low coordination and central structuring dynamics (Granovetter, 1978). Examples include the 2005 violent protests in French banlieues, as well as the famous student demonstrations in Paris in 1968: The unbelievable – yet thoroughly predictable – ineptitude of this bureaucratic ‘solution’ to the ‘problem’ of student discontent triggered off a chain reaction. It provided the pent-up anger, resentment and frustration of tens of thousands of young people with both a reason for further action and with an attainable objective. . . . Layer upon layer of new people were soon drawn into the struggle. The student union (UNEF) and the union representing university teaching staff (SNESup) called for an unlimited strike. For a week the students held their ground, in ever bigger and more militant street demonstrations.

180

Temporary organizations

On Tuesday, May 7, 50,000 students and teachers marched through the streets behind a single banner: ‘Vive la Commune,’ and sang the Internationale at the tomb of the Unknown Soldier . . . . On Friday, May 10, students and teachers decided to occupy the Latin Quarter en masse. They felt they had more right to be there than the police, for whom barracks were provided elsewhere. (The Struggle Site, 11 December 2008)

Again, the emotional and informal nature of an ad hoc organization is apparent. This organization is very much limited to a very short period of time without any apparent connections to past or future events. In addition, contributions come from individuals who do not, unlike organizations, preserve past experiences and knowledge in institutionalized structures that could have an effect on present actions. Thus, atemporality is likely to be very high. In all the preceding cases, similar organizational features emerge (see Thompson, 1967); these have been summarized by Lanzara (1980, p. 88 and further). His analysis leads us to formulate our first proposition. For this and all the following propositions, ceteris paribus conditions apply, and all refer to the understanding of temporariness as limited duration: Proposition 1: Compared to non-temporary organizations and the other types of TOs (types 2 through 4), ad hoc or ephemeral organizations have a higher atemporality, are less hierarchical and less formalized. Type 2: Hastily Formed Interorganizational TOs Sometimes a problem occurs so suddenly and unexpectedly that individuals have neither the expertise nor the resources to solve it. Whether an urgent business challenge, such as a product recall or technology breakdown, a sudden competitive opportunity or a specific crisis situation, interorganizational TOs can be hastily formed to respond. The SARS epidemic is a dramatic example where such a hastily formed interorganizational TO emerged. The outbreak of SARS in Guangdong, China, in November 2002 quickly spread to Singapore, Hong Kong and Canada, following the travel patterns of infected individuals. Due to the global scale of the SARS risk, governments and other organizations around the world had to cooperate. Initially, activation of this temporary network was a problem because China hesitated to disclose information about the disease. Moreover, underinvestment in Canada’s national health system prior to the SARS outbreak constrained its participation in the network: SARS showed Ontario’s central public health system to be unprepared, fragmented, poorly led, uncoordinated, inadequately resourced, professionally

Structure in temporary organizations

181

impoverished, and generally incapable of discharging its mandate (SARS Commission, 2004, p. 1).

After China disclosed information about SARS in February 2003, the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network, which was launched in 2000, issued a global alert. Its 120 surveillance and response organizations across the world jumped into action. The World Health Organization (WHO) commenced planning for containing risks in multiple areas, arranged for medical supplies and mobile teams of specialists to travel to countries with urgent situations and organized networks of experts trying to develop a better understanding of SARS diagnosis and treatment. In July 2003, the WHO declared that SARS was under control and was no longer viewed as a global threat (van Baalen and van Fenema, forthcoming). The complexity of problems such as the SARS epidemic creates a demand for expertise and resources that can often only be met through meta- or inter-organizational coordination. Multiple organizations constituting a hastily formed network TO (Denning, 2006) can address this type of problem situation by coordinating multiple services across organizational and often national boundaries. The SARS case suggests that the type and quality of response of hastily formed networks depends first on the extent of ex ante preparation, defined in terms of preparation extensiveness and interorganizational relationships. Second, when the event occurs, network cooperation depends on factors such as willingness to disclose information, availability of network orchestration and improvisational capabilities. This type of hastily formed TO thus differs from the ephemeral or ad hoc TO discussed above, particularly with respect to the role of ex ante built organizational or interorganizational experience that is stored in the organizations independent from individuals. Depending on the knowledge of the site, time, and operating process (Denning, 2006), as well as the organization’s absorptive capacities (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990), organizational members of a hastily formed TO face interorganizational information processing and coordination needs as they activate and deploy their resources. The unique nature of the temporary work implies that intraorganizational structures and standard interorganizational communication tools hardly suffice (Kumar and van Dissel, 1996) and often lack interoperability. Hence, organizations improvise to combine their resources. In terms of structuring, they adapt, negotiate or impose their own structures to promote information processing and coordination. Moreover, network administrative organizations set up for coordination purposes often struggle to orchestrate members of the temporary interorganizational network.

182

Temporary organizations

While the ephemeral TOs commonly dissolve after the temporary work is completed and are thus intractable ex post, hastily formed interorganizational temporary organizations are more visible and held accountable for the legal and societal consequences of their actions. Hence, the messiness characterizing hastily formed TOs’ performance attracts huge and often negative media attention and spurs new initiatives and concepts aimed at integrating, standardizing and harmonizing organizational structures and communication processes, thus increasing preparedness over time. As a consequence, atemporality is likely to be lower than for ephemeral TOs (type 1), which usually have no past and no future and do not receive contributions from organizations. One example of an effort to increase preparedness is humanitarian organizations that have been working on aid harmonization programs. Some authors have stressed the importance of physical and social connectivity. Denning (2006, p. 17) introduces the idea of a conversation space to deal with ‘the ongoing need to communicate and coordinate . . . for the success of any hastily formed network [TO]’. Other researchers propose concepts to understand and manage preparation, activation and ex post learning at multiple levels – network, organizations and organizational groups (Monge and Contractor, 2003; van Baalen and van Fenema, forthcoming). While individual organizations tend to focus on their internal structures to achieve economies of coordination costs, the structuring of work activities appears more complex for those organizations that participate in hastily formed TOs. Their process of developing and adapting internal structures is more intensely connected to external structuring processes. These external processes concern structures that, once implemented by participants, will yield interorganizational-level rents and enable or enhance the value of organizational contributions over time, as in the aid harmonization program. Thus, organizations will tend to increase structural preparedness for temporary work that is likely to occur in the future, since hastily formed interorganizational TOs appear to be an undesirable organizational form due to the high coordination costs and the unpredictable nature of network-level performance. Organizations strive to become structurally prepared (cell 4 in Table 7.1) in order to increase effectiveness. To achieve this aim they engage in internal restructuring and develop external – interorganizational-level – structures, or what Milward and Provan (2006) have called problemsolving networks. This interorganizational-level learning and structuring process is balanced against improvisational interorganizational cooperation during or following an event that calls for the establishment of a TO. Whether preparedness over time, however, actually increases, depends on

Structure in temporary organizations

183

the once-only character of the temporary work as well as the acceptability of imperfection and the risk of failures (take for instance the recurring risk of major storms in the US and efforts to learn at various governmental levels from Katrina) (Piotrowski, 2006; van Baalen and van Fenema, forthcoming). If risk and/or the chance of recurrence are high, preparedness is likely to increase by connecting TOs over time through feedback loops, and as a consequence the social and institutional embeddedness will increase at least with regard to the past and present. Thus atemporality will tend to decrease over time. Compared to type 1, the organizational nature of actors in hastily formed TOs (type 2) offers new opportunities, challenges and responsibilities. Building on the above arguments, the following two propositions can be formulated: Proposition 2: Compared to non-temporary organizations, hastily formed (interorganizational) TOs are characterized by less hierarchical and more informal organizational structuring, while they are more hierarchical and formalized than ephemeral TOs (type 1). Proposition 3: Hastily formed (interorganizational) TOs strive to become structurally prepared interorganizational TOs. Thus their atemporality tends to decrease over time. Type 3: Profession-Based TOs A completely different type of TO occurs in the film and theater industries (Bechky, 2006; DeFilippe and Arthur, 1998; Goodman and Goodman, 1972), event management, software development and implementation (Rottman and Lacity, 2006) and in the general management of organizational change processes. The heart of these individual-based TOs consists of itinerant creative, administrative or knowledge professionals who are contracted for a specific period to achieve, together with the others in the TO, a result that is, with varying levels of precision, specified in advance. Most of the time, this activity is referred to as a project and can be planned ahead of time with regard to work schedule, finances, required competencies and personnel. Thus, preparedness is likely to be extensive. In modern societies, the profession-based TO is becoming increasingly more important and has been a topic in sociologists’ study of today’s liquid society (Bauman, 2005). In the liquid society life, personal relations, political climates and consumer preferences are fluid and changing quickly (Dru, 2002). The same applies to work relations, in particular, to the project-bound work of contractors who prize their mobility but who also perceive their work to be uncertain and insecure. In response to this

184

Temporary organizations

insecurity (Barley and Kunda, 2004; Bechky, 2006) these professionals put considerable energy and time into network building, maintaining close contact with customer wishes, reputation management and typecasting, that is, identifying the work one is particularly good at. In this way they are enhancing their ability to develop a career that will provide them with stability and security. In much the same manner, profession-based TOs do their best to evade the insecurity that may result from the lack of organizational structure, maintaining the flexibility to deliver highly customized value in close contact with the customer (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004). Unlike non-temporary organizations, they have few opportunities to use formal rules and management control mechanisms. In general, the requirements and conditions specified in the contract are not used very often to steer and monitor specific contractors’ behavior (Macaulay, 1963). Instead, profession-based TOs are capable of introducing elements of coordination, and hence, organizational structure, into their work activities through roles and expectations associated with the social positions that are relevant for the individual contractors and the TOs themselves. People may or may not have worked together in the past and may or may not work together in the future. Profession-based TOs are thus likely to be more socially and institutionally insulated than non-temporary organizations or structurally prepared TOs, where rules and people are carried over from one TO to the next. Thus, their atemporality is likely to be higher than for non-temporary organizations or structurally prepared TOs. As a consequence, their way of structuring their work activities is clearly more informal than in non-temporary organizations and in structurally prepared TOs (type 4), and is based on mutual adjustment within the project team and intense contact with customers and stakeholders (Ancona and Bresman, 2007). Bechky (2006) has analyzed how in the film industry movies are produced by means of profession-based TOs assembling individual creative and technical professionals for the duration of a particular project. Although the project is temporary per se, it is typically conducted with the expectation of work on future projects, enabling the TO to create coordination structures through the mechanisms of interorganizational career progression and through film sets being organized as temporary total institutions. First of all, profession-based TOs organized to produce a film maintain stable role and position structures for the duration of the shoot, especially with respect to the various technical positions such as camera, grip, electricity and property management. Moreover, these structures are more-or-less similar across various film productions. This means that by participating in sequential projects or profession-based

Structure in temporary organizations

185

TOs, and through switching across various roles, the individual professionals learn the expectations for particular roles by ‘enacting different roles, interacting with others, and watching others perform their roles. This also allows crew members to get a sense of the patterns of relations between roles’ (Bechky, 2006, p. 9). Therefore, the profession-based TO can bring in coordination and structure that is likely to be used in subsequent projects, leading to opportunities for interorganizational career progression for the contractors. Accumulated experience and leveraging of network ties reduce coordination costs (Carlson and Zmud, 1999), as when well-known film directors cast actors they have worked with previously. Profession-based TOs such as film sets may be seen as a Goffmanian total institution, which means that regarding working times and the exclusion of outsiders, it is physically and socially insulated (Bechky, 2006). Such cocooning is considered necessary for sparking creative synergy among professionals. This leads to an immersion experience among the TO’s participants as well as to enormous social pressures because the communication processes are loud and clear to all the people present. This in turn impacts individuals’ understanding of roles to provide both continuity in the generalized role structure and conformity to established roles (Bechky, 2006, p. 11). In addition, by continuous enthusiastic thanking, polite admonishing and role-related joking, the contractors are incited or seduced to act according to the TO’s need for conformity to the role expectations and general coordination throughout the project. In contrast to non-temporary organizations, which use comparable mechanisms of action and personnel control in their organizational culture and control regime (Merchant, 1985), profession-based TOs predominantly rely on experiences prior to this particular project, while using high pressure and ceaseless social influence during the project to achieve coordination, structure and consequently effectiveness. This is particularly true in film productions, but is also likely in other profession-based TOs such as commercial advertising or sports teams during tournaments. In summary, we expect the following to be true: Proposition 4: Compared to non-temporary organizations and structurally prepared TOs (type 4), profession-based TOs consisting of individual professional contractors are less hierarchical and less formalized. Instead, profession-based TOs use more informal practices to achieve coordination and control of their work activities based on generalized role expectations, accumulated experience, interorganizational career prospects and high social pressures during the project.

186

Temporary organizations

Type 4: Structurally Prepared Interorganizational TOs The last of the four forms of TOs are those that are structurally prepared contributions from parent organizations. Most often such TOs work on sizable projects. They differ from profession-based TOs as the contributions do not come from individuals but from formal organizations (see Table 7.1). Examples include construction or dredging firms that engage, in cooperation with other firms, in large-scale projects such as building a harbor, an isle or a bridge (Ekstedt et al., 1992), and high reliability rescue teams in action during anticipated disasters such as fire accidents (Bigley and Roberts, 2001). A third and well-known example of a structurally prepared TO is military troop deployments to missions overseas, either from a single country or most often in cooperation with militaries from other nations (Soeters and Manigart, 2008). While the scope of the mission of a structurally prepared TO can be expansive, the duration is often not and can range from a few hours to a few years. The action time of rescue teams is usually very short, often less than a few hours or days. Large-scale construction or oil drilling TOs may take several years, as do most military missions. In the Afghan province of Uruzgan, for example, the Dutch armed forces have deployed about 1500 troops for the period 2006–2010. These Dutch troops work closely together with 1000 Australian servicemen in fighting hostile groups and developing the region, as part of the temporary organization International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. Other examples of military TOs, in the form of multinational deployments overseas, have been Japanese– Dutch cooperation in southern Iraq and Swedish–Irish collaboration in the UN mission in Liberia (Soeters and Manigart, 2008). Increasingly, organizations prepare for these types of time-limited challenges by developing network-level strategies and improving interoperability. In general, large-scale undertakings such as construction projects and military operations require the development of TOs tailored to meet the project requirements when the parent organization cannot accomplish the goal simply by reassigning some of its staff members. However, simply assembling individual workers of different organizations in such a TO is unlikely to work well for a number of reasons. First, these individuals lack the experience of working together and are strangers who lack the social cohesion, trust and mutual solidarity that are required for work settings with high levels of task interdependence which are common to TOs. Second, the number of people required, sometimes a few thousand or more, is generally too large to be deployed as individuals to a TO. Rather, whole organizational units are deployed with their complete staff. In this situation, contributions from functional groups such as

Structure in temporary organizations

187

certain battle groups in the military or specialized units in construction may be possible, but only if the TO, such as the construction project or the mission itself, can be split into manageably sized divisions, each with its own job. For instance the airport in Kabul is currently being run by military contributions from about 25 countries, each responsible for one particular function, such as the Belgians for force protection, the Slovaks for demining, the Spanish for medical services and the Dutch for patrolling with Apache helicopters (Soeters and Manigart, 2008). Often, however, the scale of the TO operation is too small to allow for such interdependent, functional groupings of units from different parent organizations. In such cases, modular designing is applied (Waard and Soeters, 2007; Waard and Kramer, 2008). In the words of Baldwin and Clark (1997, p. 84) modularity is ‘building a complex product or process from smaller subsystems that can be designed independently yet function together as a whole’. According to Schilling (2000) the advantage of a modular system is its capability of separating and recombining independent components into new configurations. This implies that modular designing may help to integrate autonomous subsystems into a system that functions as a whole. Modular design is based on three design categories: architecture, interfaces and standards (Baldwin and Clark, 1997). Architecture determines which modules will be part of the system and what their functions will be. Interfaces describe how the modules will interact, including how they will fit together and communicate (Sanchez and Mahoney, 1996). The ability to interface is possible if there are standards enabling the various components to click together. One can easily recognize these modular design practices in military deployments (Schilling and Paparone, 2005), particularly in the contributions of air and sea forces to international missions. Both air forces and navies often deploy full organizational modules. Examples of these are F-16 fighter jets patrolling and providing air support, Chinook helicopters providing air transport and navy vessels that can sail and operate independently at sea. These modules may consist of a number of aircraft or vessels with operational and maintenance personnel, intelligence specialists and logistical and human relations officers. In theory, these modular units can operate fully independently. In practice, however, they too can be dependent on others for fueling, food, medical services, force protection and even conducting operations. A case in point is when joint operations require bringing together the activities of more than one service. As the examples above show, standards must pertain to both technical issues, such as weapons systems or machinery and to the domain of

188

Temporary organizations

workers’ behavior and organizational culture such as values, norms and language. Especially in high pressure, high risk situations it is imperative that intra- and inter-unit operability is assured by a minimum of common standards which connect the TO with the parent organizations or even a wider organizational context. This effort to ensure interoperability also decreases atemporality. Thus, structurally prepared TOs have a lower atemporality than the other types of TOs presented so far since the contributions come from organizations and thus are infused with standards. The fact that the contributions come from organizations also creates a long shadow of the past and a possible shadow of the future. Due to the standardization, structurally prepared TOs will also be more formalized than the other types of TOs. A similar argument can be made for hierarchy. Especially in the case of modular TOs, hierarchy within the modules will be stronger compared to the other forms of TOs. Hierarchy within the modules can be expected to come close to that of non-temporary organizations since the modules are set up as long-lasting organizational entities within non-temporary organizations that are temporarily deployed to interorganizational projects. Compared to non-temporary organizations, however, structurally prepared TOs have a higher atemporality and are less formalized. In the case of non-temporary organizations, the embeddedness in a more-or-less coherent institutional framework tends to be high, while in TOs we have to deal with several autonomous organizations with often still divergent or even conflicting institutional requirements. These conflicting requirements create the necessity and leeway for informal action within the TOs. In addition, while in non-temporary organizations the likelihood of future collaboration between parties is relatively high, there might not be a next time for structurally prepared TOs. Thus atemporality will be higher for structurally prepared TOs compared to non-temporary organizations. With regard to hierarchy, we argue that structurally prepared TOs are less hierarchical than non-temporary organizations. Especially for modular TOs, each module still belongs to a non-temporary organization and will repeatedly report back to that parent organization and possibly ask for its approval. People in structurally prepared interorganizational TOs will thus operate under a ‘dual hierarchy’ (see Soeters and Manigart, 2008). The temporary character of this organizational form, but especially the temporary deployment of personnel, implies that individuals in this TO do not expect future collaboration with their temporary bosses, meaning that they are less dependent on them and subsequently less interested in investing in hierarchy oriented behaviors. A reflection of this phenomenon in current UN peacekeeping operations for example, is ‘the

Structure in temporary organizations

189

calling home syndrome’, which describes situations in which a local commander of a peacekeeping unit will not automatically obey an order by his local superior of another nation but first ‘call home’ to ask for approval. Therefore, since the ‘shadow of the future is usually shorter’ in temporary than in non-temporary organizations, people will be less inclined to accept hierarchical subordination and rather press more for a network-like structure based on negotiations within the TO. As a consequence, managers will likely have to invest much more time into building (informal) interpersonal relations compared to non-temporary organizations (Resteigne and Soeters, 2009). We therefore hypothesize: Proposition 5: Structurally prepared interorganizational TOs have a lower atemporality and are more formalized than the other types of TOs but have a higher atemporality and are less formalized than non-temporary organizations. In addition, structurally prepared TOs have a more hierarchical structure than the other types of TOs but are less hierarchical than non-temporary organizations. The latter is especially the case for modular TOs. Although modular organizing is a valid way to build structurally prepared interorganizational TOs, there are limitations. Modules are capable of accomplishing fixed operational tasks, but they may fall short if the conditions and tasks are dynamic and continually changing. In such situations, tailored solutions to newly emerging problems are needed. A navy unit trained to man a frigate is less capable of conducting nation building activities on the ground, because they lack the necessary skills of policing or riot control, essentials for peacekeeping missions. The ability to change with circumstances can be anathema to structurally prepared modular organizing. Because of the very nature of the modularly organized structure, it may foster insular thinking among the modules in the TO, to the detriment of a sense of overarching purpose in the overall TO. Partly based on Waard and Kramer (2008), we formulate the following proposition focusing on atemporality: Proposition 6: Modularly built TOs have a lower atemporality and are thus more stable than TOs of the same type that are not. However, modular TOs are less flexible in terms of adapting to changing task environments. As argued above, there are two important aspects of TOs that are related to their temporariness and are likely to have an effect on structure: atemporality and duration. As has been shown in the discussion of the four types of temporary organizations we identified, these types differ in their

190

Temporary organizations

likely degree of atemporality and their formalization. In the following, we therefore discuss this overarching relationship between atemporality and formalization for all types of TOs before we turn to the discussion on the impact of duration on TO structure.

INFLUENCE OF ATEMPORALITY ON STRUCTURE One of the central questions regarding TOs is the extent to which they are granted autonomy in order to fully concentrate on the achievement of the task at hand (see Chapter 8, this volume). A closely related question is the extent to which the TO is socially and institutionally insulated from its environment. In the case of interorganizational TOs, an additional question is the extent to which the parent organizations exert direct and indirect influence over the operation of the TO. Insulation of the TO from the parent organizations may be especially advantageous in situations in which the cultures, processes and structures of the parent organizations are conflicting, just as high atemporality helps to buffer the TO from these conflicts. This argument questions the generalizability of the embeddedness argument advanced by Granovetter (1985), in which he postulates that all social entities are relationally embedded in larger social and institutional constellations. In the subsequent discussion, we combine Granovetter’s theory with the now widely shared view that social entities perform better if they are well connected to their external environment (Uzzi, 1996, 1997). We claim that for the special tasks for which TOs are founded, both Granovetter’s and Uzzi’s conclusions do not necessarily apply. The advantage of interorganizational TOs is that their participants are often taken out of their routine processes and structures to develop specific products, processes or solutions which are subsequently injected back into the organizations that make up the TO. One of the consequences of this is that due to the concentration on the task, less energy and attention is used for the development of formal structures (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). Thus temporary organizations are generally less formalized than non-temporary ones. A recent survey among small and medium enterprises in the Netherlands (Chapter 1, this volume), found that of the 388 TOs that were formed by small and medium enterprises, 77 per cent were not formalized in a separate legal entity on the basis of a written agreement. Another example where the impact of atemporality on structure can be observed is TOs which are set up to deal with political problems that cause major conflicts and which may endanger the legitimacy of their parent

Structure in temporary organizations

191

organization. In this case, a TO is likely to be set up as a separate entity which can buffer the parent organizations from the potential fallout of its actions. The TO will do its job and then be dissolved afterwards. This was an unintended but welcome effect of the German Treuhandanstalt, a temporary organization originally installed by the last East German government to privatize and restructure the East German economy after unification in 1990 (Seibel, 2005). When the economic downturn following the unification accelerated in East Germany, the Treuhandanstalt, under great pressure from various parties, sold off the ailing East German enterprises in record time. Overall the procedures to sell state property were much less formal than they would have been if the regular tax administration had sold the state property as usual. In addition, this new agency was institutionally much more detached from the federal government of the unified Germany than a body within the ministerial organization would have been. Since the Treuhandanstalt had no future and its employees knew from the start that they had only a few years in the organization, they made decisions more independently. They attracted the criticism and conflicts that should have hit the federal government regarding its policies but in this process preserved the legitimacy of the latter. The Treuhandanstalt was transformed into a successor organization at the end of 1994 and dissolved in 2000. As stated above, it has been argued that TOs invest most of their efforts in achieving clearly defined tasks laid down in contracts and milestones (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995; Jones and Lichtenstein, 2008) rather than in building up structures to achieve often fuzzy and contradictory goals over an open-ended period. This circumstance may shift the balance between the pragmatic and normative exigencies of situations in favor of the former (Emirbayer and Mische, 1998, p. 994). Since achieving the task has the highest priority, actors will evaluate problems less with regard to a fixed rule system but more from a perspective of what is needed to complete the task and act accordingly; in other words, they will act pragmatically. This capacity enables actors to exercise agency and pursue their projects in ways that may challenge and transform the situational contexts of action themselves (Emirbayer and Mische, 1998, p. 994). This task orientation (‘getting things done has priority’) therefore creates leeway for action and detaches the TO from the institutional environments of the parent organization. The focus is thus not so much to bring action in accordance with existing institutions but to change the institutions if necessary to achieve the task, or even better to detach the TO from the more institutionalized environment, increasing atemporality, and set it up in a less formalized and structured manner.

192

Temporary organizations

Given the findings from very different cases that point in the same direction, and based on the theoretical underpinning from Emirbayer and Mische (1998) and the insights we have developed in our typology, we propose the following to be the case: Proposition 7: The higher the atemporality of a TO, the less formalized it will be.

INFLUENCE OF DURATION ON STRUCTURE When we look at the classic literature on organizations and bureaucratic structures (Weber, 1921), which focuses on a hierarchy of offices, fixed rules and written dossiers, we find an underlying assumption that many of these characteristics are based on the expectation that organizational activities will recur and follow a regular pattern (Palisi, 1970). Using this argument, we can assume that TOs, which by definition have fewer recurring and regular activities, are less hierarchical and less formalized than non-temporary organizations. Moreover the shorter the duration, the less opportunity there is likely to be to develop regularized interaction patterns and formalized hierarchies. Not only is the opportunity to develop formalized hierarchies less, but also the need for formal monitoring and coordination structures in TOs is likely to be lower since the focus is primarily on output. Because of the TO’s time pressure, people focus on action over design. It is only when time pressure is not strong that the TO will develop more formal structures and hierarchies. Weick (1993, p. 374), for example, argues that formal organizations usually have a higher degree of formalization compared to ephemeral organizations, or a TO of very short duration. Even though formal binding mechanisms like contracts and milestones play an important role in short duration projects (Jones and Lichtenstein, 2008), short duration TOs will be less formal and less hierarchical than TOs that run for a longer time, which have more time to develop formal procedures and establish them through repeated interaction. This is consistent with Bechky’s (2006) findings that temporary movie projects that usually only run for a couple of months, for example, have less formal control mechanisms. We therefore suggest the following proposition: Proposition 8: The shorter the duration of a TO, the less formalized and hierarchical its organizational structure will be.

Structure in temporary organizations

193

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The literature on TOs has focused on interpersonal processes such as the development of swift trust (Meyerson et al., 1996) and shared understanding among project participants through sense-making processes (Vlaar et al., 2008) or factors that influence the performance of project teams. Few authors, however, have focused on structures in TOs. For the most part, theory on organizational structure has been developed on the basis of insights into organizations that do not have an institutionalized limitation on their existence (Mintzberg, 1979, 1983). TOs have by now become a standard mode for organizing in network societies (Castells, 1996) where customer lifestyles and preferences change rapidly. Companies, having cut their activities to their core business, are now inclined to team up with other organizations to respond to these fluid customer preferences. In the realm of politics, people seem to be more willing to participate in temporary actions than to become members in non-temporary, large vertically integrated interest organizations. This attitude results in an increased number of temporary action committees in Western democracies (Norris, 2002). These examples show that TOs are prevalent in a wide range of organized activity in today’s societies. However, we should not simply assume that TOs develop the same structural features for the same reasons as non-temporary organizations. Instead they deserve much more attention in the field of organization studies in general with regard to a wide variety of organizational features. In this chapter, we have provided an overview of the unique characteristics of organizational structure in TOs. We can draw several conclusions from our discussion. One broad conclusion is that TOs differ at least as much as they are alike. Like all organizations, TOs have both similar and unique characteristics. TOs may be very loosely structured or highly structured and indeed can be everything in between. Moreover, we showed that there are unique characteristics related to their temporary nature which have an impact on the structural formation of TOs. Table 7.2 summarizes our propositions developed in this chapter. As we demonstrated above, many TOs are not one-time events but are repeatedly formed and terminated. While they may carry over a core of actors from one activity to the next, the structure may be subject to change, as for example in the case of hastily formed interorganizational TOs that over time try to develop into structurally prepared interorganizational TOs (see proposition 3). Therefore, we believe that an important topic for future research coming out of our contribution is to adopt a dynamic perspective on TOs. We argue that a substantial number of TOs are formed, dissolved and reformed again by similar partners for similar or different

194

Proposition 2: Compared to non-temporary organizations, hastily formed (interorganizational) TOs are characterized by less hierarchical and more informal organizational structuring, while they are more hierarchical and formalized than ephemeral TOs (type 1).

Tpe 2 Hastily formed interorganizational TOs

Type 3 Profession-based TOs

Proposition 1: Compared to non-temporary organizations and the other types of TOs (types 2 through 4), ad hoc or ephemeral organizations have a higher atemporality, are less hierarchical and less formalized.

Type 1 Spontaneous TOs

Proposition 4: Compared to non-temporary organizations and structurally prepared TOs (type 4), profession-based TOs consisting of individual professional contractors are less hierarchical and less formalized. Instead, profession-based TOs use more informal practices to achieve coordination and control of their work activities based on generalized role expectations, accumulated experience, interorganizational career prospects and high social pressures during the project.

Proposition 3: Hastily formed (interorganizational) TOs strive to become structurally prepared interorganizational TOs. Thus their atemporality tends to decrease over time.

Propositions

Summary of propositions

Type of TO or theoretical relationship

Table 7.2

195

Proposition 7: The higher the atemporality of a TO, the less formalized it will be. Proposition 8: The shorter the duration of a TO, the less formalized and hierarchical its organizational structure will be.

TOs and duration

Proposition 6: Modularly built TOs have a lower atemporality and are thus more stable than TOs of the same type that are not. However, modular TOs are less flexible in terms of adapting to changing task environments.

Proposition 5: Structurally prepared interorganizational TOs have a lower atemporality and are more formalized than the other types of TOs but have a higher atemporality and are less formalized than non-temporary organizations. In addition, structurally prepared TOs have a more hierarchical structure than the other types of TOs but are less hierarchical than nontemporary organizations. The latter is especially the case for modular TOs.

TOs and atemporality

Type 4 Structurally prepared interorganizational TOs

196

Temporary organizations

tasks. Each time a TO is re-formed, the structure is influenced by the prior TO but might depart from the last period of existence due to changes in the nature of the task or other contingencies. Temporary organization structure is thus dynamic, changing at different times during an organization’s existence: ex ante, during, and ex post. The ex ante role of structure, before the temporary work, varies in terms of structure availability, comprehensiveness and relevance, as well as its homogeneity and formality. During temporary work, individuals and organizations structure their contributions to achieve unique value that varies depending on the availability of ex ante structures and situational demands. Ex post structuring refers to learning and efforts to translate lessons learned into standard practices. This relates to the likelihood and similarity of subsequent temporary work, defining the importance of institutionalization, and the decreasing of atemporality over time. Such an approach points to the fact that atemporality does not necessarily remain stable but changes over time as the chance arises that participating parties may encounter each other repeatedly. In addition, one can distinguish between the action and knowledge dimensions of structure. During temporary work the action dimension prevails. Moreover, TO activities generate knowledge which is then translated into structures for future temporary work. Thus future research should focus on these dynamic processes within and across TOs. Finally, as argued in proposition 7, we can observe an evolution across the different forms of TOs with regard to the level of atemporality and structure. Ephemeral organizations and hastily formed interorganizational TOs are apt to be less effective and in need of becoming more structured like the profession-based and structurally prepared network organizations. While non-temporary organizations tend to bureaucratize, TOs seem to strive for more stability in their organizational structures, especially under conditions of media attention and the need to address urgent humanitarian issues. However, and this is a limitation of this contribution, while we were able to compare the different forms of TOs according to their atemporality and its influence on key organizational features within the two dimensions ‘representativeness’ and ‘preparedness’, it was not possible to make this comparison across the two dimensions. Thus we were not able to formulate a proposition comparing hastily formed interorganizational TOs (type 2) and profession-based TOs (type 3). Future research should, therefore, examine these dynamics and the development of atemporality and its influence on structural features across all the different forms of TOs. Other questions could focus on the relation between structural features and the task properties TOs have to deal with. For instance, one could explore the extent to which variation

Structure in temporary organizations

197

in task complexity has an influence on the structure of TOs. In addition, the field of knowledge management and organizational learning in and across TOs opens up a wide array of questions that could be studied. For example, is there something like a memory of temporary organizations (see Nevo and Wand, 2005; Walsh and Ungson, 1991) and how is this memory ingrained in the structures of the TOs and in the relationships with their parent organizations or wider social environments? How is this structural memory related to the four types proposed here? For instance, how are the structures in the organization of big events like the Olympic games carried over through the different prior and future versions of the TO and to what extent is the expertise from past years reused and accumulated? Due to space constraints we have limited our focus to TOs set up through contributions by autonomous individuals or organizations. We have thus excluded intraorganizational project teams that are embedded in an overarching hierarchical organization. Future research could investigate the extent to which the propositions formulated above can be applied to this additional form of temporary organization. Given the large variety of TOs, we propose to start testing propositions according to the specific types of TOs, to limit variation and subsequently apply the findings to more and more of the TO universe. We believe this is necessary since temporary organizations have unique structural characteristics not found in non-temporary organizations and are likely to be a form of organization that is here to stay and thrive.

NOTES 1. For instance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPYiS5ebGgk; http://www.youtube. com/watch?v=jwMj3PJDxuo (http://www.improveverywhere.com). 2. For instance http://www.flashmob.co.uk/.

REFERENCES Ancona, D.G. and H. Bresman (2007), X-teams: How to Build Teams That Lead, Innovate and Succeed, Boston, US: Harvard Business School Press. Axelrod, R. (1984), The Evolution of Cooperation, New York, US: Basic Books. Baldwin, C.Y. and K.B. Clark (1997), ‘Managing in an age of modularity’, Harvard Business Review, 84–93. Barley, S. and G. Kunda (2004), Gurus, Hired Guns and Warm Bodies: Itinerant Experts in a Knowledge Economy, Princeton, US: Princeton University Press. Bauman, Z. (2005), Liquid Life, Cambridge: Polity Press. Bechky, B.A. (2006), ‘Gaffers, gofers, and grips: role-based coordination in temporary organizations’, Organization Science, 17 (1), 3–21.

198

Temporary organizations

Bigley, G.A. and K.H. Roberts (2001), ‘The incident command system: highreliability organizing for complex and volatile task environments’, Academy of Management Journal, 44 (6), 1281–1299. Bollen, M. (2002), ‘Working apart together: civil-militaire samenwerking tijdens humanitaire operaties (Working apart together: civil-military cooperation during humanitarian operations)’, PhD thesis, University of Wageningen. Carlson, J.R. and R.W. Zmud (1999), ‘Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions’, Academy of Management Journal, 42 (2), 153–170. Castells, M. (1996), The Rise of the Network Society, Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Cohen, W.M. and D.A. Levinthal (1990), ‘Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1), 128–152. De-Filippe, R.J. and M. Arthur (1998), ‘Paradox in project-based enterprise: the case of filmmaking’, California Management Review, 40 (2), 125–139. Denning, P.J. (2006), ‘Hastily formed networks’, Communications of the ACM, 49 (4), 15–20. Dru, J.-M. (2002), Beyond Disruption: Changing the Rules in the Marketplace, New York, US: Wiley. Ekstedt, E., Lundin, R. and H. Wirdenius (1992), ‘Conceptions and renewal in Swedish construction firms’, European Management Journal, 10, 202–209. Elchardus, M. (1988), ‘The rediscovery of Chronos: the new role of time in sociological theory’, International Sociology, 3, 35–59. Emirbayer, M. and A. Mische (1998), ‘What is agency?’ American Journal of Sociology, 103 (4), 962–1023. Goodman, L.P. and R.A. Goodman (1972), ‘Theatre as a temporary system’, California Management Review, 40 (2), 103–108. Granovetter, M. (1978), ‘Threshold models of collective behavior’, American Journal of Sociology, 84, 1420–1443. Granovetter, M. (1985), ‘Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness’, American Journal of Sociology, 91 (3), 481–510. Jones, C. and B.B. Lichtenstein (2008), ‘Temporary inter-organizational projects: how temporal and social embeddedness enhance coordination and manage uncertainty’, in S. Cropper, M. Ebers, C. Huxham and P. Smith-Ring (eds), Oxford Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relationships, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 231–255. Kumar, K. and H.G. van Dissel (1996), ‘Sustainable collaboration: managing conflict and co-operation in inter-organizational systems’, MIS Quarterly, 20 (3), 279–300. Lammers, C.J. and D. Hickson (1979), Organizations Alike and Unlike: International and Interinstitutional Studies in the Sociology of Organizations, London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Lanzara, G.F. (1983), ‘Ephemeral organizations in extreme environments: emergence, strategy, extinction’, Journal of Management Studies, 20 (1), 71–95. Lawrence, P.R. and J.W. Lorsch (1967), ‘Differentiation and integration in complex organizations’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1–47. Lorand, R. (1989), ‘Free and dependent beauty: a puzzling issue’, British Journal of Aesthetics, 29 (1), 32–40. Lorand, R. (2000), Aesthetic Order, London, UK: Routledge.

Structure in temporary organizations

199

Lundin, R.A. and A. Söderholm (1995), ‘A theory of the temporary organization’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11 (4), 437–455. Macaulay, S. (1963), ‘Non-contractual relations in business: a preliminary study’, American Sociological Review, 28 (1), 55–67. Majchrzak, A., Jarvenpaa, S. L. and A.B. Hollingshead (2007), ‘Coordinating expertise among emergent groups responding to disasters’, Organization Science, 18 (1), 147–161. Merchant, K. (1985), Control in Business Organizations, Cambridge, MA, Ballinger. Meyerson, D., Weick, K. and R.M. Kramer (1996), ‘Swift trust and temporary groups’, in R.M. Kramer and T.R. Tyler (eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Thousand Oaks, US: Sage, pp. 166–195. Miles, M.B. (1964), ‘On temporary systems’, in M.B. Miles (ed.), Innovation in Education, New York, US: Teachers’ College, Columbia University, pp. 437–490. Milward, H.B. and K.G. Provan (2006), A Managers Guide to Choosing and Using Collaborative Networks, Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government. Mintzberg, H. (1979), The Structuring of Organizations, Englewood Cliffs, US: Prentice-Hall. Mintzberg, H. (1983), Power In and Around Organizations, Englewood Cliffs, US: Prentice-Hall. Monge, P.R. and N. Contractor (2003), Theories of Communication Networks, New York, US: Oxford University Press. Nevo, D. and Y. Wand (2005), ‘Organizational memory information systems: a transactive memory approach’, Decision Support Systems, 39, 549–562. Norris, P. (2002), Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Palisi, B.J. (1970), ‘Some suggestions about the transitory–permanence dimensions of organizations’, The British Journal of Sociology, 21 (2), 200–206. Piotrowski, C. (2006), ‘Hurricane Katrina and organization development. Part 1: Implications of chaos theory’, Organization Development, 24 (3), 10–19. Prahalad, C. K. and V. Ramaswamy (2004), The Future of Competition: Co-creating Unique Value with Customers, Boston, US: Harvard Business School Press. Raider, H. and D.J. Krackhardt (2002), ‘Intraorganizational networks’, in J.A.C. Baum (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, Oxford: Blackwell Business, pp. 58–74. Resteigne, D. and J. Soeters (2009), ‘Managing militarily’, Armed Forces and Society, 35 (2), 307–332. Rottman, J.W. and M.C. Lacity (2006), ‘Proven practices for effectively offshoring IT work’, Sloan Management Review, 47 (3), 56–63. Sanchez, R. and J.T. Mahoney (1996), ‘Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design’, Strategic Management Journal, 17 (winter), 77–91. SARS Commission (2004), The SARS Commission Interim Report: SARS and Public Health in Ontario, http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/pub/ministry_reports/campbell04/campbell04.pdf, 7 April 2009. Schilling, M.A. (2000), ‘Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity’, Academy of Management Review, 25 (2), 312–334. Schilling, M.A. and C.R. Paparone (2005), ‘Modularity: an application of general

200

Temporary organizations

systems theory to military force deployment’, Defense Acquisition Review Journal, 12 (3), 278–294. Seibel, W. (ed.) (2005), Verwaltete Illusionen: die Privatisierung der DDR-Wirtschaft durch die Treuhandanstalt und ihre Nachfolger 1990–2000, Frankfurt, GR and New York, US: Campus Verlag. Soeters, J. and P. Manigart (eds) (2008), Military Cooperation in Multinational Peace Operations, Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Struggle Site, The (2008), Paris 1968, http://struggle.ws/pdf/history/paris68.html, 11 December 2008. Thompson, J. (1967), Organizations in Action, New York, US: McGraw-Hill. Urban Prankster Network, The (2008), Shutdown Day, http://improveverywhere. ning.com/, 11 December 2008. Uzzi, B. (1996), ‘The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: the network effect’, American Sociological Review, 61, 674–698. Uzzi, B. (1997), ‘Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (1), 35–67. van Baalen, P.J. and P.C. van Fenema (2009), ‘Instantiating global crisis networks: the case of SARS’, Decision Support Systems, forthcoming. Vlaar, P.W.L., van Fenema, P.C. and V. Tiwari (2008), ‘Cocreating understanding and value in distributed work: how members of onsite and offshore ISD vendor teams give, make, demand and break sense’, MIS Quarterly, 32 (2), 227–255. Waard, E.J. and E.-H. Kramer (2008), ‘Tailored task forces: temporary organizations and modularity’, International Journal of Project Management, 26 (5), 537–546. Waard, E.J. and J. Soeters (2007), ‘How the military can profit from management and organization science’, in G. Caforio (ed.), Social Sciences and the Military: An Interdisciplinary Overview, Abingdon, UK: Routledge, pp. 181–196. Walsh, J.P. and G.R. Ungson (1991), ‘Organizational memory’, Academy of Management Review, 16, 57–91. Weber, M. (1921), Grundriss der Sozialökonomik, III, reprinted in J. Winckelmann (ed.) (1972), Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie, 5th Edition, Tübingen, GR: J.C.B. Mohr. Weick, K. (1993), ‘Organizational redesign as improvisation’, in G.P. Huber and W.H. Glick (eds), Organizational Change and Redesign: Ideas and Insights for Improving Performance, New York, US: Oxford University Press, pp.346–379.

8

The resource dilemma of temporary organizations: a dynamic perspective on temporal embeddedness and resource discretion René M. Bakker, Bart Cambré and Keith G. Provan

INTRODUCTION Ever since seminal work dating back to Penrose (1959), Wernerfelt (1984) and Barney (1991, 1996), resources have gained widespread attention as crucial factors affecting organizational performance. Moreover, theories such as the Resource Based View (RBV) and Resource Dependency Theory (RDT) have, over the years, successfully staked claims to give center stage to resources in organizational analysis. Building on this resource-centered view, in this chapter we will attempt to contribute to the nascent field of temporary organizations (TOs) by exploring the resource dilemma faced by this particular form of organization and by formulating a number of testable propositions. On one hand, TOs depend on others for resources while, on the other, they require autonomy. Our central premise is that, based on this conflict, TOs face a dilemma regarding resource dependence. This dilemma is due in part to TOs’ dependence on a limited set of outside sources for their resource needs. In contrast to non-temporary organizations, TOs generally lack the time to build up regimes to produce their own assets and slack resources. As Lundin and Söderholm mention (1995, p. 439), three of their four defining concepts of TOs are ‘constituted by resource allocations’ from an outside source to the TO. Thus, a TO’s resource base heavily depends on its founders, one or several parent organizations (POs) that collectively decide to develop a TO for working on a joint project. This means that generally TOs rely heavily on allocated resources over which they have little or no control (see Gower, 1983). In RDT terms, this means that TOs have a high external dependence, usually on multiple organizations, and that they have little or 201

202

Temporary organizations

no capacity to acquire resources from alternative sources, increasing their dependence even further. In order to function effectively, it is generally understood that some level of autonomy is beneficial for both organizations and project teams (see Cohen and Ledford, 1994; Ernst, 2002; Gerwin and Moffat, 1997; Stewart, 2006; Thamhain, 1990; Wall et al., 1986). Based on the above propositions about how TOs function, this constitutes the fundamental resource dilemma for TOs, which will be the main focus of our conceptual arguments. Specifically, TOs are extremely dependent on resources that are externally controlled by their parent organizations. At the same time, TOs need a certain level of autonomy in order to function successfully. To explore this resource dilemma, in this chapter we will focus on how one specific characteristic of TOs – namely, their temporal embeddedness, or the extent to which the TO is embedded in past and future sequences of activity (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995) – impacts on a TO’s degree of discretion over allocated resources. We will take into account the anticipated duration of a TO as a key moderating variable in this relationship. As Janowicz-Panjaitan, Bakker and Kenis (Chapter 2, this volume) have elaborated, we conceive of the temporariness of TOs as having a limited, but not necessarily short duration, implying an awareness of impending termination among TO members. Anticipated duration of the TO (which is fixed ex ante) can thereby vary across TOs. By including temporal embeddedness and anticipated duration as variables in our discussion, we take a view of TOs as phenomena that exist and change over time, and function according to their own dynamic. In doing so, we explicitly seek to overcome the static view of TOs that has prevailed in the body of literature (see Engwall, 2003) and has produced some contradictory views on TOs’ optimal functioning. Consequently, we address the recent call to incorporate temporal features into organization theory (see George and Jones, 2000) and into the resource- (Priem and Butler, 2001) and project-based literatures (Engwall, 2003) in particular. The primary aim of this chapter is twofold – to conceptually explore the resource dilemma of TOs, taking into account the TO’s specific temporal arrangement, and to formulate testable propositions concerning the implications of temporal embeddedness on discretion over resource use. In the discussion, we consider the theoretical implications of our arguments. Specifically, we demonstrate how our dynamic perspective on resource dependencies between TOs and POs facilitates an understanding of TOs that goes beyond a more traditional, static view of the PO–TO relationship. Finally, we infer a number of managerial implications from our analysis concerning the successful management of the resource dilemma of TOs.

The resource dilemma of temporary organizations

203

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Temporary Organizations and Resources There are many definitions of TOs in the current body of literature. In line with the conceptualization of TOs presented by Janowicz-Panjaitan, Cambré and Kenis in the Introduction to this volume, we define a TO as a group of at least two parent organizations (POs) collaborating toward the accomplishment of a joint task, with the duration of the collaboration explicitly and ex ante fixed, either by a specific date or by the attainment of a predefined state or condition. Joint task is operationalized into two dimensions, ‘joint execution of the task’ and ‘jointly carrying the risk for the collaboration’, with either characteristic sufficient for labeling the collaboration a TO but only if the collaboration is consciously set up with a termination point in mind (see the Introduction to this volume). This definition of TOs determines the scope of an interorganizational aggregate that is composed of at least two POs. Examples of TOs include, but are not limited to, construction projects like the Channel Tunnel, movie sets and organizing major sporting events (Bechky, 2006; Meyerson et al., 1996; Miles, 1964). Resources are critically important to TOs. A number of past studies reinforce this assumption. In the project management literature,1 for instance, resources are seen as critical and have been the focus of much discussion (see Al-jibouri, 2002; Angling, 1988; Dzeng and Wen, 2005; Engwall and Jerbrant, 2003; Gower, 1983). One well-known definition of projects (Cleland and Kerzner, 1985, p. 199), holds that projects involve ‘a combination of human and non-human resources pulled together into a temporary organization to achieve a specified purpose’. Engwall and Jerbrant (2003) found that in project settings, ‘the primary management issue revolved around resources’ (p. 406). Katz and Gartner (1988) argued that resources are particularly important in firm start-up because they are so vital for the early survival of emerging organizations (‘organizations-in-creation’). In general, as organizations age, the necessity for external resources declines somewhat, while organizations build up their own assets and reserves, and thus establish a resource buffer often referred to as organizational slack (Bourgeois, 1981), upon which they can draw. Since TOs need to ‘negotiate afresh for resources as each is started’ (Turner and Müller, 2003, p. 4), and since TOs generally lack the time to build up their own reserves, resource dependencies on other organizations are especially critical for understanding how TOs operate.2

204

Temporary organizations

Resource-related Theorizing The main theoretical foundations for the present discussion on the resource dilemma of TOs lie in the Resource Based View (RBV) and Resource Dependence Theory (RDT); we draw heavily upon the latter. Although they take different approaches to the role of resources in organizations, they do share a common issue – a clear focus on resources and organizations. For clarification, we adopt a definition of resources as ‘those (tangible and intangible) assets which are tied semi-permanently to the firm’ (Wernerfelt, 1984, p. 172). A commonly cited taxonomy of resources is provided by Grant (1991), who distinguishes between financial, physical, human, technological, reputational and organizational resources. The Resource Based View starts from the premise that the trend in research during the 1970s and 1980s, which focused heavily on an organization’s environmental opportunities and threats, needed to be counterbalanced by an internal analysis of a firm’s strengths and weaknesses. This premise is rooted in two fundamental assumptions, which differ from those implicitly underlying externally oriented models, such as those developed by Porter (1980); firms may be heterogeneous with respect to the strategic resources they control, and resources are ‘sticky’, or not perfectly mobile across firms. Therefore, the RBV successfully redirected strategy scholars to resources as important antecedents for firm performance (Priem and Butler, 2001). The central logic of the RBV was proposed most clearly by Barney (1991), who argued that possession of certain types of resources (those that are valuable, rare, difficult to imitate and non-substitutable) can lead to sustained competitive advantage (see Priem and Butler, 2001). Despite initial concerns by RBV scholars that RDT neglects the internal role of resources, RDT actually complements the RBV. RDT does not deny the importance of internal resources, but instead, proposes that organizations cannot generate all necessary resources internally. Thus, organizations must mobilize resources from other organizations in their environment if they are to survive (see Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978; Yuchtman and Seashore, 1967). This basic idea has been extended by Gulati (2007), whose work has demonstrated that resources reside in networks of other organizations and embeddedness in that network is critical for access to and leveraging these resources. For the present discussion, the most crucial aspect of RDT is its premise that, on the one hand, organizations partly depend on their environment to fulfill their resource needs, as actors in the firm’s environment control resources critical to the focal firm’s business (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978).

The resource dilemma of temporary organizations

205

On the other hand, organizations seek autonomy over their actions. One of the ironic consequences of this tension is that organizations must surrender some of their own autonomy to gain control over resources possessed by another organization (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978). The underlying dilemma is well known as the autonomy dependency dilemma: organizations want to maximize discretion to modify (future) actions (autonomy), yet, at the same time, organizations need resources owned by other organizational entities (dependency). This RDT-inspired issue forms the basis for what we have deemed the resource dilemma for temporary organizations. Despite the value of both RBV and RDT for explaining the importance of resources and the resource acquisition process for organizations, we adopt RDT to explain our main research question. Fundamentally, an interorganizational TO itself constitutes a bridging solution to a resource dependence problem for the parent organizations (Chapter 3, this volume). Yet, by setting up a TO, a new resource dependence tension is created, this time between the POs and the TOs. As noted above, we view the key dilemma for TOs as being able to simultaneously address the resource dependence on its POs, while functioning autonomously, making decisions that will lead to the success of the temporary project being undertaken. For TOs, unlike distinct organizations such as POs, the dilemma is made even more problematic by the fact that TOs cannot seek out alternative sources for needed resources (Jacobs, 1974). Initially, TOs are totally dependent on their POs and must manage the resource dependencies they are handed. There are two functional components of the resource dilemma faced by TOs: autonomy and dependence. We have already made the case that for TOs, the tension between these two is especially salient given their extreme dependence on external resources from non-temporary organizations and their need for some level of autonomy over allocated resources to successfully accomplish their task. To operationalize autonomy, we focus on the level of discretion over resources as the fundamental issue from the TO’s perspective. More specifically, the managers who are in charge of the TO may exhibit varying degrees of autonomy regarding how and where TO resources are allocated, ranging from little or no discretion (the PO management decides) to total discretion (TO managers allocate resources as they see fit). Regarding dependence, most TOs depend nearly exclusively on their parent organizations. However, we propose that TOs may be able to moderate their dependence based on a factor that is unique to temporary forms of organizing; namely, a TO’s level of temporal embeddedness. The logic underlying the importance of temporal embeddedness is discussed below.

206

Temporary organizations

Temporal Embeddedness TOs generally have a clear start and end, which is a case of clear boundary setting in time, otherwise known as time bracketing (see Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). Beyond the time brackets that distinguish the TO’s start and end, there are also past and future activities that can have a potentially strong effect on the functioning of the TO during its lifetime. In fact, Engwall (2003) proposed that TOs should be studied in their temporal context, because seemingly interior processes within TOs are influenced by their history and anticipated future,3 which extend beyond the TO’s current existence. Using the label ‘temporal embeddedness’, we refer to the extent to which a TO is embedded in past and future activities, beyond its inception and termination (see Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). One way to make this concept concrete is by focusing on the parent organizations (POs) that establish the TO. POs generally collaborate with other firms on an ongoing basis,4 through a host of alliance structures ranging from an informal ‘relational contract’ (Grant and Baden-Fuller, 2004, p. 62) to more formal agreements such as research and development partnerships, equity joint ventures and collaborative manufacturing (Gulati, 1995; Powell et al., 1996). In principle, when these POs, in an ongoing collaboration, decide to found a TO together, this TO is embedded in prior and future collaboration among the POs. So, in general, when there has been collaboration among the POs, or if they plan to collaborate again after the TO has been terminated, the temporal embeddedness of the TO is high. When there is no prior collaboration between the POs, and/or they do not plan to do so again in the future, the temporal embeddedness of the TO is likely to be low (see Figure 8.1). However, we contend that temporal embeddedness is not solely a zero/ one variable based on whether the partners have collaborated in the past or plan to do so in the future. Instead, we contend that the temporal embeddedness of the TO is also a function of the extent to which the TO is a continuation of this prior collaboration or is seen as being tied to future collaboration with these same POs. In this sense, the degree of temporal embeddedness may be envisioned as a continuum that is dependent upon factors such as the time horizon (for instance, whether the prior collaboration took place six months or six years before) and on the extent to which the same individuals and POs are involved and/ or will be involved in future collaboration. In the next section, we explicitly link temporal embeddedness to the resource dilemma, and propose a number of testable propositions concerning its operation and implications.

The resource dilemma of temporary organizations

207

Past collaboration between parent organizations

Yes Expectation of future collaboration between parent organizations No

Figure 8.1

Yes

No

(1) TO part of ongoing collaboration (temporal embeddedness high)

(2) TO as a test case for future collaboration

(3) TO as closure of past collaboration

(4) ‘Pure’ TO (temporal embeddedness low)

A typology of temporary organizations based on temporal embeddedness

INQUIRING INTO THE RESOURCE DILEMMA Crucial for the present discussion is the link between a TO’s level of temporal embeddedness and the resource dilemma, and the implications this link has for the functioning and performance of TOs. We suggest that a high level of temporal embeddedness in past and future sequences of activity will result in TOs having more autonomy over decisions, and more specifically, more discretion over resource use. It follows from RDT that when a TO is dependent on resources controlled by any one of the TO’s founding POs, the PO will have power over the TO (see Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978, p. 132–133). High dependence on the part of the TO for resources controlled by its POs, coupled with the TO’s inability to obtain these resources elsewhere, is likely to create a highly unbalanced power relationship between the TO and POs with respect to the allocation and use of resources (see Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978). Thus, this imbalance implies a low capacity for TO influence over decisions. The main reason for TO discretion over resources is its high level of temporal embeddedness in the past and future. When temporally embedded, trust can develop over time among POs and between the POs and the TO. Temporally embedded TOs will have had the opportunity to

208

Temporary organizations

draw on past experience and reputation to address issues related to the use of PO-controlled resources, procedures, documents and personnel. In addition, temporally embedded TOs will have a longer shadow of the future5 (Axelrod, 1984; Miles, 1964), resulting in more incentives for joint cooperation (see Heide and Miner, 1992) between the TO and its POs and a lower level of uncertainty for the TO. This, in turn, is likely to result in lower reliance on the POs for developing and implementing procedures, for conflict resolution and especially for discretion over resource use by the TO. In principle then, a high level of temporal embeddedness is likely to increase TO autonomy relative to its POs. Conversely, temporally disembedded TOs are decoupled from past and future activity relative to the POs. In the case of extreme temporal disembeddedness, a TO constitutes a first collaboration for a PO. This scenario implies that the POs have had no opportunity to develop trust between or among one another, especially in regard to collaborative alliance. A negative relationship between trust and uncertainty is common (see Das and Teng, 1998). In other words, on average, temporally disembedded TOs will have had less opportunity to develop a trust relation with the other POs, and therefore, the POs may be more uncertain about the TO’s functioning and performance. A similar argument holds for the expectation of future collaboration, which is absent in TOs with no temporal embeddedness. Specifically, an expectation of and commitment to future collaboration is likely to be perceived as an indicator of confidence in the collaboration (Das and Teng, 1998), while its absence will very likely be perceived as the opposite, augmenting uncertainty. As a result, when TOs are temporally disembedded, either in past or in the expectation of future involvement, we expect the POs to ‘keep a tighter leash’ on the TO, resulting in less discretion over resources. In summary, TOs are highly dependent on their POs for resources. Because of this dependency, there is an unbalanced power relationship favoring POs. As a result, TO autonomy is likely to be low. However, TO autonomy, and specifically discretion over resources, is likely to increase with the level of temporal embeddedness, especially because of the increased trust that develops from past collaboration as well as the expectation of future relationships. It follows that: Proposition 1: The stronger the TO’s level of temporal embeddedness in past and future sequences of activities, the higher the TO’s level of discretion over allocated resources. One important aspect moderating the proposed relation in proposition 1 is the anticipated duration of the TO. As mentioned above, we conceive

The resource dilemma of temporary organizations

209

of the temporariness of TOs as having a limited, but not necessarily short duration, implying an awareness of impending termination among TO members. The anticipated duration of TOs varies. We expect that a longer anticipated duration will weaken the effect of temporal embeddedness. There are two reasons for this. First, the longer the anticipated duration of the current TO, the less relevant its past and future involvement beyond the TO’s existence will be. As the existence of the TO lengthens, time becomes available to, for instance, set up procedures, train personnel and codify information in documents during the TO’s existence. Thus, there is less need to rely on past and future PO collaboration. Second, the longer the TO works with the POs on a current project, the more likely it is that trust will develop between the TO and POs. In other words, when the anticipated duration of the TO is relatively long, trust can develop during the TO’s existence, even when temporal embeddedness is low, thereby compensating for a lack of prior trust building before the TO’s existence. As we argued above, trust is likely to enable the TO to exercise greater discretion over resource decisions. In conclusion, a longer anticipated duration of the TO for a particular project decreases the effects of temporal embeddedness with respect to past and future sequences of activities. As the anticipated duration of the TO increases, trust developed through prior collaboration is likely to become less relevant and trust to be built during the TO’s existence more so. It follows that: Proposition 2: The relation specified in proposition 1 is moderated by the anticipated duration of the TO; the effect of temporal embeddedness on the TO’s discretion over resources will be weaker when the anticipated duration of the TO is longer. The relationships specified in propositions 1 and 2 with respect to the TO’s discretion over resources can have a strong impact on the performance of a TO. It is a consistent finding in work on project groups and socalled self-managing work teams that more discretion is associated with enhanced performance.6 For instance, Cohen and Ledford (1994) found that in a telecommunications company, self-managing teams (characterized by high discretion, among other factors) were more effective than comparable traditionally managed groups that performed the same type of work. Gerwin and Moffat’s findings (1997) bolstered this conclusion; their data from 53 cross-functional product development project teams indicated that withdrawing autonomy is negatively correlated with team performance. Moreover, autonomy has emerged as one of five organizational success factors for new product development project teams (Ernst,

210

Temporary organizations

2002), and positive effects of increased project team autonomy on a host of performance criteria have been shown to hold in a meta-analysis (Stewart, 2006). In line with these findings, we propose that discretion over resources is positively related to the performance of TOs.7 Having more discretion implies that the TO can decide how and when resources are to be deployed, allowing for more flexibility in dealing with shifting task and environmental contingencies. Agency theory (see Jensen, 1983; Jensen and Meckling, 1976) has clearly established that the agents – the TOs – usually have more intimate knowledge of the task at hand, and exactly how to perform it, than the principal(s) – the POs. Moreover, this information asymmetry between agent and principal is likely to be greater in short-term agency relationships (Eisenhardt, 1989). By allowing the more knowledgeable TO agent greater discretion over the use of allocated resources, the decisions made are more likely to be consistent with the execution of the project and its specific phase (see Turner and Keegan, 2001). This in turn will likely boost performance of the TO. We contend that two factors are particularly important to establish the performance of TOs: the TO’s ability to attain its goals and to meet a predefined deadline. The importance of goal attainment is rooted in the common notion that TOs are generally set up to accomplish a clearly defined goal which constitutes their very raison d’être (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995; Kerzner 1994). Thus, this goal is clearly one of the most prominent project success criteria (see Dvir et al., 2003). The second performance criterion, a TO’s ability to meet deadlines, flows from TOs being temporary; time will be limited to complete certain tasks, either by date (for example, ‘finish before 1 July’) or by a certain state or condition (for example, ‘finish before the other partners become impatient’ or ‘remuneration will take place when the project is finished’). It is hardly a surprise then, that time is one of the fundamental concepts in the ‘iron triangle’ of project success (see Atkinson, 1999). For the reasons outlined above, we propose that both the TO’s ability to attain its goals and to meet deadlines are positively affected by a higher discretion over resources by the TO. It follows that: Proposition 3: A TO’s performance is directly related to the discretion it has over its allocated resources: the more discretion, the better able it is to attain its goals and meet a predefined deadline. In addition to the positive impact that discretion over resources has on the performance of TOs, a reverse effect might also hold – when viewed from a dynamic perspective, over time the performance of the TO may

The resource dilemma of temporary organizations

211

affect the discretion over resources that POs grant the TO. For instance, the TO attaining milestones might contribute to trust and confidence from the POs, resulting in greater cooperation and autonomy for the TO (see Das and Teng, 1998). Therefore, we propose that if a project performs well in its initial phases – meeting its interim deadlines and milestones – the TO will gradually increase its discretion over resources as the project matures. Based on this logic, our final proposition can be stated: Proposition 4: The higher the performance of the TO on a current project, the greater the TO’s discretion over allocated resources as the project progresses.

DISCUSSION In this chapter, we set out to explore the resource dilemma faced by TOs. We suggested that this dilemma reflects a fundamental tension between autonomy and dependence, and that the impact of this tension is especially significant for TOs. By focusing on the TO’s level of embeddedness in past and future sequences of activity, we explicitly sought to overcome a weakness of many resource-centered analyses, namely, neglecting the temporal element (see Priem and Butler, 2001) and making predictions about how history and anticipated future involvement relate to tensions over resources. In the following, we discuss the theoretical and managerial implications of our work. Implications for Theory One major theoretical issue that is closely related to our ideas and propositions can be expressed as: 1) the extent to which TOs should be analyzed as open or closed systems, and 2) the extent to which TOs function as open or closed systems. In terms of analysis we follow Engwall (2003) in arguing that projects should not be viewed as ‘islands’, detached from history and context, but rather as ‘history-dependent and organizationally-embedded units of analysis’ (p. 790). Engwall further argues (p. 790) that TOs8 have to be conceptualized as ‘contextually-embedded open systems, open in time as well as in “space”’, and that no TO either takes off from, or is executed in, an organizational vacuum. Following Engwall (2003), in our propositions concerning temporal embeddedness, we explicitly took up the call to analyze the impact of history and anticipated future on the functioning of TOs.

212

Temporary organizations

With regard to the functioning of TOs, the benefits of system openness and embeddedness have been noted, for instance with respect to projectbased learning (Scarbrough et al., 2004) and with respect to knowledge sedimentation (Grabher, 2004). Although other scholars certainly do not deny the claim that no project exists in a complete vacuum, nor that they should not be analyzed as such, the ‘TOs-as-open-systems’ stance does not go completely unchallenged with regard to the functioning of TOs.9 For instance, Miles (1964) argued that in order to function properly, temporary systems need a certain degree of closure. More specifically, Miles argued that a TO can form a protective shelter, a bubble, or what Lewin (1947) referred to as a ‘cultural island’, in which members can ‘escape the restraints of historical time and place’10 (Miles, 1964, p. 457). As such, socially, physically and temporally insulated TOs, bereft from history and context, according to Miles, can help to reduce barriers to change (by shearing away the group’s preoccupation with ‘things as they are’), reduce conflicts and provide a strong protective function. In addition, Miles proposed that a certain degree of closure can help the group gain its ‘own identity’ (compare social identity theory: Taifel and Turner, 1979), increase mutual support and promote cohesiveness. Miles’s line of argumentation is in many respects similar to the concept Lundin and Söderholm (1995, p. 447) deemed the ‘planned isolation’ of a TO. They proposed that in the execution phase of a TO, ‘the minimization of any disturbance to plans or other threats to the action [is] imperative, [and] achieved by deliberately isolating the organization’. The result is that ‘the project should proceed like a train moving at high speed towards the end station without any unwanted stops’ (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995, p. 448). It appears, then, that with regard to the functioning of TOs, there is somewhat of a tension between what we would call the open systems stance on the one hand (with an emphasis on embeddedness), and the closed systems stance (with an emphasis on insulation) on the other. We believe that our dynamic view of TOs, based on resource dependencies, offers a potentially viable way of resolving this debate. Our main argument held that TOs that are strongly embedded in the past and future (more ‘open’ with regard to functioning) are likely to experience higher discretion over allocated resources, indicative of a higher level of autonomy. By being able to draw upon trust and experience developed in past collaboration, these TOs would expect to receive more leeway to function as a closed system during the execution phase of the project. This leads to a resolution of the embeddedness (open system) versus insulation (closed system) predicament with regard to the functioning of TOs. The seemingly contrasting arguments between these two

The resource dilemma of temporary organizations

213

System openness

Open

Closed Start-up

Execution - Decoupling -

Completion - Re-coupling -

Time

Figure 8.2

A dynamic perspective on TO system openness

might only seem paradoxical when viewed as static. But from a sequential view, the forces may actually be complementary rather than opposing. Specifically, our research implies that because certain TOs are temporally embedded in history and the future (see Engwall, 2003), they are likely to be more autonomous, functioning as a closed system during the execution of the project. This is precisely when a closed system is most helpful for successful task execution (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995; Miles, 1964). At the start-up and completion phases, however, an open system view is most appropriate. These points are graphically illustrated in Figure 8.2, which shows a dynamic perspective on the system openness of a TO throughout its life cycle. In contrast, a static view would only capture one slice of the curve. As a second implication for theory, our results relate to the work on boundary management of teams and projects (for example Ancona and Caldwell, 1992; Druskat and Wheeler, 2003), by proposing that strategies implementing this approach, such as the ‘scouting’ and ‘isolationalist’ strategy of Ancona and Caldwell (1992), might best be viewed over time. In other words, in different phases of a project, different boundary management strategies may be more beneficial: for instance, encouraging

214

Temporary organizations

high levels of communication at the beginning and end of the duration of the TO, but adopting an isolationist approach in the execution phase. Exploring the interactions between different boundary management strategies and different phases in the TO life cycle is an interesting area for future research. Managerial Implications Flowing from the theoretical suggestions just described, this research effort points to some managerial implications for temporary organizations. These are important because, while there have been a number of suggestions about how to manage external dependence in organizations successfully (for example Kotter, 1979), none of these ideas can be easily tailored to temporary forms of organizing. We propose that when it comes to the successful management of the resource dilemma faced by TOs regarding dependence and autonomy, managers are best advised to see the dilemma as a process with its own dynamic. Following Lundin and Söderholm (1995), the argument put forward in this chapter is that, ideally, TOs need to be embedded in their POs historically, as part of an ongoing collaboration at the PO level. This embeddedness can be fostered in a number of ways, for instance, by selecting the same members for subsequent TOs (assuming reasonable performance), keeping a project portfolio (Turner and Müller, 2003), integrating organizational and project functions and implementing project routines, plus many other hands-on strategies to achieve ‘economies of repetition’ through repeated projects (Davies and Brady, 2000). By doing this, trust and experience developed in the past can function as a solid foundation on which to grant the TO the necessary amount of resource discretion and autonomy to ensure that it succeeds. This strategy will also enable the TO to reap the benefits of insulation, such as the ability to develop its own identity and to provide TO members with the protective environment needed to ensure that tasks can be executed without distraction. After the project is finished, a phase of ‘bridging’ (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995) needs to take place, to re-embed the TO into the non-temporary context. One potentially successful way of doing this is by having formal evaluations in place, as this is an excellent way to transmit experiences (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). Bridging will help to avoid the loss of knowledge after the TO is terminated, by helping to ensure that past learning will be retained by and inserted into the non-temporary organizational environment, so that it can be drawn upon for subsequent projects. In this way the POs get (re)attached to the TO for future sequences of activity, completing the sequential dynamic of openness versus closure of the TO with regard to its history and context.

The resource dilemma of temporary organizations

215

It is important to note that as an initial attempt to conceptualize the resource dilemma of TOs as a dynamic process, one limitation of this chapter is that we have oversimplified some of the concepts. With regard to trust, for instance, which provides the logic underlying proposition 1, one could readily add a layer of complexity by arguing that TO discretion over resources will be based on some combination of trust relations among the POs and the extent to which each PO trusts the TO. In addition, one might conjecture whether the trust building assumed to take place when temporal embeddedness is high is dependent on stable group membership. When a subsequent TO is formed, different individuals may be involved in TO activities and management. To what extent does trust then erode as TO composition changes, even when the same POs are involved, and to what extent does trust then need to be re-established, both among the set of POs and between POs and TOs? Second, an additional layer of complexity might also, perhaps, be added to the variable of temporal embeddedness. We did not consider how or to what extent our propositions would be moderated when, for instance, some of the partnering POs have already collaborated, thereby building trust, while other POs may be new to the relationship and have not previously collaborated. The situation becomes even more complex when relative resource contributions (for example when one PO invests twice as many resources in the TO as another PO) are taken into account. Third, in this chapter POs are essentially treated as if they were all the same. What happens when there are multiple POs, all having different relations with the TO – some highly dependent, some not dependent; some which expect the relationship to continue, some which do not; some which have worked on a previous project, others which have not and so on? These conditions are likely to be prevalent in real-life TOs and future research should address them. They are, however, beyond the scope of this first inquiry into the resource dilemma of TOs. As a final point, the ideas presented here are part of an ongoing call for incorporating temporal features into organization theory (for example George and Jones, 2000) and into the fields of resource-related theorizing (Priem and Butler, 2001), with a particular focus on TOs (Engwall, 2003). Based on this conceptual exploration and set of propositions, we hope to have opened the door to empirical examination of the concept of temporal embeddedness, its effects on the resource dilemma and the functioning and performance of TOs more generally. Conducting such research would, in our view, significantly enhance our knowledge of this exciting and important organizational form, especially regarding the impact of time and history on temporary organizing.

216

Temporary organizations

NOTES 1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Projects are widely considered to be temporary organizations. See Turner and Müller (2003), Packendorff (1995) and Janowicz-Panjaitan, Bakker and Kenis (Chapter 2, this volume). As an example of why human resource management merits special research attention in TOs compared to other organizations, see Huemann et al. (2007). In addition to the temporal context, Engwall (2003) emphazised the spatial (organizational) context. In fact, one of the most significant trends in industrial organization of the last decades has been the unprecedented proliferation of inter-firm collaboration (for example, Grant and Baden-Fuller, 2004; Gulati, 1995; Powell et al., 1996; Samaddar and Kadiyala, 2006). Meaning little or no expectation of future collaboration. However, see Black and Lynch (2004), whose work did not support this conclusion. At the same time, we should note that a higher degree of discretion over resources on the part of the TO will not necessarily lead to higher performance on the part of the POs. Engwall uses the term ‘project’, which we consider TOs to be (see Packendorff, 1995; Turner and Müller, 2003). Engwall’s main intent is that TOs be studied as open systems. Our discussion here focuses on how TOs function as either open or closed systems. Notice how Miles’s ‘escape from time and space’ is directly juxtaposed to Engwall’s call to ‘conceptualize projects in history and context’, and the contrast between the ‘no project is an island’ metaphor and the concept of ‘cultural islands’ popularized by Lewin (1947).

REFERENCES Al-jibouri, S. (2002), ‘Effects of resource management regimes on project schedule’, International Journal of Project Management, (20), 271–277. Ancona, D.G. and D.F. Caldwell (1992), ‘Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 37 (4), 634–665. Angling, M. (1988), ‘Resource planning and control in a multiproject environment’, International Journal of Project Management, 6 (4), 197–201. Atkinson, R. (1999), ‘Project management: Cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria’, International Journal of Project Management, 17 (6), 337–342. Axelrod, R. (1984), The evolution of cooperation, New York, US: Basic Books. Barney, J. (1991), ‘Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage’, Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99–120. Barney, J. (1996), ‘The resource-based theory of the firm’, Organization Science, 7 (5), 469. Bechky, B.A. (2006), ‘Gaffers, gofers, and grips: Role-based coordination in temporary organizations’, Organization Science, 17 (1), 3–21. Black, S.E. and L.M. Lynch (2004), ‘What’s driving the new economy? The benefits of workplace innovation’, The Economic Journal, 114 (493), 97–116. Bourgeois, L.J. (1981), ‘On the measurement of organizational slack’, Academy of Management Review, 6 (1), 29–39.

The resource dilemma of temporary organizations

217

Cleland, D.I. and H. Kerzner (1985), A project management dictionary of terms, New York, US: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Cohen, S.G. and G.E. Ledford (1994), ‘The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasi-experiment’, Human Relations, 47 (1), 31–62. Das, T.K. and B. Teng (1998), ‘Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation alliances’, Academy of Management Review, 23 (3), 491–512. Davies, A. and T. Brady (2000), ‘Organisational capabilities and learning in complex product systems: Towards repeatable solutions’, Research Policy, 29 (7–8), 931–953. Druskat, V.U. and J.V. Wheeler (2003), ‘Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership of self-managing work teams’, Academy of Management Journal, 46 (4), 435–457. Dvir, D., Raz, T. and A. Shenhar (2003), ‘An empirical analysis of the relationship between project planning and project success’, International Journal of Project Management, (21), 89–95. Dzeng, R. and K. Wen (2005), ‘Evaluating project teaming strategies for construction of Taipei 101 using resource-based theory’, International Journal of Project Management, (23), 483–491. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), ‘Agency theory: An assessment and review’, Academy of Management Review, 14 (1), 57–74. Engwall, M. (2003), ‘No project is an island: Linking projects to history and context’, Research Policy, 32 (5), 789–808. Engwall, M. and A. Jerbrant (2003), ‘The resource allocation syndrome: The prime challenge of multi-project management?’ International Journal of Project Management, (21), 403–409. Ernst, H. (2002), ‘Success factors of new product development: A review of the empirical literature’, International Journal of Management Reviews, 4 (1), 1–40. George, J.M. and G.R. Jones (2000), ‘The role of time in theory and theory building’, Journal of Management, 26 (4), 657–684. Gerwin, D. and L. Moffat (1997), ‘Withdrawal of team autonomy during concurrent engineering’, Management Science, 43 (9), 1275–1287. Gower, D. (1983), ‘Resource management: The conflict between ongoing operations and project activities’, International Journal of Management Reviews, 1 (3), 160–162. Grabher, G. (2004), ‘Temporary architectures of learning: Knowledge governance in project ecologies’, Organization Studies, 25 (9), 1491–1514. Grant, R.M. (1991), ‘The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation’, California Management Review, 33 (3), 114–135. Grant, R.M. and G. Baden-Fuller (2004), ‘A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances’, Journal of Management Studies, 41 (1), 61–84. Gulati, R. (1995), ‘Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances’, Academy of Management Journal, 38 (1), 85–112. Gulati, R. (2007), Managing network resources, New York, US: Oxford University Press. Heide, J.B. and A.S. Miner (1992), ‘The shadow of the future: Effects of anticipated interaction and frequency of contact on buyer-seller cooperation’, Academy of Management Journal, 35 (2), 265–291.

218

Temporary organizations

Huemann, M., Keegan, A. and J.R. Turner (2007), ‘Human resource management in the project-oriented company: A review’, International Journal of Project Management, 25, 315–323. Jacobs, D. (1974), ‘Dependency and vulnerability: An exchange approach to the control of organizations’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 45–59. Jensen, M. (1983), ‘Organization theory and methodology’, Accounting Review, 56, 319–338. Jensen, M. and W. Meckling (1976), ‘Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure’, Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360. Katz, J. and W.B. Gartner (1988), ‘Properties of emerging organizations’, Academy of Management Review, 13 (3), 429–441. Kerzner, H. (1994), ‘The growth of modern project management’, Project Management Journal, 25 (2), 6–8. Kotter, J.P. (1979), ‘Managing external dependence’, Academy of Management Review, 4 (1), 87–92. Lewin, K. (1947), ‘Frontiers in group dynamics’, Human Relations, 1, 5–41. Lundin, R.A. and A. Söderholm (1995), ‘A theory of the temporary organization’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11 (4), 437–455. Meyerson, D., Weick, K.E. and R.M. Kramer (1996), ‘Swift trust and temporary groups’, in R.M. Kramer and T.R. Tyler (eds), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research, Thousand Oaks, US: Sage, pp. 166–195. Miles, M.B. (1964), ‘On temporary systems’, in M.B. Miles (ed.), Innovation in education, New York, US: Teachers College, Columbia University, pp 437–490. Packendorff, J. (1995), ‘Inquiring into the temporary organization: New directions for project management research’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11 (4), 319–333. Penrose, E. (1959), The theory of the growth of the firm, New York, US: Wiley. Pfeffer, J. and G. Salancik (1978), The external control of organizations, New York, US: Harper and Row. Porter, M. (1980), Competitive strategy, New York, US: Free Press. Powell, W.W., Koput, K.W. and L. Smith-Doerr (1996), ‘Inter-organizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41 (1), 116–145. Priem, R.L. and J.E. Butler (2001), ‘Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research?’ Academy of Management Review, 26 (1), 22–40. Samaddar, S. and S.S. Kadiyala (2006), ‘An analysis of interorganizational resource sharing decisions in collaborative knowledge creation’, European Journal of Operational Research, 170 (1), 192–210. Scarbrough, H., Swan, J., Laurent, S., Bresnen, M., Edelman, L. and S. Newell (2004), ‘Project-based learning and the role of learning boundaries’, Organization Studies, 25 (9), 1579–1600. Stewart, G.L. (2006), ‘A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance’, Journal of Management, 32 (1), 29–54. Taifel, H. and J.C. Turner (1979), ‘An integrative theory of intergroup conflict’, in W.G. Austin and S. Worchel (eds), The social psychology of intergroup relations, Monterey, US: Brooks/Cole, pp 33–47. Thamhain, H.J. (1990), ‘Managing technologically innovative team efforts toward new product success’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 7, 5–18.

The resource dilemma of temporary organizations

219

Turner, J.R. and A.E. Keegan (2001), ‘Mechanisms of governance in the projectbased organization: The role of the broker and steward’, European Management Journal, 19 (3), 254–267. Turner, J.R. and R. Müller (2003), ‘On the nature of the project as a temporary organization’, International Journal of Project Management, 21 (1), 1–8. Wall, T.D., Kemp, N.J., Jackson, P.R. and C.W. Clegg (1986), ‘Outcomes of autonomous workgroups: A long-term field experiment’, Academy of Management Journal, 29 (2), 280–304. Wernerfelt, B. (1984), ‘A resource-based view of the firm’, Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171–180. Yuchtman, E. and S.E. Seashore (1967), ‘A system resource approach to organizational effectiveness’, American Sociological Review, 32 (6), 891–903.

9

Turning a negative into a positive: how innovation management moderates the negative impact of TO complexity on the effectiveness of innovative interorganizational temporary collaborations Leon A.G. Oerlemans and Marius T.H. Meeus

INTRODUCTION The main question of this chapter is how to manage interorganizational TOs effectively in generating innovation outcomes. We choose innovation outcomes as specifically indicative of TO effectiveness because findings in Chapter 2 revealed that in the Dutch project market, TOs are often innovation oriented. In this chapter we will focus on the following factors: TO complexity, its impacts on TO effectiveness in terms of generating innovation outcomes, and the ways in which this relation can be affected by appropriate innovation management of the TO. The empirical underpinnings of the effects of TOs’ complexity on innovative outcomes are far from unproblematic and this generates quite a challenge for this chapter. We break it up into two related but different parts. The first part is a literature review and answers our first research question: how are project complexity and effectiveness defined in the literature and how does project complexity affect effectiveness in terms of innovation outcomes? The second part builds on the literature review but zooms in on the management of TOs from a temporal and managerial perspective. Our literature review reveals that both the complexity and the effectiveness concepts are multidimensional, which means that there is not just one single, but many distinct relationships between complexity and effectiveness. As will be explained later in this chapter, the consequence of this is that the cause–effect scheme of TOs’ success is multifaceted and counterintuitive. In that sense, the review opens up a far too large set of 220

Turning a negative into a positive

221

modeling options to advance our second question: how can we translate these insights on the effects of complexity on TO effectiveness into management principles and interventions in TOs? Next, we discuss the question of the extent to which the timing of these interventions matters in the context of TOs. This chapter consists of one part primarily pursuing an inventory of the property space in TOs’ effectiveness and complexity. The second part very strongly narrows down the property space in order to be able to develop propositions relating to the impact of TO complexity upon its effectiveness and the managerial inferences from that. First, a number of assumptions are described and the research question guiding this chapter is presented. The next two sections present reviews of the definitions and dimensions of two concepts central to this chapter: TO effectiveness and complexity. These sections show that both concepts are multidimensional and, over time, broader conceptualizations emerge. This sets the stage for relating complexity to the effectiveness of TOs and for developing our basic proposition. The subsequent section tries to unravel the moderating effect of innovation management models on the relation between project complexity and TOs’ innovation outcomes. This section describes both the way in which R&D management has evolved into innovation management and the differentiated ways time is dealt with in innovation management models. We close the chapter with a discussion and conclusion.

ASSUMPTIONS AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS In order to frame our research questions on TO complexity and effectiveness in the context of innovation, we first describe several assumptions that we believe underlie the choice of a TO as an organizational form. Clarifying those assumptions also serves the purpose of explaining why the management of a TO is so important. Some of the assumptions follow from the definition of TOs (p. 2). Assumption 1: The founding and repeating of a TO is a strategic choice of the engaged TO partners. In the definition of a TO, it is more-or-less implied that individual partners do not consider tasks organized in TOs as those able to be done individually. Partners who opt for a TO select their counterparts in such a way as to assure that the knowledge and competences they bring with them are complementary. Of course there is a downside to this as well, namely, the growing

222

Temporary organizations Project Complexity

Focal firm’s required competencies

1 Match competencies and customer base 3

2

2 Deepen competencies; add value to existing customers 3 Broaden and deepen competencies; reach new customers

1

Competitors’ customer bases

Source:

Adapted from Hedberg and Wolff (2001: 550).

Figure 9.1

Evolutionary growth of project complexity as a combination of required firm competencies development and competitors’ customer bases

interdependence among partners. Organizations that choose to engage in a TO ideally should always be backed up by a positive trade-off between ease of access, speed of creating excess resources and growing interdependence between TO partners. Due to this deliberate choice of increased interdependence between TO partners, all parties are supposed to rely on each other for trustworthiness, reliability, and timely performance. The combination of the complexity of tasks performed by TOs and the expected benefits of TOs for innovation makes the management of the TO a key issue. Assumption 2: The complexity of TO projects is partially exogenous and partially endogenous. Figure 9.1 demonstrates that project complexity derives first and foremost from the combination of external threats and required firm competencies: the customer bases of competitors and the necessary abilities to cope with their demands (the focal firm’s required competencies). In fact, the threats indicate how far an organization is pushed by competitors to develop new products, whereas the required competencies define whether the focal organization can cope with this threat given its existing competences. A major implication of this assumption is that organizations are not completely free in choosing project complexity levels because of the behaviors of their competitors. For instance, if competitors with equal market positioning opt for project complexity level 2, there is not much

Turning a negative into a positive

223

Small scale Be sustainable

Be new

Exploit existing

Expand into new

at small scale

at small scale

Incremental advance

Radical advance Be better

Be first

Exploit existing

Expand into new

at larger scale

at large scale Large scale

Source:

Adapted from Jordan (2006: 181).

Figure 9.2

Project types in terms of aspirations set

use in the focal firm starting projects at complexity level 1. The competitors’ strategy to opt for position 1, 2 or 3 in Figure 9.1 determines to a large extent the opportunity space of the focal company to cope with this threat. Comparing complexity levels 1 and 3 results in the observation that at level 3, the number of disciplines, fields and problem areas involved is likely to be broader and deeper. Consequently, there will always be an inclination in organizations to opt for the lowest complexity level due to risk-avoiding behavior. We need one extra step in unpacking project complexity by endogenizing the complexity notion. Within a complexity level, companies can set their different aspirations. This implies that project complexity is indeed partially a choice issue which is strongly associated with aspiration setting; the more ambitious a pursued outcome (aspiration), the higher the difficulty of achieving a certain level of effectiveness given the competencies and resources needed. To illustrate our point, we adapted Jordan’s (2006) research strategy profiles to project types. She developed an outcome classification with largely distinct aspirations levels (see Figure 9.2). Assumption 3: Goal setting and achievement are key managerial issues from a temporal perspective. The endogenous part of project complexity consists of the goals aspired to at different levels of project complexity. If project complexity level 3 in

224

Temporary organizations

Figure 9.1 is combined with ‘Be first’ or ‘Be new’ (Figure 9.2), complexity is also distinct simply because entry into niche markets (small scale) is easier, as compared to entry into new markets on a large scale, in which there is generally more competition. In the latter case and the ‘Be first’ strategy, experimentation is not allowed. Therefore one almost assumes that one can introduce new products into large-scale markets without market experimentation, which is a huge aspiration. Intra- and inter-organizational projects are configurations of equipment, skills, finance and people from diverse functional and organizational units that cooperate to achieve the aspired goals. More and more resource amalgamations are of a temporary nature due to the need for accelerating innovation and shorter R&D cycle times. These time budgets derive from the expected timing of product announcements of competitors, and the estimated time needed to develop competing innovations (IRI, 2000). In the second part of this chapter, attention is directed to the tension between on the one hand the dominance of the rational planning model in project management in general and in innovation management more specifically, and on the other hand the goals aspired to in highly complex projects that suffer from goal–end ambiguities. These considerations lead us to the following research questions: ●

● ●

How are the project complexity and effectiveness concepts defined in the literature and how does project complexity affect effectiveness in terms of innovation outcomes? What kind of management interventions allow TOs to cope with these complexities? To what extent do these management interventions vary across a TOs lifetime?

PART I: THE LITERATURE REVIEW Without substantial knowledge about the relationship between project complexity and effectiveness, it will be difficult for the project leader who is put in charge by the participating organizations to manage TOs. This knowledge itself is also premised on: a) the nature of the concept and the measurement of complexity and effectiveness; and b) the nature of the empirical relation between complexity levels and effectiveness. This literature review revolves around these two topics. With respect to the nature of the concepts involved, a general rule is that if both concepts are theoretically one-dimensional, for example, organizational age or size, one can easily start the modeling of relations between complexity

Turning a negative into a positive

225

and effectiveness. If it turns out that both concepts are multidimensional, the implication is that the whole exercise will multiply into several sets of models that combine the finite set of combinations of dimensions of these concepts. TO Effectiveness The construct ‘effectiveness’ of a TO is part of the wider construct of organizational effectiveness. While effectiveness is clearly of central importance to organization scholars and practitioners, it is far from unproblematic. One of the major problems is its intangible nature. Several scholars have questioned and criticized the value of the construct (Steers, 1975) or even proposed discarding it altogether (Bluedorn, 1980). In one study, Campbell (1977) analyzed thirty different effectiveness criteria and concluded that there are many imprecise definitions and a high level of conceptual overlap between them. Taking these critical comments into account, in an authoritative and widely cited paper, Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) presented the results of an empirical study that had as its aim the development of an overarching framework to guide the effort of organizational assessment. We use their so-called ‘competing value approach’ to guide our discussion on TO effectiveness. Their findings suggest that the criteria of organizational effectiveness can be categorized using three axes or value dimensions which are all related to output quality (Figure 9.3). The first value dimension refers to organizational focus, which ranges from a micro focus on the well-being and development of people in the organization to a macro emphasis on the well-being and development of the organizational unit itself. According to Quinn and Rohrbaugh, this dimension reflects one of the basic dilemmas in organizational life: the organization as a logically designed tool to acquire resources and accomplish goals versus the organization as a socio-technical system. The second value dimension is related to organizational structure, and ranges from an emphasis on organizational stability to an emphasis on organizational flexibility. This dimension reflects a second dilemma in organizational life, that is, the focus on control and order on the one hand, and innovation and change on the other. The third value dimension is related to organizational means and ends, ranging from an emphasis on important processes (like planning and goal setting) to a focus on final outcomes (like efficiency and productivity). Also, this last dimension is a basic dilemma in organizational life as the two approaches can have conflicting time horizons (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). The combination of

226

Temporary organizations HUMAN RELATIONS MODEL

OPEN SYSTEM MODEL

Flexibility Means: Cohesion; morale

Means: Flexibility; readiness

Ends: Human resource development

Ends: Growth; resource acquisition

(1)

(2)

Micro level

Macro level

INTERNAL PROCESS MODEL

RATIONAL GOAL MODEL

(3) Means: Information management; communication

(4) Means: Planning; goal setting

Ends: Stability; control

Ends: Productivity; efficiency Control

Source:

Adapted from Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983: 369).

Figure 9.3

Value dimensions of organizational effectiveness

these dimensions results in four basic types of organizational effectiveness as shown in Figure 9.3. Interorganizational temporary organizations carry out tasks and activities within a predetermined time frame. That is to say that within this time frame, they conduct one or more projects, where a project can be defined as ‘a collection of simultaneous and sequential activities which together produce an identifiable outcome of value’ (Pich et al., 2002). The subquestion of our first research question is therefore what project outcomes of value are distinguished in the literature? And what value dimensions of organizational effectiveness do these predominantly reflect? To answer this question, we conducted a brief review of the literature on project outcomes. Electronic databases (JSTOR, ABI/Inform) were searched using ‘(innovation) project success’, ‘(innovation) project outcomes’, and ‘product innovation success/outcomes’ as search keys. The review was brief as saturation was quickly established. Table 9A.1 (see the appendix) shows the results of our efforts and uses the Quinn and Rohrbaugh framework to categorize the project outcomes. It thus reveals what type of project outcomes are predominantly used by scholars and

Turning a negative into a positive

227

practitioners. Moreover, the sample of papers is chronologically ordered to find out how the dominant dimensions of project effectiveness changed over time. Evaluating our sample of the literature on project effectiveness leads to a number of observations. First, a vast majority of papers in the fields of project management and innovation focus on the effectiveness of intraorganizational projects. Second, many project success papers focus on the so-called ‘iron triangle’ of meeting cost-, time- and quality-related project objectives. Although it is generally recognized in the project and innovation management community that defining project success is far from simple, Huang et al. (2004) report that iron triangle criteria are still the most commonly cited dimensions of (innovation) project success. Nevertheless, as can be observed in Table 9A.1, over time scholars seem to increasingly acknowledge the ‘multi-dimensional strategic’ aspects of project success (Shenhar et al., 2001). Besides the short-term iron triangle criteria, more and more longterm aspects of project success (benefits to the organization, reputation and image effects) are thought to be of importance in the literature (Bryde, 2008). Another trend that can be observed in the literature is the increasing use of ‘psychosocial’, that is, more subjective dimensions of project success (for example ‘level of satisfaction’), which are combined with the traditional task-related outcome dimensions. Moreover, in relation to the previous point, it can be noted that project-level dimensions of project effectiveness are supplemented by organization-level dimensions (for example the project’s contribution to organizational success and market share). Lastly, there is a trend for the internal dimensions of project effectiveness to be increasingly complemented with external dimensions (for example level of satisfaction of various external stakeholders). Concerning the value dimensions of organizational effectiveness, with some exceptions, the project effectiveness literature is strongly dominated by the rational goal model, as defined by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) (see last column of Table 9A.1). Most dimensions used in the innovation and project management literature refer to the productivity, usability and efficiency of projects. This observation is of importance for our further discussion of the management of temporary organizations in a later section. Moreover, many dimensions of the project effectiveness construct are context dependent (Tatikonda and Rosenthal, 2000a) as they focus on one type of industry (producing products or software) or one organization (within comparison of projects). Table 9.1 summarizes our observations. In this chapter, the focus is on temporary organizations that create knowledge and generate product, process and service innovations. Therefore, an appropriate definition of TO effectiveness, besides the iron

228

Table 9.1

Temporary organizations

Types of project outcomes: concept in use and its dimensions

Concepts in use: Project outcome

Dimensions of concepts in use

Project success/failure Project development success Project development cycle time New product success Project success of new product development Project performance Project quality

Internal dimensions: team performance, internal success External dimensions: clients, user, contractor, market evaluations Subjective: satisfaction, perceived quality, acceptance, competence gains, corporate identity Objective outcomes: on schedule, unit costs, execution costs, sales

triangle criteria, has to include different types of knowledge, learning and innovation outcomes, and it has to be applicable across multiple contexts. The latter point is crucial as interorganizational temporary organizations can be found in many sectors (Chapter 1, this volume). Building on our own research, we argue that the focus of such a definition has to be predominantly oriented around the TO’s internal workings. Research by Rutten and Oerlemans (2009) shows that interorganizational temporary organizations aiming at product innovation generate primarily technological and learning outcomes. Financial and economic outcomes are realized to a far lesser extent due to time gaps between the product or service innovation and market success. Therefore, in the context of this chapter, the effectiveness of interorganizational temporary organizations refers to identifiable learning, technological and ‘iron triangle’ outcomes of value to TO members and their parent organizations. These are not necessarily the same in the sense that the output of the TO is framed from the perspective of the TO, which is very often quite distinct from that of the parent organization. The Complexity Concept Complexity has been studied in different research streams. However, there has been ‘little research [that] has attempted to rigorously conceptualise and measure [the] complexity’ of innovation projects (Xia and Lee, 2005, p. 48). Table 9A.2 in the appendix summarizes how prior literature conceptualized the complexity construct in various contexts. The table builds on and extends the work by Kim and Wilemon (2003) and Xia and Lee (2005).

Turning a negative into a positive

229

Studying the definitions and dimensions of complexity proposed in the literature, one can observe a wide variety of definitions using one dimension only or including multiple dimensions of complexity. For example, Clark’s one-dimensional definition (1989) defines project complexity as the extent to which a new product is based on unique in-house developed parts, which is also known as project scope. Tatikonda and Rosenthal (2000a) use a multidimensional approach, viewing project complexity as the nature, quantity and magnitude of organizational subtasks and subtask interactions required for a project. They consider the degree of interdependence among product and process technologies and the newness/degree of difficulty of the project’s objectives to the development organizational unit to be the key determinants of complexity. Wang and Von Tunzelmann (2000) also argue that complexity is a multidimensional construct by distinguishing the depth (cognitive complexity) and breadth (relational complexity) of different functional complexity aspects. A second observation based on Table 9A.2 is that scholars often use task, product and project complexity as interchangeable concepts. This can be problematic as some projects can have multiple tasks or can generate more than one product, service or process innovation. Nevertheless, in the context of temporary collaboration this seems to be less problematic as the task of this organizational unit is project-based (product or service) innovation. A third observation is that complexity is often related to project size in terms of the number of technologies, components or functions involved in the innovation project. Although this is a relevant dimension, we agree with Tatikonda and Rosenthal (2000a), who stated that size does not fully capture complexity. After all, large projects with highly modular product designs have low technology interdependencies, whereas small projects can have a highly integrated product design and, thus, high levels of technological complexity. Therefore, technological complexity in terms of technological novelty, and project complexity in terms of (technological) interdependence, are two different dimensions that have to be taken into account. Kim and Wilemon (2003) add to the discussion another dimension of complexity that is of interest to temporary collaborations: intraorganizational complexity. Building on Hage and Aiken (1970), they argue that the intraorganizational complexity of an organizational unit (in our case a TO) is a function of, amongst others, the organization structure (formalization and centralization), the number of specialists involved and the communication and teamwork difficulties that emerge when members of different organizations have to collaborate.

230

Temporary organizations

Until recently, time and its perception were hardly considered as important independent variables in organizational research (Ancona et al., 2001). Yet, it is remarkable that in the complexity and project literature, little attention was given to time and complexity because it is so often implicit in budget constraints. For studying TOs, (perceived) temporal complexity (Halbesleben et al., 2003) is indispensable. In the context of innovation research, time was merely used as an outcome variable (see the previous section), a project tool (for example time scheduling) (Herroelen and Leus, 2005), or when considering the causal order of the innovation process (King, 1992). Although the concept of temporal complexity is not new, it is predominantly applied to non-temporary organizations (see for example on teams, Harrison et al., 2002; on leadership, Casimir, 2001; and on organizational change, Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997). The perceived temporal complexity of a TO is defined as the understanding of the timescape by TO members (Adam, 2000). Following Halbesleben et al. (2003), the timescape of a TO has several aspects: a) time frame (time horizon for a particular event); b) tempo (expected timing of activities); c) temporality (time span of processes and events); d) synchronization (level of synchronization of time schedules); e) sequence (patterns of events or processes); f) simultaneity (co-occurrence of events); and g) anticipated and emerging time pauses and gaps. The more difficult it is for TO members to understand the timescape of the TO, the higher its temporal complexity. For example, if many activities co-occur in a temporary innovation project, it is hard for TO members to understand how these activities are linked, which in turn increases complexity. In conclusion, in this chapter we define complexity as a large number of parts that interact in non-simple ways, resulting in difficulties in inferring the properties of the whole (Sommer and Loch, 2004). We also recognize the multidimensional nature of the concept of TO complexity as it is related to the product/task, technological, intra-organizational, and temporal complexity.

PART II: THE MANAGEMENT OF TOS Our review results spawn a large set of possible combinations for the modeling of the relation of complexity and effectiveness. Combining the four complexity and three effectiveness dimensions generates at least twelve distinct models and propositions, and a key dimension, temporal complexity, is still missing. What does this all mean in terms of management tasks? To organize a project, a manager is supposed to organize both the means (a project outline and the resources needed) and ends given certain targeted

Turning a negative into a positive

231

project outcomes. The review of the literature on outcomes and complexity shows that at least twelve means–ends relations have to be set up, monitored and evaluated. Once we specify the outcomes in terms of stakeholders whose interests must be warranted, the number of means–ends multiplies with the number of stakeholders discerned. So if we include for instance: a) the team; b) the CTO (Chief Technology Officer); c) customers; and d) suppliers, we get four times twelve means–ends relationships; that is 48 means–ends evaluations with which the project manager is confronted and which she has to integrate to meet stakeholders’ interests. Clearly, there is a need for a reduction of model complexity, which will be considered further in the next section. Toward a Research Model In this section we address the abstract issue of ‘turning a negative into a positive’ announced in this chapter’s title. First, we will model the relation of project complexity and effectiveness for intraorganizational forms, in order to clarify TOs’ role in this relation. In other words, we use the intraorganizational form as a baseline to develop and conceptualize TOs’ functions. Contrary to what several empirical papers report (Liu, 1999; Locke et al., 1981; Mento et al., 1987), it will be argued that project complexity has a non-linear negative effect on effectiveness. Next, we ask how this negative relation can be affected by managerial interventions. We suggest that this can be done by generating excess resources, which implies that TOs offer a potential solution for a problem that is experienced by intraorganizational forms because that is exactly what this organizational form is meant to do. But the potential of this solution is based on two elements. The first element is that TOs are interorganizational forms that structure, schedule and regulate the attention of multiple partners via the time axis. The second element is that the excess resources that derive from the resource pooling by TO partners must be appropriately managed under conditions where causality and thus timing are both highly ambiguous: in other words, under the condition of high project complexity. High project complexity implies that effective allocation and utilization of the excess resources are more derived from past experience, and the belief that this experience is a guideline in next-generation complex projects, albeit an imperfect one. This imperfect guidance of past experience demands additional management principles that overturn the rational planning models which rely on full information about causality and goals. If both causality and goals are ambiguous, we argue that one has to shift to social and psychological mechanisms such as escalation

232

Temporary organizations Project effectiveness

Intraorganizational zone

Interorganizational zone

Radicalness of innovation Economic outcomes of innovation Project complexity

Figure 9.4

The effect of project complexity on project effectiveness for intraorganizational forms

commitment, learning feedback mechanisms and self-organization via high-speed identification of opportunities and search directions as management principles. In addressing these issues, this section subsequently addresses the second part of the first research question: how does project complexity affect effectiveness? Next, we answer our second research question: what kind of management interventions allow TOs to cope with these complexities? And finally we will look at timing interventions to make TOs effective, which is our third research question. Figure 9.4 displays the expected causal effect of project complexity on project effectiveness for intraorganizational forms. Three assumptions are important here. First, the intraorganizational form is the unit of analysis. Second and third, both the resource base and competition are kept constant. For the sake of generality, we do not specify the type of innovation. Next, we explain the way in which we measure the project complexity and effectiveness concepts (Table 9.2). As was indicated in a previous section, the differentiation between levels of complexity can be understood by looking at indicators like schedule, dependency on others, (un)tested kinds of technology and the number of interorganizational partners. Project effectiveness is defined here as the product of the radicalness of innovation and the economic outcomes of the innovation. We claim a non-linear effect of project complexity on effectiveness, which can be explained as follows. High project complexity is indeed likely to produce radical innovation, but that is in general not economically effective. Relatively low project complexity will probably not produce radical innovation, although it might have better and more certain economic

Turning a negative into a positive

Table 9.2

Indicators of project complexity

Low complexity ● ●

● ●

●

Simple schedule with no dependencies Tested technology, techniques, and procedures Impacts single organizational unit Staffing involves single organizational unit Minimal vendor/ consulting activity

Source: 2009.

233

Medium complexity ● ●

●

●

Schedule has few dependencies Impacts more than one organizational unit Involves staffing from more than one organizational unit Intermediate vendor/ consulting activity

High complexity ● ● ● ●

●

Schedule with many dependencies Untested technology, techniques or processes Extensive crossorganizational impacts Involves staffing from many organizational units Extensive vendor/ consulting activity

http://web.wm.edu/it/pmo/Project Complexity Indicators.pdf, accessed 7 April

returns. In sum, neither extremely low nor high project complexity levels are expected to be very effective, whereas at a certain optimum complexity level the highest project effectiveness is achieved due to a balanced mixture of radicalness and economic returns. Figure 9.4 is divided into two zones. In the left hand area the complexity levels can be enacted by intraorganizational forms, whereas the right area is the forbidden area for individual organizations conducting a highly complex task. From that optimum onward the individual organization loses grip on the complexities it is confronted with. These arguments lead to proposition 1. Proposition 1: Project complexity has an inverted U-shaped impact on project effectiveness for intraorganizational forms. What makes TOs as an interorganizational form attractive beyond the optimum complexity level for an intraorganizational form? TOs have the function of generating excess resources to cope with relatively high levels of project complexity. For that purpose, TOs pool resources, which are meant to lever absorptive capacity in order to enable effectiveness in the high project complexity segments. Here, one could think of radical product innovations that contain technologies, like business models lab facilities, that do not occur on the technological competences list of the individual partners in the TO. TOs generate relatively richer resource

234

Project effectiveness

Temporary organizations

Effect of interorganizational form (TO) on effectiveness

Effect of intraorganizational form on effectiveness

Project complexity

Figure 9.5

A reverted complexity effect by using a TO in high complexity conditions

stocks as compared to the resource stocks for intraorganizational projects with a comparable complexity level. In fact this implies that the main effect of TOs is expected to be to bend the decreasing effectiveness curve into a positive one as shown in Figure 9.5. That is, a TO could reverse the complexity effect, which means that the TO as an organizational form moderates the relationship between complexity and effectiveness. Proposition 2: TOs are interorganizational structures that enable partner organizations to reverse the negative effect of project complexity on project effectiveness into a positive effect. However, despite higher potential absorptive capacity derived from excess resources, TOs do not automatically cause higher effectiveness. The reversion of the negative effect of above-optimum project complexity is conditional upon several factors, such as the accumulation of resources, competition and the like, as well as on institutional factors and TO management. From this set of factors, in this chapter we particularly focus on the management of TOs. After all, just implementing a different organizational form will not do the job. Appropriate management interventions should be put in place as well. Below, we elaborate our argument. Proposition 3: The negative relationship between complexity and effectiveness is moderated by TOs, conditional upon the appropriateness of the implemented management interventions.

Turning a negative into a positive

Project effectiveness

Intraorg. zone

TO zone

235

Appropriate TO management, b > 0

Inappropriate TO management: all b values ≤ 0

Project complexity

Note: b refers to the slope of the curvilinear shape.

Figure 9.6

TO management: effectiveness upgrading

Bend it Like Beckham: The Main TO Management Challenge We state that appropriate management of TOs results in the bending of the negative curve of the graph into a positive, that is that in Figure 9.6, b > 0, whereas inappropriate management occurs as long as b ≤ 0. What appropriate TO management is supposed to be, from a content point of view, is not clear up front. TOs perform highly complex projects and go against many traditional stability-driven organizational recipes in that they seemingly organize potentially risky payoffs of costs and benefits. TOs pool resources from TO partners, but they also pool diversity and incompetence from these partners. They join forces across organizational boundaries, but they also lever potential resistance across organizational boundaries. TOs create project opportunities, but they also create interdependencies that eventually harm partners’ performance and so on. . . The ‘choice’ for this high-risk organizational form is mainly caused by the complexity of projects organized and performed by TOs. As stated in the introduction to this chapter, this project complexity is to a large extent enforced by environmental factors such as competitors’ strategic innovations and the level of competence of the TO partner companies. The potential negative trade-offs become acceptable once TOs’ partners start to realize that a go it alone strategy is too risky and that their own hierarchies lack the flexibility and competence pool to cope with competitive pressures. TOs have to accept these potential negative trade-offs against the threat of being defeated by competition.

236

Temporary organizations

Rational planning models that underpin most management models seem unsuitable to perform the non-routine, non-permanent, fixed duration and highly complex tasks of TOs. The reasons are that rational management models assume predictable means–ends causality, permanence of activities (thus long-term time horizon) and unambiguous goals. None of these assumptions apply in the TO zone of project complexity. The question is then, what does one have to take into account to manage TOs properly, which is different from day-to-day business in intraorganizational settings. In a general sense, goal achievement and the management of a TO are geared toward structuring TOs’ activities. But contrary to rational planning models, and this is key to our argument, in TOs, structuring of actions is like structuring and regulation of attention (Stinchcombe, 1968) which is much more than structuring a straight route to achieving fixed goals. Nevertheless managing TOs also consists of allocation and utilization of resources, and the planning, timing and monitoring of activities in order to achieve the goals of the TO. In the structuring and regulation of attention in TOs, time plays a prominent role, as has always been the case in the general management of innovation. As is illustrated in Table 9.3, these temporal landscape dimensions are part of the biggest problems for technology leaders. The IRI research shows that several time-related topics – balancing short-term and long-term goals, accelerating innovation and cycle time reduction (Gupta and Wilemon, 1996; Eisenhardt and Tabrizi, 1995; IRI, 2000) – are core issues in modern innovation management. However, time and timing seem to be goals, rather than means, which is quite different in TOs. Fixed duration implies that management of time is taken out of the equation, as an uncontrollable entity. These research outcomes reveal that the amount of time allocated to activities has become a behavioral feedback mechanism to activities and in that sense it focuses the attention of agents performing and managing these activities. TOs are an organizational embodiment of this shift in time perception. If one controls for time, violations of the timetable are overturned. Consequently, there is a direct feed forward to managing time in TOs. In the zone of high project complexity, this means that the structuring of TOs’ activities implies a set of decisions about the temporal order of activities, for example as being parallel or serial. Allocating time to an activity is an attribution of a certain weight and relevance to it, and therefore is a way of making sense of the roles of these activities in the TO. This sense making is reflected in budgeting time across TOs’ activities, which turns out to be a delicate issue in complex projects, as is shown in several studies. For example, Clark’s study of product development projects in the automotive

237

Source:

Research-Technology Management IRI 2000.

Total company responses

230

4.8 6.5 3.9 na 6.5 5.7

5.2 4.2 4.2 3.7 3.7 2.6 191

5.7

13.5

11.5 5.2

16.1 12.2 13.0

19.9 17.3 13.1

Managing R&D for business growth Accelerating innovation Integration technology planning with business strategy Balancing long-term/short-term R&D objectives/ focus Measuring and improving R&D productivity/ effectiveness Cycle time reduction in R&D Leadership of R&D within the corporation Management of global R&D Knowledge management Selling R&D internally or externally R&D portfolio management

1999

2000

‘Biggest problems’ facing technology leaders in 2000 (%)

R&D managers and their problems

Table 9.3

174

5.7 5.7 3.4 na 2.3 5.7

6.3

12.6

13.8 16.1 12.1

1998

223

3.1 4.0 5.8 na 4.0 4.0

4.0

14.7

17.0 10.3 13.0

1997

242

8.5 4.2 4.5 na 4.2 4.5

11.8

12.1

10.0 9.5 11.2

1996

258

8.4 2.3 3.5 na 2.6 4.5

11.5

11.0

5.9 7.8 7.4

1995

–

5.96 4.48 4.22 3.66 3.88 4.50

7.42

12.57

13.78 12.19 11.63

6 year average

238

Temporary organizations

industry (1989) found that higher project complexity is associated with greater engineering hours and development time. Griffin (1997) and Clift and Vandenbosch (1999) found similar effects as higher complexity levels resulted in longer product development times. The amount of time allocated to temporary activities also focuses the attention of management in terms of redefining expected outcomes as well as in achieving actual outcomes. For instance, Hultink and Robben (1995) reported that an organization’s time horizon influences the perceived importance of the core measures of success, whereas Perlow (1999) reported a negative impact of ‘time famine’ (perceived lack of time to conduct a task) on the productivity level of software engineers. Furthermore, it turns out that higher levels of project complexity and time spending do not have very consistent empirical relations. Carbonell and Rodriguez (2006), for example, found that the correlation between functional diversity of a product and product development time takes on an inverted U-shape. Larson and Gobeli (1989), however, found that project complexity has no impact on the results (technical performance, costs and schedule) of an innovation project. As far as technological complexity is concerned, Tatikondo and Rosenthal (2000a) found that technologically more complex projects impacted negatively on unit cost outcomes, whereas overall project success was not affected. In a different study (2000b), these authors reported no impact of technological complexity on the project execution process. All in all, this research confirms that in general, time aspects are framed from an outcome perspective more than from a perspective focusing on (innovation) processes. Nevertheless we claim that there is a shift needed from a less rationalist to a more behavioralist perspective on time as a regulation and focus device. Moreover, a shift is needed from a more outcome-driven perspective to a more processual framing of time. This shift provides guidelines for appropriate TO management. In sum, TO management is more effective if time is used as both a feedforward mechanism that regulates attention and as a feedback mechanism that focuses attention. Some Suggestions for Appropriate Management Interventions In Figure 9.4, we discerned the TO and the intraorganizational zone for project complexity. Eisenhardt and Tabrizi (1995) developed two models for effective management that fit nicely into these two zones. They compared a so-called compression and an experiential model of management. The compression model assumes a well-known, rational innovation process and relies on squeezing together or compressing the sequential steps of the development of innovations. This model is primarily directed

Turning a negative into a positive

239

at achieving efficiency when lower levels of complexity occur. The second model assumes an uncertain innovation process and relies on improvisation, real-time experience and flexibility, stressing improvisation, experiential learning and creativity (Lewis et al., 2002). The second model is more appropriate when complexity levels are higher. The differences between the two models are shown in more detail in Tables 9.4 and 9.5. In the literature, it is argued that there is a tension between simultaneously aiming for efficiency and innovation (Naveh, 2005) as emphasis on the one may result in harming the other. Efficiency requires control, standardization and conformity to rules and procedures, whereas innovation asks for flexibility, autonomy and tolerance for mistakes. The compression strategy (Table 9.4) assumes, like the rational planning models, that the innovation process is highly predictable and can be planned as a sequence of steps. In this sense it reflects a linear model of innovation. This process can be compressed by shortening time steps, overlapping the execution of steps and applying outcome control (Kirsch, 1996). The result is a shorter, thus more efficient, innovation process. Contrary to the compression strategy, the experiential model (Table 9.5) proposes that development time reduction, simply by increasing the efficiency of the innovation process, is unrealistic. The model assumes that the development of innovations is a highly uncertain activity. The key to development time reduction is rapidly establishing understanding and flexible options so the TO can learn quickly. Simultaneously, it is crucial to create structure and a motive for pace, as high uncertainty levels can produce a paralyzing anxiety of the future. We extended Eisenhardt and Tabrizi’s models by systematically adding possible moderator effects impacting the relationship between complexity and effectiveness. This was done for both management models. Multiple iterations, for example, (see Table 9.5) impact the (negative) relationship between task complexity and effectiveness. In the above, we argued that for high complexity levels, the TO as an organizational form could reverse the negative relationship between complexity and effectiveness provided that appropriate management interventions were put in place. Multiple iterations are such management interventions because they increase the likelihood of finding a ‘hit’. Without them, building understanding about the innovation is more complicated. Using these multiple iterations facilitates quicker learning because attention is directed at comparing the strengths and weaknesses of several alternatives which can be developed simultaneously. A similar line of argument is developed by Pich et al. (2002), who state that innovation management can be guided by the adequacy of available

240

The compression model

Rationalize and squeeze the process

Strategy

Task complexity Task complexity Task complexity Task complexity Temporal complexity Task complexity Intraorgan. complexity

Reduces work load of focal team Enables focus on key competencies Problem solving by supplier Enables inclusion of supplier ideas Speeds up computation time Facilitates reuse of past designs Smooths team interaction

Supplier involvement

Cut step time through CAD

Possibly moderates the relationship between TO effectiveness and:

Facilitates delegation Smooths team interaction Reduces coordination efforts

Eliminates unnecessary steps

Effects

Task and temporal complexity Intraorgan. complexity Intraorgan. complexity Intraorgan. complexity

Planning

Predictable series of welldefined steps

Image of product innovation

Tactics

Certainty

Key assumption

Characteristics

Table 9.4

241

Source:

Intraorgan. complexity Temporal complexity Intraorgan. complexity

Focuses attention on current project Facilitates time-based performance Creates team alignment

Reward for meeting schedule

Adapted from Eisenhardt and Tabrizi, 1995: 94.

Temporal complexity Temporal complexity Intraorgan. complexity Task complexity

Reduces wait time Facilitates parallel development Links different activities Facilitates problem recognition

Overlap with multifunctional teams

242

The experiential model

Task complexity Task complexity Task complexity & temporal complexity Task complexity Task complexity Temporal complexity Task complexity Intraorgan. complexity Intraorgan. complexity

Increase possibility of success Increase understanding of design Facilitate quicker assessment of different design options Facilitate cognitive flexibility Facilitates early problem recognition Facilitates frequent feedback Facilitates trial-and-error learning Increases team confidence Lowers possibility of conflicts

Multiple iterations

Extensive testing

Tactics

Strategy

Uncertain path through foggy & shifting markets & technologies Quickly building understanding & options while maintaining focus & motivation

Image of product innovation

Possibly moderates the relationship between TO effectiveness and:

Uncertainty

Effects

Key assumption

Characteristics

Table 9.5

243

Source:

Task complexity Intraorgan. complexity

Keeps process focused Secures team autonomy by resource acquisition

Powerful leader

Adapted from Eisenhardt and Tabrizi, 1995: 94.

Task complexity Temporal complexity Temporal complexity Task complexity Intraorgan. complexity

Facilitates assessment of progress Increase sense of order Increase sense of urgency Increase sense of goal attainment Promote coordination and communication

Frequent milestones

244

Temporary organizations P4

Effectiveness

P5

Project complexity

Figure 9.7

A graphical presentation of propositions 4 and 5

information. In situations of low uncertainty and ambiguity, a so-called instructionalist approach (applying classical project management tools such as PERT or CPM1) could be used. Higher levels of uncertainty and ambiguity ask for different approaches: learning and selectionism. Learning can be used in situations in which innovators receive feedback that is incompatible with their predictions. However, in highly complex situations, learning is not sufficient as it is still assumed that there is some relationship between actions and outcomes. In highly complex innovation processes, causality of actions and outcomes are intractable; this demands a selectionist approach, which then implies that multiple projects are run sequentially. Although there are similarities in how Eisenhardt and Tabrizi (1995), and Pich and colleagues (2002) deal with uncertainty and ambiguity problems in innovation projects, we prefer the former as they specify managerial interventions in greater detail. From the above, it follows: Proposition 4: If these interventions are based on the experiential model, and projects are highly complex, the likelihood of positive outcomes will increase (Figure 9.6: b > 0). Proposition 5: If these interventions are based on the compression model, and projects are highly complex, the likelihood of positive outcomes will decrease (Figure 9.6: b ≤ 0). Figure 9.7 presents these propositions graphically.

Turning a negative into a positive

Table 9.6

245

Examples of the moderating effect of the compression model on the relationship between temporal complexity and effectiveness (low complexity level)

Intervention

Element of timescape influenced

Impact on TO effectiveness

Time frame

Rationalization of process

Sequence Sequence

Higher resource utilization Increase efficiency

Pauses and gaps Tempo

Better meeting time objectives Better meeting time objectives

Using CAD: Automating procedures Reuse of past designs

Time frame Time frame

Better meeting time objectives Better meeting time objectives

Overlap and multifunctional teams: Creating overlapping steps Multifunctional teams

Simultaneity Pauses and gaps

Better meeting time objectives Quicker problem detection

Rewards for meeting schedule: Time-based performance

Synchronization

More focus on process

Planning: More time spent in planning Eliminating unnecessary steps Sequence activities in a particular order Shortening delays Accelerating pace

Impact of Innovation Management Interventions on the Relationship between Temporal Complexity and TO Effectiveness In order to substantiate our claims in propositions 4 and 5, Tables 9.6 and 9.7 specify the intervention effects for both the experiential and the compression model. Provided that the innovation process taking place in the TO is a predictable process, that is, complexity levels are relatively low, investing more time in planning means that the time frame is influenced because the time horizon for a particular event is changed. Due to more extensive planning, the innovation process is better understood, which could lead to the elimination of unnecessary steps and a more efficient sequence of activities. In both cases, the sequence of activities of the TO is affected. All in all, increasing planning efforts leads to a greater understanding of the timescape of the TO, resulting in higher levels of effectiveness. A similar table can be composed for the experiential model (Table 9.7). This assumes that complexity levels are relatively high and effectiveness can be reached by rapid learning and the creation of more and flexible options. For example, the introduction of frequent milestones influences

246

Table 9.7

Temporary organizations

Examples of the moderating effect of the experiential model on the relationship between temporal complexity and TO effectiveness (high complexity level)

Intervention

Element of timescape influenced

Impact on TO effectiveness

Multiple iterations Extensive testing

Time frame and simultaneity Time frame

Frequent milestones

Sequence

Increase number of solutions More learning Early error detection More learning More frequent evaluation of progress Early problem detection

Time frame

the time frame of the TO’s innovation process because the time horizons of particular steps are shortened. As a result, there is more frequent feedback on progress. Problems can be detected early, and learning is facilitated. Consequently, for a given level of complexity, effectiveness is improved because innovation options with a lower likelihood of success are discarded early and thus efforts are directed at more successful options. Moreover, early problem detection and solution prevents the occurrence of costly redesign at later stages. In sum, under conditions of high complexity, the negative consequences of temporal complexity on effectiveness can be counteracted by interventions based on the experiential model which influence the timescape of the TO. The innovation management approaches to cope with complexities so far are commonly regarded as mutually exclusive. This is not necessarily so, when a more dynamic view is adopted. This is our focus in the next section. Timing of Innovation Management Interventions The approach dominant in the literature (Naveh, 2005), which is expressed in propositions 4 and 5, suggests that there is a trade-off between the compression model and the experiential model. However, the validity of this approach can be questioned if one also accounts for the temporal distribution of activities in a complex project. Firstly, this dominant approach neglects the fact that innovation processes in temporary organizations are bundles of related activities. Secondly, and related, it neglects the timing of these bundled activities, that is, that these bundles are a function of time. Suppose the innovation process of the temporary organization is

Turning a negative into a positive

247

conceptualized as a stage gate process (Ding and Eliashberg, 2002). Such a process runs from preliminary assessments and opportunity identification, through detailed assessment, development and validation to manufacturing and launch. In such contexts, dimensions of the timescape become relevant because, for example, if stages and their activities are sequenced in time, they have a certain time horizon and tempo and as such focus attention and structure activities. In the early stages of innovation projects, the emphasis is on creating and developing new ideas. As the innovation process of the TO unfolds, and ideas are transformed into feasible new or renewed products, processes or services, the emphasis on experimental learning decreases. In later stages, the goals and specifications of the innovation become clearer, resulting in more focus and routine-oriented activities. Put differently, early stages of this type of projects require more innovation, which could be facilitated by providing TO members with flexibility, autonomy and freedom. In the later stages, the emphasis is on implementation in order to complete the project. Therefore, there is a need for more coordination and control, and thus a more efficiency-focused management approach. Here we take a distinct position from Eisenhardt, Tabrizi and Pich, and propose that during the lifetime of a TO project, complexity is supposed to vary, and therefore needs varying kinds of interventions. The first implication of this argument is that the timing of innovation management interventions should be coordinated with the timescape of the innovation process of the TO. More specifically, we argue that the experiential model is most applicable in the early stages of complex projects where innovation, learning and creativity are important. Over time, the experiential approach is replaced by a compression model because there is a higher need for efficiency. The second implication is that even innovation processes of TOs that are highly complex (high uncertainty, risk and ambiguity) over time reach a stage in which consolidation and implementation are required. In other words, project complexity is reduced during the lifetime of a TO and there is not a constantly high level of complexity in each and every stage of the innovation process. From the above, it follows: Proposition 6: The negative relationship between project complexity and effectiveness is moderated by an appropriate timing of management interventions. This should not be taken to mean that the experiential and the compression models are substitutes. Assuming this would imply that it is proposed that creativity and learning need no guidance. Rather, it is our view that

248

Temporary organizations

the two models are complementary because a certain level of planning and control (elements of the compression approach) are, for example, needed to clarify project details.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS In this chapter, we started by describing what is known in the literature about the concepts of project complexity and effectiveness and their relationships, taking a focus on innovation into account. After investigating both concepts, it became clear that they are multidimensional. As far as project complexity is concerned, several dimensions surfaced, like for example task, product, technological and organizational complexity. Because this book focuses on temporary organizations, we deemed it necessary to add temporal complexity to this list. Scholars predominantly use a rational goal model (‘iron triangle’ indicators) to define project effectiveness. However, over time the conceptualization of project effectiveness broadens, taking more ‘soft’ indicators on board, such as technological and learning outcomes. The modeling of the relationship between project complexity and effectiveness is extremely complicated because combining the multiple dimensions of both concepts results in a myriad of possible relationships. Including possible interaction effects would further complicate modeling matters. A relevant conclusion is that managing complex (temporary) projects is an extremely difficult task as managers can choose from many different factors which they would like to influence. This situation could be one of the reasons why so many projects fail or generate insufficient or even undesired outcomes. To be able to develop testable propositions, it was proposed that the relationship between project complexity and effectiveness was inversely U-shaped, taking intraorganizational forms as a benchmark. It was argued that after a certain threshold, complexity levels are too high for an intraorganizational form to produce an optimal level of effectiveness. Next, it was argued that the temporary interorganizational form could bend this negative effect as it pools resources and competences. Moreover, it is an interorganizational form that structures, schedules and regulates the attention of multiple partners via the time axis. However, introducing a different organizational form is not enough, as appropriate management is needed as well. As far as the latter is concerned, we built on Eisenhardt and Tabrizi (1995), who introduced two management models, of which the experiential model is most appropriate under the condition of higher levels of project complexity. The last step in our argument

Turning a negative into a positive

249

Organizational form

Innovation management

Intraorganizational form Interorganizational form (TO)

Types of interventions Compression model Experiential model Timing of types of interventions

Project effectiveness Project complexity Product/task Technological Intraorganizational Temporal

Figure 9.8

‘Iron triangle’ outcomes Technological outcomes Learning outcomes

The relationships between TO complexity, effectiveness and the moderation effects of two models for innovation management

pertains to the timing of management interventions, proposing that the experiential and the compression model are not mutually exclusive, as was proposed by Eisenhardt and Tabrizi, but complementary, because in our view even the most radical and creative innovation process has to be brought to a closure and generate some deliverables. Combining propositions 1 through 6 leads in conclusion to the model that is presented in Figure 9.8.2 As a reflection on this model, a number of issues can be discussed. First, the complicated relationships between the dimensions of project complexity and effectiveness make clear that managers have to solve many dilemmas. To sort out which interventions work and which do not, a typology of temporary systems is needed, taking on board differences between sectors and different levels of complexity. Future studies could work on this. Second, the models developed by Eisenhardt and Tabrizi make clear that in order to be effective, complex innovation projects in particular need room for creativity and experimentation. In that sense, temporary organizations conducting innovation can be viewed as platforms for creativity. However, we deliberately wanted to avoid the either–or approach that these two scholars developed, and thus formulated a proposition on

250

Temporary organizations

the timing of management interventions. After all, even the most complex innovation projects have to deliver something, a prototype for example. Meeting this demand means that at a certain stage in the innovation process, managerial interventions rooted in the rational planning model are needed. Maybe this is even more so when activities are limited in time because time pressures are higher. In fact, Eisenhardt and Tabrizi’s experiential model gives great autonomy and freedom to project members. Taken together with the fact that an interorganizational temporary organization benefits from pooled resources, a high level of slack resources emerges. Research (Nohria and Gulati, 1997) has shown that too high levels of slack are detrimental for innovation. Third, a topic unexplored in this chapter is the governance of the temporary organization aiming for innovation. The alliance literature (Gulati and Singh, 1998) suggests that the more knowledge exchange between actors is important for innovation, especially core knowledge, the higher the need for a hierarchical governance structure. Especially in more technologically complex innovation projects and in projects with no shadow of the future, the probability of unintended knowledge leakage and use is much higher: a situation which the actors obviously want to avoid. However, these more hierarchical governance structures might, due to their formal nature, be a straightjacket on creativity and innovation. This is clearly a managerial dilemma. Fourth and lastly, key arguments in this chapter are that temporary organizations are organizational forms that structure, schedule and regulate the attention of multiple partners via the time axis and that the management of time is especially important in highly complex project conditions. Much research is needed, not only on the experience and effects of temporariness on members of temporary organizations, but also on the effects of managerial interventions that try to influence attention structures and feedback and feedforward processes with the aim of making the temporary organization more effective.

NOTES 1. PERT stands for Program or Project Evaluation and Review Technique. It is a model for project management designed to analyze and represent project tasks. It is especially focussed on the time needed to compete each task, and on determining the minimum time needed to complete a total project. Corporate Performance Management (CPM) is an area of business intelligence involved with monitoring and managing project performance according to key performance indicators such as return on investment and operational costs. 2. It is interesting to note that several scholars (Naveh, 2005; Lewis et al., 2002; Tatikonda and Rosenthal, 2000b) take a different approach to modeling the relationships between

Turning a negative into a positive

251

dimensions of complexity, innovation management approaches and effectiveness. Their studies propose a direct relationship between innovation management approaches and effectiveness moderated by complexity. We argue that outcomes are primarily influenced by attributes of the organizational form. Managerial interventions are attempts to influence this relationship. Therefore, our view of the impact of innovation management is different since we regard these interventions as being more facilitating and less direct.

REFERENCES Adam, B. (2000), ‘The temporal gaze: The challenge for social theory in the context of GM food’, British Journal of Sociology, 51 (1), 125–142. Ancona, D.G., Goodman, P.S., Lawrence, B.S. and M.L. Tushman (2001), ‘Time: A new research lens’, Academy of Management Review, 26 (4), 645–663. Argote, L. (1982), ‘Input uncertainty and organizational coordination in hospital emergency units’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 27 (3), 420–434. Bacarinni, D. (1996), ‘The concept of project complexity: A review’, International Journal of Project Management, 14 (4), 201–204. Blindenbach-Driessen, F. and J. Van de Ende (2006), ‘Innovation in project-based firms: The context dependency of success factors’, Research Policy, 35 (4), 545–561. Bluedorn, A.C. (1980), ‘Cutting the Gordian knot: A critique of the effectiveness tradition in organizational research’, Sociology and Social Research, 64, 477–496. Brown, S.L. and K.M. Eisenhardt (1997), ‘The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (1), 1–34. Bryde, D. (2008), ‘Perceptions of the impact of project sponsorship practices on project success’, International Journal of Project Management, 26 (8), 800–809. Campbell, D.J. (1988), ‘Task complexity: A review and analysis’, Academy of Management Review, 13 (1), 40–52. Campbell, J.P. (1977), ‘On the nature of organizational effectiveness’, in P.S. Goodman and J.M. Pennings (eds), New Perspectives on Organizational Effectiveness, San Francisco, US: Jossey-Bass. Carbonell, P. and A.I. Rodriguez (2006), ‘Designing teams for speedy product development: The moderating effect of technological complexity’, Journal of Business Research, 59 (2), 225–232. Casimir, G. (2001), ‘Combinative aspects of leadership style: The ordering and temporal spacing of leadership’, Leadership Quarterly, 12 (3), 245–278. Clark, K.B. (1989), ‘Project scope and project performance: The effects of parts strategy and supplier involvement on product development’, Management Science, 35 (10), 1247–1263. Cliff, T.B. and M.B. Vandenbosch (1999), ‘Project complexity and efforts to reduce product development cycle time’, Journal of Business Research, 45 (2), 187–198. Ding, M. and J. Eliashberg (2002), ‘Structuring the new product development pipeline’, Management Science, 48 (3), 343–363. Dulaimi, M.F., Nepal, M.P. and M. Park (2005), ‘A hierarchical structure model of assessing innovation and project performance’, Construction Management and Economics, 23 (6), 565–577.

252

Temporary organizations

Dvir, D. and T. Lechler (2004), ‘Plans are nothing, changing plans is everything: The impact of changes on project success’, Research Policy, 33 (1), 1–15. Dvir, D., Raz, T. and A.J. Shenhar (2003), ‘An empirical analysis of the relationship between project planning and project success’, International Journal of Project Management, 21 (2), 89–95. Eisenhardt, K.M. and B.N. Tabrizi (1995), ‘Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (1), 84–110. Galbraith, J.R. (1973), Designing Complex Organizations, Reading, US: AddisonWesley. Gemünden. H.G., Salomo, S. and A. Krieger (2005), ‘The influence of project autonomy on project success’, International Journal of Project Management, 23 (5), 366–373. Gidado, K.I. (1996), ‘Project complexity: The focal point of construction production planning’, Construction Management and Economics, 14 (3), 213–225. Grewal, R., Lilien, G.L. and G. Mallapragada (2006), ‘Location, location, location: How network embeddedness affects project success in open source systems’, Management Science, 52 (7), 1043–1056. Griffin, A. (1997), ‘The effect of project and process characteristics on product development cycle time’, Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (1), 24–35. Griffin, A. and A.L. Page (1996), ‘PDMA success measurement project: Recommended measures for product development success and failure’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13 (6), 478–496. Gulati, R. (1995), ‘Does familiarity breed trust: The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances’, Academy of Management Journal, 38 (1), 85–112. Gulati, R. and H. Singh (1998), ‘The architecture of cooperation: Managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 43 (4), 781–814. Gupta, A.K. and D. Wilemon (1996), ‘Changing patterns in industrial R&D management’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13 (6), 497–511. Hage, J. and M. Aiken (1970), Social Change in Complex Organizations, New York, US: Random House. Halbesleben, J.R.B., Novicevic, M.M., Harvey, M.G. and M. Ronald Buckley (2003), ‘Awareness of temporal complexity in leadership of creativity and innovation: A competency-based model’, Leadership Quarterly, 14 (4–5), 433–454. Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H., Gavin, J.H. and A.T. Florey (2002), ‘Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning’, Academy of Management Journal, 45 (5), 1029–1045. Haus, M.R. (2006), ‘Knowledge gathering, team capabilities, and project performance in challenging work environments’, Management Science, 52 (8), 1170–1184. Hedberg, B. and R. Wolff (2001), ‘Organizing, learning and strategizing: from construction to discovery’, in M. Dierkes, A.B. Antal, J. Child and I. Nonaka (eds), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 535–56. Herroelen, W. and R. Leus (2005), ‘Project scheduling under uncertainty: Survey and research potentials’, European Journal of Operational Research, 165 (2), 289–306.

Turning a negative into a positive

253

Huang, X., G.N. Soutar and A. Brown (2004) ‘Measuring new product success: an empirical investigation of Australian SMEs’, Industrial Marketing Management, 33 (2), 117–23. Hultink, E.J. and H.S.J. Robben (1995), ‘Measuring new product success: The difference that time perspectives make’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12 (5), 392–405. IRI (Industrial Research Institute) (2002), ‘“Biggest problems facing technology leaders”’ Research Technology Management, 43 (5), 15–16. Jordan, G.B. (2006), ‘Factors influencing advances in basic and applied research: variation due to diversity in research profiles’, in J. Hage and M. Meeus (eds), Innovation, Science, and Institutional Change. A Research Handbook, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 173–95. Kim, J. and D. Wilemon (2003), ‘Sources and assessment of complexity in NPD projects’, R&D Management, 33 (1), 15–30. King, N. (1992), ‘Modelling the innovation process: An empirical comparison of approaches’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65 (2), 89–100. Kirsch, L.J. (1996), ‘The management of complex tasks in organizations: Controlling the systems development process’, Organization Science, 7 (1), 1–21. Larson, E.W. and D.H. Gobeli (1989), ‘Significance of project management structure on development success’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 36 (2), 119–125. Lawrence, P.R. and J.W. Lorsch (1967), Organization and Environment, Boston, US: Harvard Business School. Lewis, M.W., Welsh, M.A., Dehler, G.E. and S.G. Green (2002), ‘Product development tension: Exploring contrasting styles of project management’, Academy of Management Journal, 45 (3), 546–564. Liu, A.M.M. (1999), ‘A research model of project complexity and goal commitment effects on project outcome’, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 6 (2), 105–111. Locke, E.A., Shaw, K.N., Saari, L.M. and G.P. Latham (1981), ‘Goal setting and task performance: 1969–1980’, Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125–152. Mento, A.J., Steel, R.P. and R.J. Karren (1987), ‘A meta analytic study of the effects of goal setting on task performance’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 39 (1), 52–83. Meyer, M.H. and J.M. Utterback (1995), ‘Product development cycle time and commercial success’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42 (4), 297–304. Miles, M.B. (1964), Innovation in Education, New York, US: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University. Murmann, P.A. (1994), ‘Expected development time reductions in the German mechanical engineering industry’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11 (3), 236–252. Naveh, E. (2005), ‘The effect of integrated product development on efficiency and innovation’, International Journal of Production Research, 43 (13), 2789–2808. Nohria, N. and R. Gulati (1997), ‘What is the optimum amount of organizational slack? A study of the relationship between slack and innovation in multinational firms’, European Management Journal, 15 (6), 603–611. Perlow, L. (1999), ‘The time famine: Toward a sociology of work time’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (1), 57–81.

254

Temporary organizations

Pich, M.T., Loch, C.H. and A. De Meyer (2002), ‘On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in project management’, Management Science, 48 (8), 1008–1023. Pinto, J.K. and S.J. Mantel (1990), ‘The causes of project failure’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 37 (4), 269–276. Quinn, R.E. and J. Rohrbaugh (1983), ‘A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis’, Management Science, 29 (3), 363–377. Rutten, R. and L. Oerlemans (2009), ‘Temporary inter-organizational collaboration as a driver of regional innovation: An evaluation’, International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1 (3), 211–234. Scott-Young, C. and D. Samson (2007), ‘Project success and project team management: Evidence from capital projects in the process industries’, Journal of Operations Management, 26 (6), 749–766. Shenhar, A.J. and D. Dvir (1996), ‘Toward a typological theory of project management’, Research Policy, 25 (4), 607–632. Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., Levy, O. and A.C. Maltz (2001), ‘Project success: A multidimensional strategic concept’, Long Range Planning, 34 (6), 699–725. Sommer, S.C. and C.H. Loch (2004), ‘Selectionism and learning in projects with complexity and unforseeable uncertainty’, Management Science, 50 (10), 1334–1347. Steers, R.M. (1975), ‘Problems in the measurement of organizational effectiveness’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 20 (4), 546–558. Stinchcombe, A.L. (1968), Constructing Social Theories, London, UK: The University of Chicago Press. Tatikonda, M.V. and S.R. Rosenthal (2000a), ‘Technology novelty, project complexity, and product development project execution success: A deeper look at task uncertainty in product innovation’, IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management, 47 (1), 74–87. Tatikonda, M.V. and S.R. Rosenthal (2000b), ‘Succesful execution of product development projects: Balancing firmness and flexibility in the innovation process’, Journal of Operations Management, 18 (4), 401–425. Turner, J.R. and R.A. Cochrane (1993), ‘Goals-and-methods matrix: Coping with projects with ill defined goals and/or methods of achieving them’, International Journal of Project Management, 11 (2), 93–102. Wang, Q. and N. Von Tunzelmann (2000), ‘Complexity and the functions of the firm: Breadth and depth’, Research Policy, 29 (7/8), 805–818. Watts Sussman, S. and P.J. Guinan (1999), ‘Antidotes for high complexity and ambiguity in software development’, Information and Management, 36 (1), 23–35. Williams, T.M. (1999), ‘The need for new paradigms for complex projects’, International Journal of Project Management, 17 (5), 269–273. Wood, R.E. (1982), ‘Task complexity: Definition of the construct’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37 (1), 60–82. Xia, W. and G. Lee (2005), ‘Complexity of information systems development projects: Conceptualization and measurement development’, Journal of Management Information Systems, 22 (1), 45–83. Yu, A.G., Flett, P.D. and J.A. Bowers (2005), ‘Developing a value-centred proposal for assessing project success’, International Journal of Project Management, 23 (6), 428–439.

Turning a negative into a positive

255

APPENDIX Table 9A.1

A review of project outcomes

Author(s)

Concept in use

Dimensions of project outcomes

Value dimension of organizational effectiveness (Figure 9.3)

Pinto & Mantel (1990)

Project failure

(4)

Griffin & Page (1996)

Product development success

Griffin (1997)

Product development cycle time Product development time reduction Product development project execution success

Project performance: Client satisfaction ● Perceived quality ● Implementation process (on schedule, time) Customer acceptance Financial performance Product-level indicators (e.g. on time) Project duration

Cliff & Vandenbosch (1999) Tatikonda & Rosenthal (2000a/b)

●

Shenhar et al. (2001)

Project success

Dvir et al. (2003)

Project success

Dvir & Lechler (2004)

Project success

Huang et al. (2004)

New product success

(4)

(4)

New product development cycle time

(4)

Goal achievement: ● Technical performance ● Unit cost ● Time to market ● Combination of the above Project efficiency Impact on customer Direct business and organizational success Preparing for the future Goal achievement User benefits Contractor benefits Project efficiency (schedule, budget) Customer satisfaction Financial performance Objective market acceptance

(4)

(2) (4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

256

Table 9A.1

Temporary organizations

(continued)

Author(s)

Concept in use

Dulaimi et al. (2005)

Project performance

Gemünden et al. (2005)

Project success of new product development

Yu, Flett & Bowers (2005)

Project success

BlindenbachDriessen & Van den Ende (2006)

Project success

Dimensions of project outcomes

Value dimension of organizational effectiveness (Figure 9.3)

Subjective market acceptance Product-level indicators (unit cost, time) (2) Outcome achievement (4) (facilitation of learning; enabling continuous improvement; enhancing client satisfaction; enhancing image of the organization; enabling competitive advantage; retaining talents; on time; within budget; improving safety; increase project productivity; improving team satisfaction; enabling innovation) Time, budget, overall (2) quality of several project stages Internal success (technical, (4) competence gains, unit costs) External success (financial, meeting market shares; image gain) Net project execution (4) costs Net product operation costs Project performance (on time, (2) within budget, quality) Market performance (use, (4) impact on reputation) Learning effects for future innovation activities

Turning a negative into a positive

Table 9A.1

257

(continued)

Author(s)

Concept in use

Dimensions of project outcomes

Value dimension of organizational effectiveness (Figure 9.3)

Grewal et al. (2006) Haus (2006)

Project success

(4)

Scott-Young & Samson (2007) Bryde (2008)

Project outcomes Project success

Technical achievements Commercial success Multiple quality dimensions (e.g. quality of project concept, quality of technical, environmental, financial and risk analyses, readiness for implementation) Project cost performance Project schedule Multidimensional (on time, within budget, benefits to the organization, customer satisfaction, satisfaction of key stakeholders, satisfaction of team members, effectiveness of management process)

Table 9A.2

Project quality

(2) (4)

(4) (4)

Definitions and dimensions of complexity

Author(s)

Construct

Dimensions

Wood (1982)

Task complexity

Campbell (1988)

Task complexity

Larson & Gobeli (1989)

Project complexity

Clark (1989)

Project complexity

Number of components of a task and their coordination Multiplicity of paths, outcomes and conflicting interdependencies among paths The number of different disciplines or departments involved in the project. The intricacy of the design Project scope (extent to which a new product is based on unique in-house developed parts)

258

Temporary organizations

Table 9A.2

(continued)

Author(s)

Construct

Dimensions

Turner & Cochrane (1993) Murmann (1994) Meyer & Utterback (1995) Bacarinni (1996)

Project complexity

Gidado (1996)

Project complexity

Kirsch (1996)

Task complexity

Shenhar & Dvir (1996)

Project complexity

Cliff & Vandenbosch (1999) Williams (1999)

Project complexity

Goal uncertainty Methods uncertainty The number of parts in the product The number of different core technologies in a product and their diversity as it affects synthesis Organizational complexity Technological complexity Number of resources Level of knowledge required Number and interaction of different parts in the work flow Task difficulty Number of organizational units involved in conducting task System scope Technological complexity (level of newness) Level of newness of product innovations

Wang & Tunzelmann (2000)

Complexity

Kim & Wilemon (2003)

NPD project complexity

Carbonell & Rodiguez (2006)

Technological complexity

Source:

Product complexity Integration complexity Project complexity

Project complexity

Structural complexity (number of elements and their interdependency) Goal uncertainty Method uncertainty Breath and depth of: ● Technological complexity ● Market complexity ● Product complexity ● Production process complexity ● Managerial complexity Technological complexity Intraorganizational complexity Interorganizational complexity Newness of the technology embodied in the project Technological difficulty involved in the development process

Elaboration of Kim and Wilemon (2003); Xia and Lee (2005).

10

Conclusion: toward an integrated view of temporary organizations: future research agenda and managerial implications Patrick Kenis, Martyna Janowicz-Panjaitan and Bart Cambré

THE INTEGRATION OF THE BOOK: PARALLEL THEMES Given the increasing importance of temporary organizations in contemporary ways of organizing, we have dedicated this book to gaining insights into the structure, function and outcomes of this organizational form. This decision was based on three contentions (see also the Introduction to this volume). First, a review of the research on TOs (Chapter 2) revealed that interorganizational temporary organizations were significantly understudied. Second, although the project management literature gives some attention to the concept of time, time is considered predominantly instrumental, a scarce and predictable resource rather than one closely linked to social structure and behavior. In contrast, we proposed that the impact time has on the outcomes and social processes within organizations should be studied. Therefore, this book has focused on temporariness – ex ante determined limited duration – and its consequences. And finally, rather than being normative and prescriptive in the analysis of temporary organizations, we chose a theory-informed approach. As a consequence, we were able to write analytical descriptions of temporary organizations and then make propositions about how they function. Because of the number and variety of authors, Temporary Organizations: Prevalence, Logic and Effectiveness includes diverse ideas and concepts. One of our challenges, therefore, was to integrate these different perspectives into a coherent framework addressing the phenomenon of temporary organizations. With that aim in mind, we systematically analyzed the six 259

260

Temporary organizations

theory building chapters of Part II of this book to identify common themes and issues underlying the divergent approaches. Following Strauss’s methods for qualitative analysis (1987) we developed dimensions for describing the meaning of the authors’ visions. The steering committee, comprising four of the authors, met with the authors of each chapter to discuss the preliminary emerging themes that would comprise the essence of each chapter. Based on these discussions, we made further refinements. Four themes emerged: the role of time in temporary organizations; the level of embeddedness of temporary organizations in their environment; the variance in structural features of temporary organizations; and the drivers of temporary organizations’ performance (Table 10.1). These four interrelated themes are important because they permit researchers to further develop theory based on temporary organizations. These themes are presented in detail below. Following this discussion, we will introduce both implications for future research and managerial implications.

THE ROLE OF TIME IN TOS The first, and perhaps the most significant knowledge gap identified in the review of the TO literature was related to the temporal characteristics of TOs. ‘[W]hile a number of differentiating dimensions have been identified, none is in any way related to the temporal aspect of TOs’ (Chapter 2, p. 62). This is in line with the more general contention of Ancona et al. that ‘there is not yet a rich set of theoretical . . . tools regarding time’ (2001, p. 660). A number of chapters in this book address this gap. In Chapter 4, Bakker and Janowicz-Panjaitan discuss how the limited duration of a TO leads it to become a temporal zone. As a result, they argue, compared to members of non-temporary organizations, members of TOs are likely to have a greater orientation to the present, are more likely to experience episodes of timelessness or flow and are less likely to be entrained to external cycles. Because of these three temporal phenomena, the authors argue that TOs exhibit a higher level of creative problem solving and a lower level of knowledge sedimentation compared to non-TOs. What the authors in essence suggest is that the limited duration of TOs significantly affects the processes and outcomes of TOs compared to non-TOs. Rather than analyzing how temporal aspects make TOs different from non-TOs, Janowicz-Panjaitan, Kenis and Vermeulen (Chapter 5) show how time-related aspects help to explain differences across TOs. They propose that atemporality is a significant characteristic of TOs, and a result of temporal boundaries created around a TO. In their definition, atemporality is a variable level of detachment from past, present and future courses of

261

9

8

7

6

Raab, Soeters, van Fenema and de Waard Bakker, Cambré and Provan Oerlemans and Meeus

Janowicz-Panjaitan, Kenis and Vermeulen Knoben and Gössling

Atemporality

Atemporality External legitimacy Atemporality

Temporal zones Entrainment

Proximity

Structural features of TOs

Knowledge sedimentation Creative solutions and innovative output Goal achievement

Performance determinants of TOs

Types of TOs Structural features Temporal embeddedness Discretion over Goal achievement resources Meeting deadline Timing of management Temporal complexity Effectiveness interventions

Temporariness Duration Atemporality Temporariness Atemporality Duration

Atemporality

Temporariness Temporal zones

Bakker and JanowiczPanjaitan

4

5

The role of time in TOs

Authors

No.

Emerging themes Embeddedness vs isolation of TOs

Overview of emerging themes in Chapters 4–9

Chapters

Table 10.1

262

Temporary organizations

activity and isolation from the structures of the environment. The authors also argue that the higher the atemporality of a TO, the greater its goal accomplishment and the lower its legitimacy is likely to be. Next, Bakker et al. (Chapter 8) focus on a time-related dimension that varies across TOs, namely temporal embeddedness. This is not related to duration (for example see Jones and Lichtenstein, 2008) but captures the extent to which a TO is embedded in past and future activities beyond its inception and termination. The authors argue that the level of temporal embeddedness is positively related to the TO’s discretion over its resources, which in turn is likely to lead to greater goal accomplishment and meeting deadlines. Finally, Oerlemans and Meeus (Chapter 9) define the temporal complexity of a TO as the understanding of the timescape by the TO members. The more difficult it is for members to understand the timescape of the TO, the higher the TO’s temporal complexity. Though related, the time-related concepts introduced in the four chapters are also distinctly different. While temporal complexity refers to several time-related aspects, a temporal zone is related to one temporal aspect, the limited duration of the TO. Similarly, temporal embeddedness focuses on one temporal aspect only, but in this case it is the attachment to the past and the future activities. Atemporality, finally, besides temporal detachment – like temporal embeddedness – encompasses also structural detachment. Structural detachment is isolation from ways of working developed by the surrounding environment. In other words, while atemporality ‘limits the TO’s continuity on two dimensions: social relations and structure’ (Chapter 5, p. 149), temporal embeddedness covers only the social aspect, as it reflects ‘the extent to which the TO is embedded in past and future sequences of activity’ (Chapter 8, p. 202). In addition, temporal embeddedness and atemporality are also opposites; temporal embeddedness captures the extent of attachment to the past and future courses of activity and atemporality captures the level of detachment from the past and future courses of activity and environmental structures. In short, with the time-related concepts of atemporality (Chapter 5), temporal embeddedness (Chapter 8), temporal zone (Chapter 4) and temporal complexity (Chapter 9), this book contributes to developing theoretical tools for studying the temporal aspects of temporary organizations.

ISOLATION VERSUS EMBEDDEDNESS OF TOS Janowicz-Panjaitan, Bakker and Kenis (Chapter 2) identify another gap or controversy in the literature – one related to the tension between a TO’s

Conclusion

263

isolation from and simultaneous dependence on the environment. While some authors argue that a TO’s isolation stimulates its effectiveness and goal accomplishment, others stress the importance of embeddedness as a way of assuring goal accomplishment. Bakker, Cambré and Provan (Chapter 8) propose that their resourcefocused dynamic view of TOs opens a way for resolving this debate. They suggest that the tension between embeddedness and isolation disappears when viewed from a dynamic perspective. A TO’s temporal embeddedness is necessary at the initiation phase and assures that in the execution phase the TO has discretion over its resources. This isolation in the execution phase leads to higher levels of performance and, subsequently, to even higher levels of temporal embeddedness at the completion phase of the TO. In a similar vein, Janowicz-Panjaitan, Kenis and Vermeulen (Chapter 5) argue that although higher atemporality – isolation from the past and future courses of activity and the surrounding structures – increases goal accomplishment, it also diminishes the external legitimacy of the TO, thus increasing the difficulty of transferring the solutions developed by the TO to the parent organization(s). The authors suggest that this apparent tension can be disentangled if one considers that external legitimacy and goal achievement are not equally important during the TO’s existence. Legitimacy, in particular, is less important during the TO’s functioning as ‘the plan [made] prior to implementation guards against the possible negative effects that decreasing external legitimacy of the TO may have on resource availability’ (Chapter 5, p. 152). But legitimacy is more important after the TO’s dissolution, as it facilitates ‘the transfer and adoption of the solutions worked out by the TO to the non-temporary surroundings’ (p. 152).

THE STRUCTURE OF TOS Janowicz-Panjaitan, Bakker and Kenis (Chapter 2) also point out that, although the comparison between the structural features of TOs and non-TOs has been studied to a degree, the differences have yet to be explored for different types of TOs. Raab et al. (Chapter 7) contribute to filling this gap. They distinguish four types of TOs based on a classification along two dimensions: representativeness and preparedness. The representativeness dimension reflects whether a TO has access to the resources it needs to fulfill the organizational or individual tasks. The preparedness dimension focuses on ‘the extent to which the TOs are prepared for the work they seek to accomplish’ (p. 175). For each of the cells in their

264

Temporary organizations

fourfold table (see Table 7.1), they analyze the structural characteristics of formalization and hierarchy in comparison to the other cells, as well as in comparison to non-temporary organizations. In contrast to this approach, Knoben and Gössling (Chapter 6) focus on another structural feature of interorganizational TOs – the variance in proximity of the partners – and compare non-temporary and temporary interorganizational collaborations as a function of their level of atemporality and duration. The authors analyze the effect of these variables on different kinds of spatial and non-spatial proximity. Both of these chapters deepen our understanding of the structural features of TOs – their internal organizational structure and their partner configurations.

DRIVERS OF TO PERFORMANCE In Janowicz-Panjaitan, Bakker and Kenis’s literature review (Chapter 2), they found a scarcity of studies exploring the effects of success factors on a particular performance criterion. Investigating the correlation between these two is important because of the potential inherent variances – one success factor may have unequal or even an opposite effect on different performance criteria. Oerlemans and Meeus (Chapter 9) begin to fill this gap by investigating the effect of complexity on the effectiveness of TOs. The authors develop predictions about the moderating effects of different types of managerial interventions. In particular, they look at the relationship between project complexity and effectiveness – defined in terms of the knowledge, technological and ‘iron triangle’ outcomes: cost, time and quality objectives. The combinations of success factors and various performance indicators are innumerable, and the scope for future research in this area is vast.

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Following the theory-driven approach of this book, every chapter in Part II includes testable propositions. In order to enrich future research in the area of temporary organizations and to develop a methodological framework that allows these propositions to be tested empirically, we propose some directions for future research. We suggest that four perspectives guide future research on temporary organizations – multidisciplinary, configurational, dynamic and

Conclusion

265

methodological perspectives. Research guided by these perspectives could generate new research agendas for the four major interrelated topic themes that have emerged from this book: the role of time and structure, isolation versus embeddedness in TOs’ and what drives TO performance. A multidisciplinary perspective would further increase our conceptual understanding of the core concepts under study. This approach has enormous potential. Combining the study of temporary organizations across a broad range of scientific fields – such as sociology, economics, management studies, psychology and political science – could yield interesting insights and far increase our understanding of what distinguishes a temporary organization from other organizational forms. In this book we demonstrate that TOs are not just structural mechanisms for accomplishing goals but are also complex social structures that can be better understood by applying behavioral and social dimensions, such as incentives, norms and power. Discussion across disciplines would advance the process of formulating theories for describing and explaining the logic and functioning of temporary organizations. Kenis et al., in Chapter 3, show that the established and widely used organization theories do not fully capture the essence of temporary organizations. A multidisciplinary approach would also permit studying TOs at different levels of analysis. Research designs could be formulated that incorporate the characteristics of individuals employed in temporary settings and teams, together with knowledge of the functioning of temporary work systems and how they interact with the environment, and with the macro level and institutional context in which they operate. In turn, a configurational perspective would allow the study of temporary organizations as specific clusters of interconnected structures and practices. This approach further aligns with our concern to study causal complexity, heterogeneity and diversity in organizational structure. While working on this book, it became clear that there is not just one type of temporary organization. On the contrary, there are a variety of TOs with a variety of structural features and types of relationships. Therefore, variables found to be causally related in one configuration may be unrelated or even inversely related in another (Meyer et al., 1993). The configurational perspective stresses the study of the structural features and factors affecting these configurations as well as the outcomes to which they contribute. Furthermore, it demands an analysis of the existence and functioning of TOs in different sectors and with different structural features. Moreover this perspective automatically raises research opportunities for comparing temporary and non-temporary organizations with a focus on their specificities and differences.

266

Temporary organizations

A dynamic perspective fills the current literature gap concerning the lack of understanding of how TOs evolve and change over time and what drives such change. As Bakker et al. (Chapter 8) point out, switching from a static to a dynamic perspective on temporary organizations allows for a more realistic and comprehensive understanding of this phenomenon. Consequently, a dynamic perspective capturing time and history also addresses the recent call to incorporate temporal features into organization theory (for example, George and Jones, 2000). The methodological perspective for studying TOs is closely related to the previous perspectives. Dynamic and configurational views of temporary organizations put high demands on the methodological design of empirical research. Dynamic perspective requires longitudinal data. Although some methods do exist for testing hypotheses involving a sequence of events and new ones are emerging fast, most techniques in the social sciences are not suited to dealing with sequences (Snijders, 2001). It can be argued that studying the sequence of events – such as the life cycle of the TO from its inception or the pre-founding phase in the parent organization until the moment of termination – can reveal information that provides empirical insights into important conceptual questions. The configurational approach also demands a quest for in-depth knowledge and comparable data, pointing toward a comparative case study design. Although there are a great number of single case studies, comparative case study designs could be particularly helpful in theory building (George and Bennett, 2004). We recommend a collection of cross-sectional data as a first step for gaining additional insights into the prevalence and functioning of TOs. This type of data would also help to develop a well-considered selection procedure for detecting interesting in-depth case studies. Overall, we advocate more research into temporary organizations using both the available conceptual models and methodological tools. A crucial reason for writing Temporary Organizations: Prevalence, Logic and Effectiveness was to create a foundation, or first step, upon which multidisciplinary knowledge on temporary organizations can be built. This book can and should be used as a framework for organizing future research, research that will advance theoretical knowledge of and empirical insight into the prevalence, logic, functioning and effectiveness of temporary organizations.

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS In discussing the managerial implications of this book, we follow a framework developed by Milward and Provan, specifying the essential

Conclusion

267

tasks for managers operating in interorganizational networks (2006, p. 19). This framework includes five broad and essential categories of managerial tasks that need to be performed in order for a network to be successful. These categories are management of accountability, legitimacy, conflict, design and commitment. Since a TO can be considered an interorganizational network, we believe these managerial tasks are applicable in this context as well. However, since TOs are a specific type of network – one that is limited in duration – their managerial issues will also be unique. Another important distinction that Milward and Provan (2006) introduced is the distinction between the management of and in a network. The first case refers to managing the network of collaborating partners as a whole, whereas, the second instance is about the management of the partners in the network. Both the network and participating organization perspectives are covered in their model. This approach is very useful for our discussion as the perspectives of the TO itself and the participating parent organizations are likely to be different and at times conflicting. In the following we discuss each category of managerial tasks: first, management in TOs and then management of TOs.

MANAGEMENT OF ACCOUNTABILITY Managers in a TO (From Parent Organization Perspective) The primary accountability-related task of the managers who represent parent organizations in a TO is making sure that the TO meets the goals of their parent organizations. A divergence from the parent organizations’ goals is a real possibility considering that TOs, to a greater or lesser extent, will develop an endogenous logic of functioning that tends to diverge from the established ways of the parent organizations (see Chapter 5). Making the TO accountable means not only making sure that the deliverables are useful for and in line with the intentions of the parent organization, but also that they are delivered before the deadline. This adherence to deadlines assures a certain level of TO conformance to the temporal cycles of the parent organization, such as seasonal fluctuations in demand or reporting cycles. TO members’ preoccupation with the present combined with the tendency to ‘march to the beat of a different drummer’ in terms of pace and rhythm of their work (Chapter 4) poses a serious challenge to the managers of the parent organizations. One way of encouraging a TO to meet its deadline is to grant it sufficient autonomy in using its resources (Chapter 8).

268

Temporary organizations

Managers of a TO (From the TO Perspective) In addition to TO managers needing to assure a certain level of TO conformance and alignment, managers of TOs also have to ensure that the TO has sufficient leeway to operate independently from the parent organization regarding deadlines and execution of tasks. Some leeway is necessary if the TO is to be innovative. Thus, TOs should not be handicapped by parent organizations who dictate the pace and rhythm of the work (Chapter 4). TO members also need sufficient freedom to focus on the task with which they are entrusted, without having to consider previously developed solutions and the impact of these on the long-term goals of the parent organization. In other words, limiting the number of ‘strings attached’ will maximize a TO’s goal accomplishment (Chapter 5). Allowing TO members to focus on their task at hand stimulates innovativeness (Chapter 4).

MANAGING LEGITIMACY Managers in a TO (From the Parent Organization Perspective) Managers of organizations that decide to engage in TOs need to understand and embrace both temporary forms of organizing and the phenomena that are linked to temporariness (see Chapters 5 and 4). For example, a manager who lacks an understanding, and more importantly, an acceptance of TOs as an organizational form, may question and try to eradicate the present time orientation, the frequent loss of the sense of time or not observing deadlines imposed on the TO, without realizing that these very conditions stimulate innovative performance. Assuming that TO managers understand and embrace TOs and their ways of functioning, an important task for them will be to build the legitimacy of this organizational form among the various stakeholders within their own parent organizations. The established and accepted premise upon which organizations are established is that they are meant to last. Survival is considered a virtue and is used as a measure of organizational and managerial success. Moreover, the understanding that TOs need to ‘march to the beat of a different drummer’ in order to meet their objectives is quite limited and further limits the legitimacy of the organizational form. In addition to building the legitimacy of temporary organizations in general, managers in TOs need to build the external legitimacy of a given TO. This is particularly important after the TO has ceased to exist. Such

Conclusion

269

external legitimacy after dissolution is necessary to stimulate the adoption of the TO-developed solutions (Chapter 5) and their sedimentation into the parent organizations (Chapter 4). Otherwise, the knowledge and solutions developed by the TO may risk rejection by the parent organizations and consequently rapidly dissipate. It is clear that building the external legitimacy of an entity that no longer exists is a challenge. One practical tool for building a TO’s legitimacy after its dissolution is to embed it into a larger program. Not only can a TO draw its legitimacy from being part of a wider umbrella program, but also, the TO’s success can contribute to further building the legitimacy of that program. In this way, the positive reputation of a successful TO is capitalized on. This larger program can also be responsible for preserving the knowledge and solutions developed by the TO after it has ceased to exist. Managers of a TO (From the TO Perspective) The manager of a TO bears primary responsibility for building its external legitimacy over the course of its existence. This external legitimacy enables a TO to secure the necessary resources from the parent organization to accomplish its goals (see Chapter 8; Engwall, 2003; Milward and Provan, 2006). This is particularly important in the initiation stages of the TO (see Chapter 8). Later, when the TO enters the implementation stage, external legitimacy needs to be sustained, at least to the degree that it allows the TO to proceed to the finishing line without major interruptions from the parent organizations (see Lundin and Söderholm, 1995).

MANAGEMENT OF CONFLICTS The discussion of managerial tasks so far revealed that conflicts are likely to arise at the interface between the TO and the parent organizations. These conflicts result from structural tensions based on the trade-offs between the TO having to maximize the goal for which it was set up, on the one hand, and on the other, the parent organization’s having some level of control over the TO. Management of these tensions is just as much a task for the managers of TOs as for managers of their parent organizations. Therefore, in discussing the management of tensions, we do not differentiate between managers of TOs and managers in TOs. Rather, we focus on the different areas in which the tensions are likely to arise.

270

Temporary organizations

Accountability-related Tension Based on the discussion of accountability-related managerial tasks, it was evident that tension exists between giving the TO sufficient freedom and independence to achieve its goals and be innovative, and making sure that it meets the objectives for which it was established. If the TO is pushed to operate too much in line with the parent organizations’ expectations, its innovativeness could suffer (Chapter 4). At the same time, releasing the TO from such expectations could result in its deviating too much from its original goal or developing solutions that do not fit the parent organizations’ needs. This tension can be solved by making sure the managers involved in the TO are fully aware of the potential tension and consequently respect each other’s rationality for action. This provides a context in which managers can openly and constructively discuss potential conflicts and goal displacements. Legitimacy-related Tension In their pursuit to maximize goal attainment, managers need to be aware of the trade-off between increasing the TO’s goal accomplishment and building its external legitimacy (Chapter 5). One way to solve the conundrum is by adopting a sequential approach. In the initiation stage, when the TO needs to secure the necessary resources from the parent organization, external legitimacy is very important (see Chapter 8; Milward and Provan, 2006) and can be pursued at the expense of goal accomplishment. In the execution or implementation stage of the TO, however, it is the goal accomplishment that has precedence (see Chapter 8). Maximizing goal accomplishment at this stage can be accomplished by permitting the TO to function with minimal external influence and interference. In the dissolution stage, when the TO ceases to exist, external legitimacy again becomes centrally important while it facilitates the transmission of the knowledge and solutions developed by the TO back to the parent organizations (Chapter 5).

MANAGEMENT OF DESIGN Managers in a TO (From the Parent Organization Perspective) TOs are a unique form of interorganizational collaboration. Because they are temporary, managers of organizations participating in a TO must avoid choosing partners in the same way as they would for non-temporary

Conclusion

271

organizations. Parent organizations that are setting up a TO must pay particular attention to whom they invite to collaborate. For a temporary collaboration, managers should choose partners that are more organizationally alike and that are located more closely to each other. Many temporary organizations are formed for research and development purposes and knowledge exchange, which are facilitated by geographical proximity. Because temporary collaborations tend to involve more partners than non-temporary ones, coordination requirements must also be considered. In addition to choosing partners that are located close to each other, managers should select those that are organizationally alike (Chapter 6). Moreover, the greater the atemporality of a TO – its social and structural isolation from the environment – the more similar and the more proximate the partners should be. Another implication regarding TO design concerns the structure of the parent organization itself. Organizations tend to be designed along functional or divisional lines. But such a structure is suboptimal for participation in interorganizational TOs. Organizations that aim to be involved in a substantial number of TOs should consider adopting a modular structure. This involves designing independent subsystems that can function together with other subsystems to produce a complex product or process (Baldwin and Clark, 1997). Such a structure allows for ‘separating and recombining independent components [from the participating organizations] into new configurations’, thus allowing for integration of the ‘autonomous subsystems into a [TO] that functions as a whole’ (Chapter 7, p. 187). Modular structure, therefore, facilitates easy and flexible deployment of organizational modules to the TO, making the process of interorganizational temporary collaboration much more efficient (Chapter 7). Managers of a TO (From the TO Perspective) Managers of TOs also need to reconsider their preconceptions concerning the structuring of temporary organizations. Compared to non-temporary organizations, TOs need to be designed in a less formalized and hierarchical manner (Chapter 7). However, the contingency rule also applies here: ‘There is no best way to organize and any way of organizing is not equally effective’ (Galbraith, 1973). Like any other organizational form, TOs have as many differences as they have similarities. They differ on a number of dimensions, such as atemporality and the types of task to be accomplished, and the design of the TO should be adjusted accordingly. According to the theoretical framework presented recently by Provan and Kenis (2008), for the governance structure of an interorganizational

272

Temporary organizations

work system to be effective, it should be contingent on the number of participants, the level of trust and goal consensus in the work system, the degree of trust among the participants, and the need for system-level competencies. TOs whose members are organizations tend to be more structured – formalized and hierarchical – than those whose members are individuals. These TOs should be less structured in order to function effectively.

MANAGEMENT OF THE PROCESS Milward and Provan’s framework (2006) includes the dimension ‘management of commitment’. In the context of TOs we suggest renaming this dimension ‘management of the process’. The reason for this change is that the process in which TOs start, evolve and dissolve is crucial to understanding them. Because the level of commitment in TOs seems to be a result of how this TO’s developmental process is shaped, we will address it in the context of the management of process. Managers in the TO (From the Parent Organization Perspective) Managers of parent organizations involved in TOs should not manage too much. A TO needs to develop its own way of doing things in order to be effective (Chapter 5) and, to a certain extent, must be isolated from the schedules and rhythms of the parent organizations to realize its innovative potential (Chapter 4). The greater the discretion a TO has over how it uses the resources entrusted to it by the parent organizations, the better it will be able to attain its goals and meet its deadlines (Chapter 8). The more they trust the TO, the more likely the TO managers will be to grant it autonomy. And, the more they trust the TO, the better the TO’s reputation, and the denser the relationships between the TO parent organizations will be. These relationships can also be built through prior collaborations among the parent organizations (Chapter 8). A TO can also ‘earn’ its autonomy, the more prolonged its existence and the better it performs, and as the shadow of the future grows longer, that is, as the greater likelihood of future collaborations between the parent organizations gets bigger (Chapter 8). Managers of the TO (From the TO Perspective) Finally, when they are part of the TO and the endogenous processes and temporal cycles that develop within it, managers can be freer to manage

Conclusion

273

its processes without undermining its effectiveness or innovativeness. Managing the process may be particularly beneficial if the complexity of a TO’s task is high, as is the case with innovation projects, and threatens to undercut their effectiveness (Chapter 9). Managerial interventions however, can be a double-edged sword. While some of them may limit the negative impact of complexity on effectiveness, others may have the opposite effect. Some techniques – such as planning, use of CAD, or rewarding meeting the schedule – are not suited to TOs with innovation as a goal, and may reinforce the negative effect of complexity on the effectiveness of such TOs. The tactics that may be more beneficial are, for example, multiple iterations, extensive testing, frequent milestones and the presence of a powerful leader. Thus, in order to achieve their goal, the managerial interventions need to be chosen according to the nature of the task as well as the stage of the TO’s life cycle (see Chapter 9). Despite these warnings, if interventions are used at appropriate times in the life cycle of the project, the potentially aggravating effects of certain interventions on the relationship between complexity and the effectiveness of a TO can be avoided. This is particularly true with respect to temporal complexity, which increases when the time frame, tempo, temporality, sequence, simultaneity and time pauses and gaps of a TO (Halbesleben et al., 2003) become less understandable to the TO members. The potentially negative effect of this type of complexity on a TO’s effectiveness can be countered by the appropriate timing of interventions (Chapter 9). If techniques such as planning, use of computer-aided design or rewarding meeting the schedule are applied in the implementation phase, thus calling for coordination and control, TO effectiveness may actually benefit. In contrast, if they are applied in the early stages of the TO, when the goals and specifications of innovation are not yet clear and the creative process requires that TO members be given freedom and autonomy, they are likely to be detrimental to TO effectiveness (Chapter 9). It is important to note that, contrary to rational planning models, management of TOs refers not only to the structuring of activities, but also to the structuring and regulation of attention (Stinchcombe, 1968) and thus to the behavior of the TO members (Chapter 9).

CONCLUSION The first part of this book has demonstrated that there is a mismatch between the current prevalence of interorganizational temporary

274

Temporary organizations

organizations and the development of an appropriate conceptual and theoretical apparatus for understanding them. Consequently, the contributions in the second part of the book constitute an effort to address the shortcomings of the most recent research. These chapters provide theorydriven insights into the effects of temporariness on the structure, functioning and outcomes of interorganizational temporary organizations. Temporary Organizations: Prevalence, Logic and Effectiveness advances our understanding of four areas related to TOs: time-related aspects, relationships with the environment (embeddedness versus isolation), their structure, and the drivers of their performance. In this way, the volume sets a foundation for the comprehensive understanding of interorganizational temporary organizations, their distinctiveness as an organizational form and the unique processes and outcomes that are likely to emerge in TOs due to their ex ante limited duration. This should leave us less baffled by the description of the case study with which we started this book.

REFERENCES Ancona, D.G., Goodman, P.S., Lawrence, B.S. and M.L. Tushman (2001), ‘Time: A new research lens’, Academy of Management Review, 26 (4), 645–663. Baldwin, C.Y and K.B. Clark (1997), ‘Managing in an age of modularity’, Harvard Business Review, 75 (5), 84–93. Engwall, M. (2003), ‘No project is an island: Linking projects to history and context’, Research Policy, 32, 789–808. Galbraith, J.R. (1973), Designing Complex Organizations, Reading, US: AddisonWesley. George, A.L. and A. Bennett (2004), Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, Cambridge, US: MIT Press. George, J.M. and G.R. Jones (2000), ‘The role of time in theory and theory building’, Journal of Management, 26 (4), 657–684. Halbesleben, J.R.B., Novicevic, M.M., Harvey, M.G. and M. Ronald Buckley (2003), ‘Awareness of temporal complexity in leadership of creativity and innovation: A competency-based model’, Leadership Quarterly, 14 (4–5), 433–454. Jones, C. and B.B. Lichtenstein (2008), ‘Temporary inter-organizational projects: how temporal and social embeddedness enhance coordination and manage uncertainty’, in S. Croppens, M. Ebers, C. Huxham and P. Smith-Ring (eds), Oxford Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relationships, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 231–255. Lundin, R.A. and A. Söderholm (1995), ‘A theory of the temporary organization’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11 (4), 437–455. Meyer, A.D., Tsui, A.S. and C.R. Hinings (1993), ‘Configurational approaches to organizational analysis’, Academy of Management Journal, 36 (6), 1175–1195. Milward, H.B. and K.G. Provan (2006), A Managers Guide to Choosing and Using Collaborative Networks, report of the IBM Center for the Business of Government.

Conclusion

275

Provan, K.G. and P. Kenis (2008), ‘Modes of network governance: structure, management, and effectiveness’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18 (2), 229–252. Snijders, T.A.B. (2001), ‘The statistical evaluation of social network dynamics’, in M.E. Sobel and M.P. Becker (eds), Sociological Methodology: 2001, Boston, US and London, UK: Basil Blackwell, pp. 361–395 Stinchcombe, A.L. (1968), Constructing Social Theories, London, UK: The University of Chicago Press. Strauss, A.L. (1987), Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Index accountability 267–8 acquisitions 101 Ahuja, M.K. 62, 63, 65, 74, 137 Al-jibouri, S. 203 Albanese, R. 16 Aldrich, H.E. 86, 87, 91, 92 Allen, T. 64, 74 Amburgery, T.L. 104 Ancona, D.G. 114, 124, 125, 126, 130, 132, 134, 136, 137, 184, 213, 260 Anderson, P. 158 Angling, M. 203 Arthur, M. 183 Asheim, B.T. 56, 57, 161 asset specificity 99 atemporality definitions of 96–7, 126, 142–4 goal attainment and 144–8, 210 change, propensity to 147 conflict 147–8 influence of, on structure 190–92 informality 190–92 repetition and 177–8 modularity/standardization and 188–90 preparedness and 182–3 legitimacy and 148–50, 151–2 proximity and 164–6 repetition and 177–8 see also time dimension Atkinson, R. 210 autonomy, and dependence 205, 214–15 Axelrod, R. 178, 208 Baden-Fuller, G. 206 Bailey, D.E. 19 Bakker, René M. vii, 2, 4, 7–8, 9 Balachandra, R. 57, 61, 74 Baldwin, C.Y. 187, 271 Baldwin, T.T. 26

Barley, S. 173, 184 Barney, J. 201, 204 Barrick, M.R. 35 Baum, J.A.C. 95, 106, 107, 148 Bauman, Z. 183 Baumeister, R.F. 129, 138 Beale, P. 57, 64, 74 Beardsworth, A.D. 56–7, 58, 59, 67, 69, 75, 78, 79 Bechky, B. 16, 56, 58, 59, 68, 69, 70, 75, 97, 104, 106, 128, 145, 146–7, 148, 151, 175, 183, 184–5, 192 Bennett, A. 266 Bennis, W.G. 58, 59, 67, 75 Bergson, H. 123 Bigley, G.A. 147, 186 Blake, S.B. 61, 74 Blindenbach-Driessen, F. 72, 75 Bluedorn, A.C. 37, 122, 123, 124, 126 blueprint of organization 103–4 Bollen, M. 179 Boschma, R. 156 Bourdieu, P. 143 Bourgeois, L.J. 203 Bradley, J. 62, 74, 137, 138 Brady, T. 65, 74, 121, 214 Bresman, H. 184 Bresnen, M. 66, 67, 74, 78, 128, 135, 136, 212 bridging strategies 91, 93–4, 214 Bryman, A. 56–7, 58, 59, 67, 69, 75, 78, 79 Buckley, M. R. 273 buffering 91 Burt, R.S. 165 business services 27 Butler, J.E. 202, 204, 211, 215 Butler, R. 124 Caldwell, D.F. 213 Cambré, Bart vii, 9

277

278

Temporary organizations

Carlson, K.R. 185 Carroll, G.R. 106 Castells, M. 193 Catanese, K.R. 129, 138 Chong, C.L. 124, 126, 132, 134 Clark, K.B. 61, 74, 187, 271 Clark, P.A. 43, 125 Clayton, L.D. 15, 17 Clegg, C.W. 202 Cleland, D.I. 203 Cochrane, R.A. 57, 61, 62 cognitive timer model 131 Cohen, S.G. 19, 202, 209 Cohen, W.M. 181 Coleman, J. 127 collaboration between parent companies 206–7 see also interorganizational collaboration (IOCs) Colombo, M.G. 102, 159 communication issues 76–7 coordination 35–7, 164, 181 frequency of intra-IOTC, by size 37 profession-based TOs and 183–5 proximity and 162–3 contact frequency 163 resource collaboration 91–2, 93–4 competencies and threats 222 complexity see project complexity compression and experiential management models 238–45, 247–8 conflicts, management of 269–70 construction industry 27, 67, 186 Contractor, N. 182 Cooke, R.A. 64, 74 coordination factors 35–7, 164, 181 Coren, S. 122 Covin, J.G. 57, 59, 64 Cramton, C.D. 160 creation of firms 100–101, 106, 203 creative industries 173, 176, 183 film industry 104, 145, 147, 183, 184–5 creativity, innovation and knowledge 133–5 Csikszentmihalyi, M. 130, 145 Cummings, J.N. 156, 157, 160, 162 Dacin, T.M. 95, 148 Das, T.K. 127, 208, 211

Davies, A. 65, 74, 121, 214 Davis, G.F. 87, 88 decision making 70–71 DeFillippi, R. 56, 121, 183 Den Hartog, D.N. 57, 67, 75 Denhardt, R.B. 122, 123, 124, 126 Denning, P.J. 181, 182 density of population 106 design, management of 271–2 Devine, D.J. 15, 17 Dialdin, D. 162 DiMaggio, P.J. 95, 148 Dinc, M. 157 disaster responses 178–9 Dissel, H.G. van 181 Donaldson, L. 88, 89 Douglas, M. 143, 149 Douglas, Y. 149 Drazin, R. 88 Dru, J.-M. 183 Druskat, V.U. 213 Dunford, B.B. 15, 17 duration influence on resources discretion 202, 208–9 influence on structure 192 short 76–8 types of IOTCs and 43–5, 50–51, 176–7 Durkheim, E. 124 Dutch SMEs character of IOTCs 22–3, 52–3 different age groups 24 industries and size class 23, 161–2 motivation 25 sales data by volume 25 temporal characteristics 37–41 terminations 38–9, 50–51 heterogeneity 31–33, 52 composition by industry 32 levels of satisfaction 32–3 time variables 41 types of organization and 47–9 parent organizations 23–6 number by class size 28 number by sector 27 representation and effectiveness 41–3 project sample and data categorization 18–21

Index responses 18–19 sector and class size 20 prevalence of IOTCs 52 size – human resources, financial resources 26–31 organization types and 46–7 percentage of employees involved 20, 29–31 tasks 33 coordination 35–7 importance of 33–5 organization types and 49 terminations by 40 types financial contributions and influence 52 heterogeneity and 47–9, 53–4 management coordination 49–50 prevalence of four types 45–6 ties and duration 43–6, 50–51 see also interorganizational collaboration (IOCs); temporary organizations (TOs) Duysters, G. 159 Dvir, D. 57, 61–2, 64, 74, 210 dymanics of development 71–2 Dzeng, R. 203 Earley, P.C. 36 Ebert, J.E.J. 129 economic efficiency 98–102 Edelman, M. 66, 74, 128, 135, 136, 212 effectiveness and project complexity 220–21 assumptions and research questions 221–4 effect, for intraorganizational forms 232, 233–4 evolutionary growth of 222 impact of innovation management interventions 245–6 project types in terms of aspirations set 223 Eisenhardt, K.M. 210 Ekstedt, E. 56, 186 Elchardus, M. 97, 143–4, 149–50, 177 embeddedness 177, 190 isolation and 263 learning and knowledge transfer 66–7

279

resources dilemma and 202, 206–7 typology of 207 temporal 206–9 Emery, J.D. 102, 113 Emirbayer, M. 191–2 Engwall, M. 56, 57, 59, 67, 71–2, 75, 78, 105, 136, 149, 152, 202, 203, 206, 211, 213, 215, 269 environment 63 as independent variable of RDT 92 concentration, munificence and interconnectedness 90–91 embeddedness 66–7, 177, 190 organizational adaption of form and 102–8 density 106 legitimacy and 97–8, 149 structure and 87–90 parent companies’ influence 190–92 temporariness, its effects 132–3 Ernst, H. 202, 209 establishment of firms 100–101, 106, 203 eternity 3 Evan, W.M. 86–7, 91, 94 experiential and compression models 238–45, 247–8 Fenema, Paul C. van vii, 9 film industry 104, 145, 147, 183, 184–5 financial resources 26–31 Flaherty, M.G. 123, 124, 131 Fligstein, N. 87 Florin, J. 16 ‘flow’ 145–6 Ford, J. 56–7, 58, 59, 67, 69, 75, 78, 79 form of organization 103–4 founding of firms 100–101, 106, 203 Fredericks, E. 89 Freel, M. 157 Freeman, J.H. 16, 103, 104, 105, 106 Freeman, M. 57, 64, 74 frequency as transaction cost factor 99 Friar, J.H. 57, 61, 74 Frumkin, P. 98 Galaskiewicz, J. 98 Galbraith, J.R. 272 Gallaud, D. 160

280

Temporary organizations

Gann, D. 57, 66, 74, 79 Gardiner, P.D. 76–7, 97, 150 Gartner, W.B. 203 geographic scope 163, 164–6 George, A.L. 266 George, J.M. 122, 124, 125, 145–6, 202, 215, 266 German Treuhandanstalt 191 Gersick, C.J.G. 43, 71, 75, 78, 124, 126, 132 Gerwin, D. 202, 209 Gilsing, V. 159 Gilson, L. 15 Glicksohn, J. 131 goal attainment 270 atemporality and 144–8, 210 change, propensity to 147 conflict 147–8 Goddard, R. 37 Godding, R.Z. 26 Goleman, D. 131 Goodman, L.P. 56, 58–9, 63, 64, 65, 68, 75, 78, 121, 127, 129, 183 Goodman, P.S. 114, 260 Goodman, R.A. 56, 58–9, 63, 64, 65, 68, 75, 78, 121, 127, 129, 183 Gössling, Tobias vii, 9, 156, 158, 159, 161 governance mechanisms 69 Gower, D. 201, 203 Grabher, G. 16, 56, 57, 58–9, 66, 69, 74, 77, 106, 121, 135, 136, 161, 212 Grandori, A. 102 Granovetter, M. 179, 190 Grant, R.M. 204, 206 Grekin, R.J. 122 Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, A 71 Gulati, R. 29, 40, 43, 105, 204, 206 Hagedoorn, J. 162 Halbesleben, J.R.B. 273 Hall, E.T. 124 Hall, M.R. 124 Hall, P.A. 87, 95 Hannan, M.T. 16, 103, 104, 105, 106 Hardy, C. 106, 155 Hargadon, A.B. 149 Hartog, D.N. Den 57, 67, 75 Harvey, M.G. 273

Hassard, J. 124–5, 126 Haughland, S.A. 69 Haynes, K.E. 157 Heath, R.L. 156 Heide, J.B. 208 heirarchy 188–90 Hellgren, B. 59 Hennart, J.-F. 100–101 heterogeneity Dutch SMEs 31–3, 41, 47–9, 52 proximity and 155–67 structure and 193 Hickson, D. 173 Hinings, C.R. 265 Hobday, M. 72, 75, 106 Hollingshead, A.B. 178, 179 hotels and catering 27 House, R.J. 104 Howell, G.A. 57, 70, 75 Huemann, M. 216 human resources qualifications and leadership issues 67–8 size of IOTC indicators 29 tension and pressure 68 Human, S.E. 96, 149, 151 humanitarian 178–82, 189 Hunt, S.D. 160 Ibert, O. 121 individual-based TOs 173, 175 industrialization 125 innovation 161, 162 creativity, innovation and knowledge 133–5 management strategies 230–48 impact of management interventions 245–6 timing 246–8 project complexity and effectiveness 221–4 firm competencies and outside threats 222 literature review of 224–8 complexity concept 228–30 project outcomes: concept in use and its dimensions 228 project types in terms of aspirations set 223

Index

281

value dimensions of organizational effectiveness 226, 227 research and development 61, 162, 237 see also management strategies; tasks interorganizational collaboration (IOCs) definitions 2, 61 proximity in 155–67 characteristics of TOs and 160–6 prevalence of research on 167 studies on 15–16 purposes of 3–4 see also collaboration of parent companies; Dutch SMEs; structure in temporary organizations interorganizationality 41–6 types, financial contribution and influence 51 intra-organizational TOs 61, 107, 224, 231 effect of project complexity on project effectiveness 232, 233–4, 238–9 frequency of interpersonal communication 37 knowledge transfer practices 66 intra-subjective capacity of time 123–4 IOCs see interorganizational collaboration (IOCs) isolation and embeddedness 263

Jones, G.R. 122, 124, 125, 145–6, 202, 215, 266 Jong, Jeroen P.J. de viii

Jackson, P.R. 202 Jacobs, D. 205 Jaesub, L. 156 James, W. 123 Janowicz-Panjaitan, Martyna viii, 2, 4, 7–8 Jarvenpaa, S.L. 178, 179 Jeb Propulsion Lab 123 Jensen, M. 210 Jepperson, R.L. 95 Jerbrant, A. 203 Jolivet, F. 94 Jones, C. 15, 16–18, 21, 43–5, 48, 49, 50, 53–4, 61, 74, 175, 177, 191, 192, 262

Labianca, G. 123, 124, 126, 133 Lacity, M.C. 183 Lambe, C.J. 160 Lammers, C.J. 173 Lane, P. 16, 158 Lanzara, G.F. 178–9, 180 Laufer, A. 57, 70, 75 Laurent, S. 66, 74, 128, 135, 136, 212 Lawrence, B.S. 114, 260 Lawrence, P. 87, 171 Lawrence, T.B. 155 leadership 67–8 Ledford, G.E. 209 Lee, D.M. 64, 74 Lee, H. 125

Kadefors, A. 69, 75 Kahneman, D. 131 Kallscheuer, O. 156 Katz, J. 203 Katz, R. 66, 74, 97, 149 Keegan, A.E. 57, 67, 72, 75, 203 Keil, T. 56–7, 58, 59, 67, 69, 75, 78, 79 Keith, P.M. 58, 59, 61, 68, 69, 79, 121, 148 Kelly, D. 104 Kemp, N.J. 202 Kenis, Patrick viii, xii, 2, 4, 7–8, 71, 259–60, 272 Kernaghan, J.A. 64, 74 Kerzner, H. 76, 203, 210 Kirat, T. 158 Kluckhohn, F. 124 Knoben, Joris viii-ix, 9, 155, 156–7, 158, 159, 160, 165, 168 Knoke, D. 87 knowledge transfer 101, 161, 162, 164 Kok, Jan M.P. de viii Koppenjan, J.F.M. 57, 70–71, 75 Koput, K.W. 155, 206 Kotter, J.P. 214 Kramer, R.M. 57, 58, 60, 67, 69–70, 121, 193, 203 Kristof-Brown, A.L. 31 Kumar, K. 181 Kunda, G. 173, 184

282

Temporary organizations

legitimacy 95–8, 106 atemporality and 148–50, 151–2 managing 268–9 conflict and 270 Levinthal, D.A. 181 Levy, O. 57, 64 Lewin, A.Y. 102, 113 Lewin, K. 147, 212 Lichtenstein, B.B. 15, 16–18, 21, 43–5, 48, 49, 50, 53–4, 61, 74, 175, 177, 191, 262 Liebenau, J. 125 Lindkvist, L. 56, 63, 65–6, 74, 76, 77, 97, 121, 150 Lorand, R. 179 Lorche, J. 87, 171 Lubatkin, M. 16, 158 Lucas, Gerardus J.M. ix Lundin, R.A. 21, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 71, 77, 86, 97, 126–7, 128, 129, 136, 143, 144, 145, 149, 151, 152, 171–2, 175, 186, 190, 191, 201, 202, 206, 210, 212–13, 214, 269 Lung, Y. 158 Macaulay, S. 184 Magjuka, R.J. 26 Mahoney, J.T. 187 Mainemelis, C. 123, 130–31, 133, 134, 136 Majchrzak, A. 178, 179 Maltz, A.C. 57, 64 Man, A.-P. 160 management strategies contingency theory 87–90 decision making 70–71 human resources 67–8 intra-IOTC Coordination 35–7, 49–50 population ecology theory 102–8 project outcomes, complexity and effectiveness 230–50 compression and experiential models 238–45, 247–8 moderating effect 245 effectiveness upgrading 235 innovation management interventions 245–6 moderation effect 249 timing 246–8

R&D managers and their problems 237 resources as solution 231–5 time dimensions and 236–8 project-based organizations 72–3 research on TOs and 267 accountability 267–8 design 271–2 legitimacy 268–9 process 272–3 resource dependence theory 90–95 dependence and autonomy 214 transaction cost theory 98–102 see also innovation Mantel, S.J. 57, 64 manufacturing sector 27 market and control mechanisms 100 Marshall, N. 57, 66, 74, 79 Mathieu, J. 15 McGrath, J.E. 62, 74, 124, 125 Meckling, W. 210 Meeus, Marius T.H. ix, 9–10 Melner, S.B. 15, 17 Mennecke, B.E. 62, 74, 137, 138 Merchant, K. 185 Meyer, A.D. 265 Meyer, J.W. 95, 96, 148 Meyerson, D. 57, 58, 60, 67, 69–70, 121, 193, 203 Miles, M.B. 59, 60, 63, 66, 68, 69, 77, 79, 104, 121, 127, 128, 129–30, 131, 132, 134, 148, 153, 177, 178, 203, 208, 212, 213 military missions 186–7 Milward, H.B. 182, 267, 269, 270, 272 Miner, A.S. 208 Mintzbert, H. 171, 172, 173, 193 Mitler, M.M. 122 modularity 186–9 Moffat, L. 202, 209 Möllering, G. 70 Monge, P.R. 182 Moon, H. 123, 124, 126, 133 Morley, E. 56, 58, 59, 67, 75, 77–8, 121 Müller, R. 57, 58, 59, 63, 64, 67, 78, 210, 214 Munns, A.K. 76 Muthusamy, S.K. 61

Index Navarre, C. 94 neo-institutional theory 95–8 Ness, H. 69 Nevo, D. 197 Newell, S. 66, 74, 128, 135, 136, 212 niche overlap 107 Nobeoka, K. 57, 64, 74 ‘non-temporary organizations’ 3, 138, 171–2, 188 taxonomy of organizational teams 17 Nooteboom, B. 159 Norris, P. 193 Novicevic, M.M. 273 Nuttin, J.R. 129 O’Leary, M. 156, 157, 160, 162 Oerlemans, Leon, A.G. ix, 9–10, 155, 156–7, 157, 158, 160, 161 Okhuysen, G.A. 125, 126, 130, 136, 137 Oliver, C. 95, 96, 148 organizational theory agency theory 210 contingency theory 87–90 neo-institutional theory 95–8 overview 86–7 applicability and generalizability 108–114 population ecology theory 102–8 resource dependence theory (RDT) 90–95, 201, 204–5, 207 transaction cost theory 98–102 see also temporary organizations (TOs) Orlikowski, W.J. 123, 124 Osler, Sir William 121 Packendorf, J. 58, 59, 60, 79 Palisi, B.J. 69, 75, 192 Paparone, C.R. 187 parent organizations (POs) Dutch SMEs 23–6 number by class size 28 number by sector 27 representation and effectiveness 41–3 management of accountability 267–8 design 271

283

legitimacy 268–9 process 272–3 resource control 202, 205–11, 215 structurally prepared interorganizational TOs 186–90 Parkin, J. 57, 70, 75 Penrose, E. 201 performance research agenda 264 resources dilemma and 209–11 teams’ 26, 62–5 atemporality, its effects 144–8 temporariness, its effects 127–33, 138 Perlow, L.A. 124, 125, 126, 130, 136, 137 ‘permanent organizations’ see ‘nontemporary organizations’ Pfeffer, J. 90–92, 204–5, 207 Philips, J.L. 15, 17 Phillips, N. 155 Pinto, J.K. 57, 59, 64, 74 Piotrowski, C. 183 political responses 179–80, 190–91, 193 population ecology theory 102–8 Porsander, L. 76 Porter, M. 204 Powell, W.W. 95, 148, 155, 206 Prelec, D. 129 preparedness 182–3 Priem, R.L. 202, 204, 211, 215 process, management of 272–3 product variables 61 profession-based TOs 183–6 project complexity 88 definition of 228–30 indicators 233 effectiveness and 220–21 assumptions and research questions 221–4 effect, for intraorganizational forms 232, 233–4 evolutionary growth of 222 impact of innovation management interventions 245–6 project types in terms of aspirations set 223 literature review 224–5, 255–7 complexity concept 228–30

284

Temporary organizations

definitions and dimensions 357–8 on TO effectiveness 225–8 outcomes: concept in use and its dimensions 228 valuations of organizational effectiveness 226 management of, project outcomes 88, 230–48 innovation management 245–6 moderation effects 249 timing 246–8 resources and 231–5 time dimensions and 236–8 see also temporary organizations (TOs) Project Management Institute 71 project management literature 4–5, 60, 61, 203 measuring project success 63–4 on innovation outcomes 224–8 complexity concept 228–30 ‘iron-triangle’ 227 review of 255–7 definitions and dimensions of complexity 257–8 project success, measurement of 63–5 project-based structures 3, 78 knowledge transfers 66 project classifications 61–2 transient nature of 78 Provan, Keith G. x, 71, 96, 149, 151, 182, 267, 269, 270, 272 proximity 155–71 characteristics of TOs and 160–66 comparisons with IOCs 164–6 interplay between forms of 159–60 organizational 157–8 prevalence of research in relation to collaboration 168 spatial/geographic 157, 163, 164–6 technological 158–9, 166 Raab, Jörg x, 9 Rallet, A. 160 Ramaswamy, V. 184 Rämö, H. 16 Rao, H. 103–4, 107 Rapp, M. 15 Raz, T. 210 repetition and atemporality 177–8

research and development (R&D) 61, 162, 237 resources dilemma managing project outcomes 231–5 temporal embeddedness and 206–7 functioning and performance 207–11 theoretical framework 203–5 resource dependence theory (RDT) 90–95, 201, 204–5, 207 implications for, system openness 211–14 resource based view (RBV) and 204 trust and 215 Resources Dependence Theory (RDT) 90–95 Resteigne, D. 189 Roberts, K.H. 186 Rotchford, N.L. 124, 125 Rottman, J.W. 183 Rowan, B. 95, 96, 97, 148 Roy, D.F. 125–6 Ruef, M. 95, 148 Rutten, R. 159 Saavedra, R. 36 Salancik, G.R. 90–92, 204–5, 207 Salter, A. 57, 66, 74, 79 Sanchez, R. 187 Sapsed, J. 57, 66, 74, 79 SARS epidemic response 180–81 Saunders, C.S. 62, 63, 65, 74, 137 Scarbrough, H. 66, 74, 128, 135, 136, 212 Schilling, M.A. 187 Schneider, B. 22 Schofield, J. 66, 74 science and technology sector 123 Scott, R.W. 87, 88, 95 Scott, W.R. 95, 148 Seashore, S.E. 204 sectoral distribution 23, 161–2 Seibel, W. 191 Seshadri, S. 156 Shenhar, A. 210 Shenhar, S. 57, 60, 61–2, 64, 74, 76

Index Silver, A. 56, 58, 59, 67, 75, 77–8, 121 Simmons, E.L. 76–7, 97, 150 Singh, H. 29 Singh, J.V. 103–4 Sipe, W.P. 22 size of IOTCs 26–31 interorganizationality and 42 organization types and 46–7 percentage of employees involved 20, 29–31 Slater 58, 59, 67, 75 Slevin, D.P. 57, 64, 74 SMEs (small and medium-sized firms) see Dutch SMEs Smith, D.B. 22 Smith, M.L. 57, 70, 75 Smith-Doerr, L. 155, 206 Snijders, T.A.B. 266 Social Identity Theory 128 societal acceptance 95, 97, 150, 182 societal boundaries 143 Soda, G. 105 Söderholm, A. 21, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 71, 77, 86, 97, 126–7, 128, 143, 144, 145, 149, 151, 152, 171–2, 175, 190, 191, 202, 206, 210, 212–13, 214, 269 Soeters, Joseph x, 9, 189 Sohn, J. 157 Spekman, R.E. 160 Starkey, K. 127 start-up firms 100–101, 106 resources dilemma 203 Stevens, C.K. 31 Stewart, G.L. 15, 18, 19, 22, 26, 35, 202, 210 Stinchcombe, A.L. 105, 273 Stjernberg, T. 59 Stock, R.M. 41 Strauss, A.L. 260 structurally prepared interorganizational TOs 186–90 structure in temporary organizations comparisons with non-temporary organizations 171–2, 188 dynamics of 193, 196 hierarchy 188–90 identifying temporariness and TOs 176–8 influence of atemporality on 190–92

285

influence of duration on 192 modularity 186–9 preparedness 182–3 repeated nature of 176–8 research agenda 263–4 typology of TOs 173–6 ad hoc or ephemeral 178–80 different patterns of structuring work activity 174 hastily formed interorganizational TOs 180–83, 194 profession-based 183–6, 194 summary of propositions 194–5 structurally prepared interorganizational TOs 186–90, 195 see also interorganizational collaboration; temporary organizations (TOs) sufficiency and discretion, relationship between 93 Sutton, R.I. 122 Swan, J. 66, 74, 128, 135, 136, 212 Sydow, J. 56, 121 system openness 211–14 dynamic perspective on 213 Taifel, H. 128, 212 tasks, 58 Dutch SMEs 33–5, 36–7, 40, 49 dynamics of progression 71–2, 97 communication issues 76–7 time limitations 78 goal attainment 144–8, 210, 270 in context of structural distinctions 175–6, 191 role clarity 68 trust 69 see also innovation; teams taxonomy of projects 61 Taylor, F.W. 125 Taylor, R.C.R. 95 teams 15, 17 creating temporal parameters 126 effects of awareness of impending termination 79, 129, 144 performance variables 26, 62–5 atemporality, its effects 144–8 temporariness, its effects 127–33, 138

286

Temporary organizations

salary 100 see also human resources; tasks Tempest, S. 127 temporal embeddedness 206–9 temporariness 59, 73, 80–81 as limited duration 77–8 awareness of impending termination 78–9 as short duration 76–7 difficulties in defining 142 identifying, and TOs 176–8 implications of 68, 126 for individual members 127–33 for performance of TOs 133–8 themes, publications and research opportunities 74–5 see also temporary organizations (TOs) temporary organizations (TOs) atemporality and 142–52 conflict and 147–8 energy output 145–6 propensity to change 147 recklessness 146–7 decision making 70–71 definitions of 57–9, 121–2, 143, 155–6, 203 example and purpose 1–3 open or closed systems 211–12 dynamics of development 71–2 history of research on 59–60 human resources 67–9 learning and knowledge flows 65–9 management of project-based 72–3 performance 62–5 creativity, innovation and knowledge 133–5 temporariness, its effects on 133–8 proximity 160–66 resources and 203–15 structure and coordination 69–70 study of 1–5, 63 definitions 57–9, 121–2, 143, 155–6, 203, 211–12 future research 264–6 isolation versus embeddedness 263 and managerial implications of 267 accountability 267–8 conflict management 269–70

design 271–2 legitimacy 268–9 process 273 performance drivers 264 structure 263–4 theory grounded insights into 5–10 time dimensions 260–62 system openness 211–14 taxonomy of organizational teams 17 ‘temporal zones’ 125–6 time dimensions 260–62 types and contingent effects 61–2 see also Dutch SMEs; interorganizational collaborations (IOCs); organizational theory; project complexity; structure in temporary organizations; temporariness Teng, B. 208, 211 termination point determination of 38–9, 78–9 IOTC termination by task 40 method of termination 50–51 organizational aging 105 proximity in TOs and 161 temporariness, its effects 129 atemporality and 144, 152 Thamhain, H.J. 57, 64, 67, 74, 202 Thompson, J.D. 92 ties 43–5 time dimension xii characteristics of IOTCs 37–41 conceptual status of time 8 duration 176–7 influence on resources discretion 202, 208–9 influence on structure 192 temporariness as limited 77–8 temporariness as short 76–7 types of IOTCs 43–5, 106–7 method of termination and 50–51 entrainment 132–3 creativity and 134–5 experience of 130–31 management of project outcomes 236–8

Index performance of organization and 133–8 decision making 70–71 perspectives of, and subjective quality 123–4 resources dilemma and 202, 206–7 duration 208–9 typology of 207 study of TOs and 4–5, 63, 260–62 swift trust 69–70 temporal embeddedness 206–9 see also atemporality Tischler, A. 61–2, 64, 74 Tolbert, P.S. 87 Torre, A. 157, 160 TOs see temporary organizations (TOs) trade and repair 27 transaction cost theory 98–102 transport and communications 27 Travis Maynard, M. 15 trust 69, 215 Tsui, A.S. 265 Tucker, D.J. 104 Turner, J.C. 128, 212 Turner, J.R. 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 72, 78, 203, 210, 214 Turner, V. 127 Tushman, M.L. 64, 66, 74, 114, 158, 260 Twenge, J.M. 129, 138

287

Van Haverbeke, W. 159 Vermeulen, Patrick, A.M. x-xi, 9 Vetlesen, A.J. 159 Waard, Erik J. de xi Wageman, R. 36 Wagner, J.A. 26 Wall, T.D. 202 Wand, Y. 197 Watt, I. 123, 124, 126, 133 Weber, M. 148 Weick, K.E. 57, 58, 60, 67, 69–70, 77, 121, 193, 203 Weigelt, C.B. 102, 113 Wen, K. 203 Wernerfelt, B. 201, 204 Westling, G. 71–2, 75 Wheeler, J.V. 213 Wheelwright, S.C. 61, 74 Whetten, D.A. 92 White, B.J. 62, 74, 137, 138 White, M.A. 61 Whitley, R. 58, 61, 68, 77 Wilemon, D.L. 57, 64, 67, 74 Williamson, O. 98–102 Wilson, D.C. 66, 74 Wilson, T. 129 Winch, G. 16 Wirdenius, H. 56, 186 Woodward, H. 57, 70, 75 work roles 61

Usai, A. 105 Uzzi, B. 106

Yates, J. 123, 124 Yilmaz, S. 157 Yuchtman, E. 204

Van de Ven, A.H. 88, 152 van den Ende, J. 72, 75 van den Oord, A. 159 van Dissel, H.G. 181 Van Dyne, L. 36

Zaheer, A. 105 Zakay, D. 131 Zerubavel, E. 124, 125 Zmud, R.W. 185 Zucker, L.G. 95, 148