Something old, something new: Path dependence and path creation during the early stage of a project
Introduction
In a sense, this whole development project of Tapiola's center has been shadowed by the history of the world-famous Tapiola garden city and its architecture … Many of the stakeholders–when evaluating and contributing to the plans initially–had the idyllic 1950's garden city picture of Tapiola as their frame of reference.
With these words, the project director from the City of Espoo characterized the ongoing complex, multi-stakeholder urban renewal project to bring change to Tapiola district by establishing a vibrant commercial center with residential housing in the center of the district. Built in the post-World War II era and located within the Helsinki metropolitan area in Finland, Tapiola is a heritage district, internationally recognized for its unique architecture and garden city character. In essence, the project director's words declare that history always matters, even in the process of creating something new. Multi-stakeholder projects are networks (DeFillippi and Sydow, 2016, Hellgren and Stjernberg, 1995), in which decision-making processes and behavioral patterns are conditioned by the prehistories, prior interactions of actors, and by the ever-changing stakeholder networks in which projects are embedded (Manning and Sydow, 2011).
In organization research, understanding how and why history matters in organizational life has come to be of central interest (Sydow et al., 2009). In particular, the concept of path dependence (David, 1985, Arthur, 1989), which has its origins in evolutionary economics, has gained prominence. The notion of path dependence asserts in general that our present and future choices are conditioned by decisions we have made in the past, and that these decisions create increasingly constrained processes that cannot easily be escaped (Vergne and Durand, 2010). On the other hand, the idea of path dependence has been criticized for its failure to take account of the role of human agency in the creation of new paths (Garud and Karnoe, 2001). To address this limitation, Garud and Karnoe (2001) advanced the contrasting perspective of path creation, suggesting that individuals, organizations, and fields may also break away and mindfully deviate from their expected paths. In particular, there have been calls for more research examining path-related processes in inter-organizational contexts such as multi-stakeholder projects (Hellström et al., 2013, Levering et al., 2013, Sydow et al., 2009). The concepts of path dependence and path creation offer a novel perspective from which to examine processes that occur during the dynamic early stage of project networks, as multiple stakeholders seek to establish a joint direction for the project. The organizational entity that we analyze here is the stakeholder network in one such project's early stage. During this time, multiple stakeholders together form a path for the network through their independent or coordinated actions and decisions, often by seeking to establish overall system-level goals, design solutions, scope and joint routines to enable them to work jointly toward this goal. In the later stages of the project, this may also involve changing this goal (Artto et al., 2016).
The study addresses the following research question: How are path dependence and path creation processes manifested during the early stage of a multi-stakeholder project? In particular, we investigate how these processes are associated with the formation of the path that the project takes and what kinds of role are played by multiple stakeholders in the processes of path dependence and creation. The aim here is to extend our knowledge of the sporadic process involving the multi-stakeholder network in either enforcing previously set goals or changing goals and actions, and ultimately defining new direction for the project and the network of organizations.
The unit of observation in this empirical study was a multi-stakeholder urban renewal project of the commercial center of Tapiola district (hereafter referred to as “the Tapiola project”). In total, investments in the Tapiola project from different stakeholders amounted to 3.4 billion euros. The early stage of the project lasted for twelve years (2000–2012), during which time the project's network organization sought and continuously adjusted the goals, design and plans of the renewal project when defining and redefining the project's scope. This early stage was divided into three distinctive phases in our empirical analysis. Typically, the early stage of an urban renewal project may last significantly longer than actual implementation—perhaps even for several decades. Despite the importance of this long period, preceding more detailed design and implementation of the project, prior research offers limited theoretical understanding of how the project's path, particularly in terms of the joint goals, design solutions and scope, actually takes shape in this initial stage through the sporadic interactions and decision-making of the various stakeholders (Edkins et al., 2013, Morris, 2013).
The present study contributes in four ways to the literatures on management of the early project stage, project stakeholder management, and path dependence and path creation. First, the findings challenge previous accounts of the abundant availability of design options and choices in a project's early stage by showing how path dependence processes may already impose restrictions on multiple stakeholders' decision-making when the project commences. Second, the study enhances understanding of stakeholder network dynamics during a project's early stage by showing how changes in the stakeholder network structure can facilitate path creation processes that may radically change the project's scope. Third, through evidence of both path dependence and path creation during a project's early stage, the study characterizes goal formulation processes in multi-stakeholder projects as continuously evolving and affected by changes in the stakeholder constellation. Finally, the study contributes to the literatures on path dependence and path creation by elaborating these in the context of temporary inter-organizational projects and by integrating path research with stakeholder research.
The paper is organized as follows. A review of the literature on path dependence, path creation, and stakeholder dynamics during a project's early stage is followed by a description of the research method. Section4 presents an empirical account of the Tapiola project's early stage, and Section 5 elaborates inductive reasoning on the Tapiola case, based on an interpretation of early project dynamics informed by research on path dependence and path creation. Section 6 discusses the implications of these findings for project management and path dependence and path creation research. In addition, managerial implications and multiple avenues for further research are suggested.
Section snippets
Path dependence and path creation in multi-stakeholder projects
In the pioneering works of David (1985) and Arthur (1989), the idea of path dependence was introduced to explain the dominance and persistence of technologies that are not optimal in terms of technological or economic efficiency. The essence of path dependence is that our choices are conditioned by choices we have made in the past.
While now a well-established construct of modern organization theory, much confusion remains about the underlying logic of path dependence in organizations (Sydow et
Research strategy
We chose to apply a process approach (Bizzi and Langley, 2012) in studying the early stage (2000–2012) of the Tapiola project. In adopting this approach, we were particularly interested in analyzing the formation of the path among the networked stakeholders in terms of how and why events, choices, decision-making, and stakeholders' roles evolved over time in the network of the case project (Langley, 1999).
A case study approach is appropriate in this context, as it focuses on the dynamics within
Empirical account of the Tapiola project's early stage
Our empirical analysis revealed three distinct sequential phases in the early stage of the Tapiola project. Phase I (2000–2006) was an initial period of slow progress and reliance on the past; Phase II (2006–2010) was characterized by dynamic changes in the stakeholder network and the emergence of a completely novel path for the direction and scope of the project; and Phase III (2010–2012) was a period of enlargement and institutionalization of the new path.
Theoretical interpretation
In explaining how the project's path and inherent direction unfolded, our analysis revealed processes of path dependence and path creation in three distinct phases of the early stage: I) reliance on history; II) emergent path creation processes; and III) institutionalization of the new path. Building on this empirical account of the early stage of the Tapiola project, the theoretical notions of path dependence and path creation were used to analyze and interpret development processes and the
Discussion and conclusions
Building on research on path dependence (Sydow et al., 2009), path creation (Garud and Karnoe, 2001) and stakeholder management, the present findings illustrate how a project's goals and overall scope evolve during the early stage of a multi-stakeholder project. The study makes a number of contributions to the literatures on the management of the project's early stage, project stakeholder management, and path dependence and path creation.
Conflict of interest
There is no conflict of interest.
References (45)
- et al.
Towards an improved understanding of project stakeholder landscapes
Int. J. Proj. Manag.
(2016) - et al.
Investigating the use of the stakeholder notion in project management literature, a meta-analysis
Int. J. Proj. Manag.
(2008) - et al.
What is project strategy?
Int. J. Proj. Manag.
(2008) - et al.
From the front end of projects to the back end of operations: managing projects for value creation throughout the system lifecycle
Int. J. Proj. Manag.
(2016) - et al.
Studying processes in and around networks
Ind. Mark. Manag.
(2012) - et al.
Explicating the dynamics of project capabilities
Int. J. Proj. Manag.
(2016) - et al.
Strategizing for anticipated risks and turbulence in large-scale engineering projects
Int. J. Proj. Manag.
(2001) - et al.
Vanguards and ventures: projects as vehicles for corporate entrepreneurship
Int. J. Proj. Manag.
(2008) - et al.
Design and implementation in major investments—a project network approach
Scand. J. Manag.
(1995) - et al.
The importance of the early phase: the case of construction and building projects
Int. J. Proj. Manag.
(2004)
Continuity and change in interorganizational project practices: the Dutch shipbuilding industry, 1950–2010
Int. J. Proj. Manag.
A theory of temporary organization
Scand. J. Manag.
Managing inter-organizational networks for value creation in the front-end of projects
Int. J. Proj. Manag.
Front-end definition of projects: Ten paradoxes and some reflections regarding project management and project governance
Int. J. Proj. Manag.
Stakeholder dynamics during the project front-end: the case of nuclear waste repository projects
Proj. Manag. J.
Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events
Econ. J.
Wakes of innovation in project networks: the case of digital 3-D representations in architecture, engineering and construction
Organ. Sci.
Visualizing and mapping stakeholder influence
Manag. Decis.
Building solution capabilities: from exploratory to exploitative learning
Organ. Stud.
Can integrated solutions business models work in construction?
Build. Res. Inf.
Project Marketing: Beyond Competitive Bidding
Clio and the economics of QWERTY
Am. Econ. Rev.
Cited by (26)
Managing large-scale projects: Unpacking the role of project memory
2024, International Journal of Project ManagementRethinking public infrastructure megaproject performance: Theorizing alternative benefits, and the need for open science in project research
2023, Project Leadership and SocietyThe performance effects of optimistic and pessimistic project status reporting behavior
2023, International Journal of Project ManagementIn favor or against: The influence of skeptical stakeholders in urban innovation projects for green transformation
2023, International Journal of Project ManagementThe more the better? The role of stakeholder information processing in complex urban innovation projects for green transformation
2023, International Journal of Project ManagementStrategic responses to external stakeholder influences
2023, International Journal of Project Management