Un-enacted projects are those projects that have not been officially evaluated by the project portfolio management but do exist although they are not known to a company’s project portfolio. As a consequence, resources thought to be available often prove to be actually unavailable and that unofficial initiatives eventually compete for scarce resources. One particular type of these un-enacted projects are bottom-up initiatives. Bottom-up un-enacted projects are unofficial initiatives on which employees spend time without order but with which they intend to benefit their organizations. While previous research highlights the great potential of bottom-up un-enacted projects, they only focus on the individual level but leave the organizational level for further research.

In a recent research project, we aimed at gaining a deeper understanding of the organizational drivers of bottom-up un-enacted projects. We draw on deviance theory to develop a conceptual model for explaining the occurrence of these projects. In order to triangulate the emerging model with insights from practice, we use interview data to cross-check and refine the theory-driven model. The key result of our work is a conceptual model that comprises the organizational antecedents to explain the occurrence of bottom-up un-enacted projects.

Model explaining the occurrence of bottom-up un-enacted projects

Our results advance the theoretical discourse on the concept of un-enacted projects by proposing a conceptual model for explaining the occurrence of a specific type of un-enacted projects, namely bottom-up initiatives, from an organizational perspective. By relying on organizational deviance theory as a theoretical lens, our study is one of the first that applies this reference theory to the field of information systems in general, and more particular to the domain of project portfolio management. From a practical point of view, we expect our model after a thorough empirical evaluation to be a beneficial instrument to evaluate and predict the occurrence of bottom-up initiatives in a particular organizational setting. Having identified the levers for the emergence of such un-enacted projects, responsible practitioners will receive a basis for steering their organization in the intended direction.

The research results have recently been accepted for publication:
Buchwald, A., Urbach, N. and Ahlemann, F. (2014) Understanding the Organizational Antecedents of Bottom-Up Un-Enacted Projects – Towards a Conceptual Model Based on Deviance Theory, Proceedings of the 22nd European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2014), June 9-11, Tel Aviv, Israel. (Link)

From the IT governance point of view, one central project portfolio management (PPM) task is to ensure that official projects draw upon assigned human resources. However, a common phenomenon is that resources thought to be available often turn out to be actually unavailable. Previous research indicates that numerous unofficial initiatives, also referred to as un-enacted projects, are a typical cause of this observation. Un-enacted projects are those projects that have not been officially evaluated but do exist although they are not known to or are included in a company’s project portfolio. The result is that unofficial initiatives compete for scarce resources. Despite these resource issues, previous research has barely investigated un-enacted projects.

In a recent research study we investigated the major drivers of the occurrence of un-enacted projects and their specific characteristics. By building on four in-depth case studies across four industries, we found that there is great variety in respect of (a) the type of un-enacted projects, (b) the reasons for them being triggered in organizations, and (c) their characteristics, all of which are summarized in the following categorization framework.

On the basis of our findings, we derived several implications for PPM and provide suggestions on how to deal with un-enacted projects. The first implication concerns pilot studies. In order to resolve this governance problem, we suggest including pilot studies as a distinct type of project in the PPM process. Furthermore, our study’s findings suggest that motivation plays an important role in the context of un-enacted projects. Another major implication is that transparency should be part of PPM. The fourth implication concerns strategic un-enacted projects. In order to resolve the challenges that such projects present, organizations should set up a separate project portfolio dedicated to high-profile, strategic projects. The fifth major implication concerns executive level orders. In order to overcome this type of un-enacted project and to advance PPM, the management needs to empower the PPM. A credible PPM process needs to be introduced and the management also needs to adhere to it. A final implication is that this study’s empirical evidence suggests that resource management is a key determinant of successful PPM. With our study’s results, the academic discourse on the concept of un-enacted projects is advanced, while specific advice on how to deal with each type is given to practitioners in terms of PPM implications.

The research results have recently been accepted for publication:
Buchwald, A. and Urbach, N. (2012) Exploring the Role of Un-Enacted Projects in IT Project Portfolio Management, Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2012), December 16-19, Orlando, Florida, USA. (Link)