IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 45, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 1998 33 From Theory to Practice: Toward a Typology of Project-Management Styles Aaron J. Shenhar, Senior Member, IEEE Abstract—Research literature on the management of projects has been quite slow in its conceptual development and still suffers from a scanty theoretical basis. One of the main impediments in the study of projects has been the absence of constructs and the little distinction that has been made between the project type and its managerial and organizational style. Based on the findings in a field study of 26 case projects, this research shows that there is a need to adopt a more project-specific contingency approach to project management in organizations. This study explores a two-dimensional theoretical model for the classification of technical (or engineering) projects. Projects are classified according to four levels of technological uncertainty at the time of project initiation and three levels of system scope, which is their location on a hierarchical ladder of systems and subsystems. Considerable differences were found in management style, project organization, and operational practice when moving along each of the model’s two axes. Differences also were observed in simultaneous change in both dimensions. The findings suggest a handful of practical and managerial implications. They are based on the premise that a proper project classification prior to project initiation and a carefully selected management style may lead to better implementation and to an increased chance of project success. Index Terms—Complexity, project management, project types, uncertainty. I. INTRODUCTION P ROJECTS are commonly used today in almost all types of industry, including defense, construction, electronic, pharmaceutical, chemical, and many others [31]. Typically, projects are executed after signing a contract with a customer; or they are internally initiated with the intention to introduce a new product to the marketplace. As many practitioners know, projects may differ in a myriad of aspects, such as size, time span, industry, customer, and, of course, technology. Consequently, although there are some elements common to all projects, project management is anything but universal. Consider, for example, the difference between constructing a new office building and developing a new space vehicle. Although both efforts are called projects, they are consid- erably different. The research reported here investigates the problems encountered in management of engineering projects and explores project-management contingencies in various kinds of technical projects. Our main proposition is that project management differs with the kind of project, and that management style, attitude, and practice must be adapted to the Manuscript received April 25, 1994; revised March 1996. Review of this manuscript was arranged by Department Editor R. Balachandra. The author is with the School of Technology Management, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ 07030 USA. Publisher Item Identifier S 0018-9391(98)00822-8. specific project type. Because of the exploratory nature of the study and the complexity of the research problem, a multiple- case-study approach and a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods were selected as the best way to arrive at an encompassing view of projects and their management. II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND The impact of the introduction of a new technology is evident and influential only if it is incorporated into a new product of commercial and practical value [57]. As Tushman and Nelson contend, however, there are only the beginnings of literature on how technology is selected, at either the product class or organization levels of analysis, and there is no systematic work on how organizations actually shape technological change. [67, p. 7] A substantial amount of the management literature on technical projects, particularly those involving new technology, is still anecdotal or based on single case studies. Research literature on the management of projects is relatively young and still suffers from a scanty, theoretical basis. For example, very little systematic research of project management has previously distinguished between the project type and the strategic and operational problems of various projects. According to Pinto and Covin, the prevailing tendency among the majority of aca- demics has been to characterize all projects as fun- damentally similar.... The implicit view of many academics could be represented by the axiom: “a project is a project is a project.” [52, p. 49] Some distinction among projects, based on technological dif- ferences, product outcome, or technological novelty, has been mentioned, however, by Steele [64], Cash et al. [13], Ahituv and Neumann [2], Pearson [48], Tyre and Hauptman [68], and Wheelwright and Clark [73]. Cooper and Kleinschmidt [17] and Pinto and Slevin [53] introduced and investigated the notion of critical success factors at the project level; and Pinto and Covin [52] have studied the differences in perceived importance of such factors between construction and research and development projects. Although varied in their specifics, so far none of these typologies has developed into a standard theoretical framework that is commonly used for analyzing the full range of modern engineering projects. The tenuous conceptual framework of project management also is reflected in practitioners’ literature. Most texts and handbooks on the management of projects are overly general, 0018–9391/98$10.00  1998 IEEE