Project management in the public context: research field mapping

Abstract

The advent of New Public Management introduced the concept of project management until then exclusive to the private sector, paving the way for increased state efficiency. In this scenario, this article aims to locate, synthesize, and identify the theoretical proximity among studies on project management in the public context. The bibliometric methodological approach used relational analysis of citations and the methods of cocitation and coupling to reveal the connections among the studies published. Exploratory factor analysis of cocitation and coupling led to six factors, indicating the intellectual structure, and enabling the generation of a factor integration framework from the most frequent citations. The results indicated the prevalence of studies on project management and e-government competencies. It also amplifies discussions with the presentation of an agenda directed explicitly to the management of public projects.

Keywords:
public administration; project management; bibliometrics; search schedule

Resumo

O advento da Nova Gestão Pública introduziu o conceito de gestão de projetos, até então exclusivo do setor privado, abrindo caminho para o aumento da eficiência do Estado. Nesse cenário, o objetivo deste artigo é localizar, sintetizar e identificar as proximidades teóricas entre os estudos de gestão de projetos no contexto público. Para alcançá-lo, definiu-se a abordagem metodológica bibliométrica recorrendo à análise relacional de citações, realizada pelos métodos de cocitação e de pareamento bibliográfico, a fim de descobrir relações de conectividade entre as obras publicadas. As análises fatoriais exploratórias da cocitação e do pareamento conduziram a 6 fatores, indicando a estrutura intelectual e possibilitando, também, a geração de um framework de integração dos fatores a partir das citações mais frequentes. Os resultados indicaram a prevalência de estudos sobre competências em gestão de projetos e governo eletrônico. Abre-se, ainda, o leque de discussões com a apresentação de uma agenda especificamente direcionada à gestão de projetos públicos.

Palavras-chave:
administração pública; gestão de projetos; bibliometria; agenda de pesquisa

Resumen

El advenimiento de la Nueva Gestión Pública introdujo el concepto de gestión de proyectos, hasta entonces exclusivo del sector privado, allanando el camino para aumentar la eficiencia del Estado. En este escenario, el objetivo de este artículo es localizar, sintetizar e identificar la proximidad teórica entre los estudios de gestión de proyectos en el contexto público. Para lograr esto, se definió el enfoque metodológico bibliométrico mediante el análisis relacional de citas, realizado por los métodos de cocitación y emparejamiento bibliográfico para descubrir relaciones de conectividad entre los trabajos publicados. El análisis factorial exploratorio de la cocitación y del emparejamiento condujo a 6 factores, lo que indica la estructura intelectual, y también permite la generación de un framework para integrar factores a partir de las citas más frecuentes. Los resultados indicaron la prevalencia de estudios sobre habilidades en gestión de proyectos y gobierno electrónico. También se amplía la gama de discusiones con la presentación de una agenda específicamente dirigida a la gestión de proyectos públicos.

Palabras clave:
administración pública; gestión de proyectos; bibliometría; agenda de investigación

1. INTRODUCTION

Project management has been present for some decades in private enterprise. Initially with an intense technical bias, restricted to the use of specific tools, the practice has been climbing steps in the organization and has consolidated itself as a link between the company’s strategy and the materialization of its objectives through the implementation of projects. Consequently, it became an important strategic asset, a source of competitive advantage (Judgev, 2004) for the companies’ performance (Mathur, Jugdev, & Fung, 2014).

In parallel, the concept of New Public Management, introduced in recent decades in several countries, has given special emphasis to project management as a viable tool for implementing public policies in contemporary administration. Even with the difficulty of establishing an integrated conceptual system for this area of management, numerous researchers have shown interest in discussing the environment of public projects (e.g., Al-Emadi & Anouze, 2018; Damoah, Akwei, Amoako, & Botchie, 2018; Gomes, Yasin, & Small, 2012; Mihǎescu & Tapardel, 2013; Shah, Khan, Bokhari, & Raza, 2011; Shivambu & Thwala, 2019; Wirick, 2009).

As we can see in several studies, project management has demonstrated its results in public administration (Islam, 2016; Williams et al., 2019; Yasin, Gomes, & Miller, 2009) and public resource management (Crawford & Helm, 2009), given the increasing complexity of the required actions (Rego & Silva, 2011). With the introduction of a new culture, pro-projects, in the implementation of public policies, (the way is opened) for a better use of scarce public resources, resulting in greater efficiency (Mendes, 2009), either with the possibility of expanding the services currently provided or with investments in new actions, benefiting the citizens who need the State the most (Saraiva & Chaplain, 2000).

In view of the scenario presented, it is pertinent to ask:

• What is the intellectual structure of public project management?

• What is the intellectual structure of recent/emerging literature?

As a result, the central objective of this article is to find, synthesize and identify the theoretical proximities between the studies on project management in the public context. To achieve this objective, it is necessary to identify the published works and their most influential authors, knowing how the researches and their authors are related to each other, as well as to identify the main themes (addressed). To achieve the proposed objective, the research made use of the techniques of cocitation analysis and coupling used in bibliometry.

As main results, the research described the 6 factors resulting from the analyses of cocitation and coupling, establishing a framework for integrating the factors from the most frequent cocitations and proposing an agenda for future research.

2. METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES

The main function of bibliometric analysis is to identify patterns and trends in scientific publications over the years (Zupic & Čater, 2015). In this study, the methods of cocitation and coupling were adopted. The first method was used to identify and categorize the major references in studies on public project management, analyzing and describing the structure of the area using the published articles, as recommended by Gracio (2016). The cocitations identified links between 2 documents cited through the frequencies of simultaneous occurrences in reference lists of cited works (Small, 1973). The intensity of cocitations is dictated by the response of researchers to the published articles, which demonstrates a proximity between studies, themes, concepts, or methodological procedures (Smiraglia, 2011). On the other hand, the coupling method groups scientific and technical articles, based on bibliographic coupling units, defined as an item used by both as reference (Habib & Afzal, 2019; Kessler, 1963). It makes it possible to add up and analyze the number of times that a specific work is cited by other authors and aims to identify the most influential works on a given theme (Culnan, O’Reilly, & Chatman, 1990; Jarneving, 2007). The coupling strength between 2 articles does not change with time, since the frequency of this coupling is fixed and cannot easily contribute to the study of changes in scientific fields over time (Gracio, 2016).

The research was initially performed in the Web of Science and Scopus databases, for bringing together the main scientific journals in the studied area The words project*, manage*, public* sector, public* administration and government were defined taking into consideration “topic”, as they (congregate) the title, key words, and the summary of the researched documents. The search was restricted to articles published until 2018. As a result, the Web of Science returned 6,225 articles, while Scopus returned 15,521 articles.

Because of the quantity of articles found, it was necessary to perform a preliminary analysis, aiming certify the quality of the sample. The random reading of the abstracts of 20 articles, from both bases, made it possible to verify that most of them, despite containing the words defined in the search in one of the “topic” fields, did not deal directly with the theme of public project management. Following the guidance of Zupic and Čater (2015), the author decided to restrict the search to the title field. When conducting the research since the early years of the bases - Web of Science (1945) and Scopus (1965) - 6 articles were found dating before 1997. The article with available references, immediately prior to the first considered (1997), dates from 1979. Thus, after the exclusion of the 6 articles whose publication dates from 1945 to 1996, a total of 41 articles were found on the Web of Science and 75 articles on Scopus. The search process revealed the overlapping of 33 articles, 8 of which were exclusive to the Web of Science and 42 to Scopus. In addition, 7 articles without references were identified, resulting with 76 distinct articles with references for the final sample. The temporal distribution (Figure 1) shows the evolution of production from 2006. Figure 2 brings a summary of the search procedure in the Web bases of Science and Scopus, as well as the refinement process of the sample.

Figure 1
Search results in Web of Science and Scopus databases

The files extracted from the databases composed by title, author, abstract, keywords, year, journal, number, volume, pages, and references were concatenated. Then they were treated in BibExcel (Persson, Danell, & Schneider, 2009), together with Microsoft Excel for Office 365 and SPSS, version 25, following the procedure defined in Serra, Ferreira, Guerrazzi, and Scaciotta (2018) and Serra, Cirani and Moutinho (2019), for further formation of the cocitation matrix. The relationship networks between the works were developed using the NetDraw UCINET 6.679 (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002).

Figure 2
Summary of data collection and sampling

3. RESULTS

The results section is formed by the analysis of the cocitations and coupling. For both, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed, presenting the structure of the resulting factors, the relationship networks between the articles and the respective metrics (density and cohesion).

3.1 Cocitation Analysis

The database was classified by decreasing frequency of citations (Table 1). For this study we considered articles with at least 2 citations, totaling 231 citations, which correspond to 7.95% of the sample, in accordance with Lotka’s Law (Lotka, 1926).

The EFA performed consists of a technique that aims to discover and analyze the structure of a set of interrelated variables to build a scale of intrinsic factors (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2009). The technique uses observed correlations among the original variables to estimate the common factors among the structural relationships that connect the latent factors of the variables. The factors were extracted by the principal components method and with Varimax rotation (Marôco, 2018), with communality ≥ 0.5 (Fávero, Belfiore, Silva, & Chan, 2009), which resulted in 77 works. The common factors retained were those that presented an eigenvalue > 1, in this case, 9 factors.

Table 1
Frequency distribution of citations

# Citations	f	Cf	# Citations * f	∑ (# Citations * f)	∑ (# Citations * f)/sum
10	1	1	10	10	0,34%
9	0	1	0	10	0,34%
8	1	2	8	18	0,62%
7	0	2	0	18	0,62%
6	0	2	0	18	0,62%
5	2	4	10	28	0,96%
4	8	12	32	60	2,06%
3	25	37	75	135	4,65%
2	48	85	96	231	7,95%
1	2675	2760	2.675	2.906	100,00%

• Note: # Citations = Number of citations for an article; f = Frequency; Cf= Cumulative frequency. Source: Elaborated by the authors.

In the sequence, accuracy and validity were verified. The accuracy was analyzed considering Cronbach’s alpha > 0.7 (Hair et al., 2009). Because the factors 7, 8 and 9 presented Cronbach’s alpha = 0.495; 0.575 and 0.287, respectively, they were disregarded. Table 2 shows the matrix of the resulting rotating component, whose total variance explained corresponds to 72.6% for the 6 factors and 67 works, following the recommendation of Vogel and Güttel (2013). To assess the validity of EFA, the Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin (KMO) criterion was considered, with a value of 0.807, as well as Barlett’s sphericity test, which showed p < 0.001. It was concluded that the sample is adequate for factor analysis and that the variables are significantly correlated. After reading each article, the factors were named following the orientation of Quevedo-Silva, Biagi Almeida Santos, Moll Brandão, and Vils (2016), as shown in Box 1.

In addition to the EFA, a network of relationships between the papers was created (Figure 3), using the NetDraw UCINET 6,679 (Borgatti et al., 2002). This software uses the cooccurrence frequencies to represent two-dimensional Euclidean distances between the works. While the distances between nodes establish relationships, the intensity is indicated by the thickness of the lines.

Table 2
Rotated component matrixª

Work	Factors
	CC1	CC2	CC3	CC4	CC5	CC6
Boyatzis (1982)	0,941	-0,145	-0,097	-0,058	0,049	-0,048
Birkhead, Sutherland, and Maxwell (2000)	0,941	-0,145	-0,097	-0,058	0,049	-0,048
Fisher (2011)	0,941	-0,145	-0,097	-0,058	0,049	-0,048
Brill, Bishop, and Walker (2006)	0,941	-0,145	-0,097	-0,058	0,049	-0,048
Skulmoski, Hartman, and Demaere (2000)	0,941	-0,145	-0,097	-0,058	0,049	-0,048
Udo, and Koppensteiner (2004)	0,941	-0,145	-0,097	-0,058	0,049	-0,048
Virtanen (2000)	0,941	-0,145	-0,097	-0,058	0,049	-0,048
Seibert (2004)	0,941	-0,145	-0,097	-0,058	0,049	-0,048
Dainty,Cheng, and Moore (2005)	0,941	-0,145	-0,097	-0,058	0,049	-0,048
Swan, Scarborough, and Newell (2010)	0,938	-0,165	-0,111	-0,031	-0,006	-0,019
Barber (2004)	0,938	-0,165	-0,111	-0,031	-0,006	-0,019
Morris (2001)	0,931	-0,153	-0,105	-0,065	0,056	-0,042
Toney (2001)	0,923	-0,142	-0,100	-0,036	0,036	0,066
Young, Young, Jordan, and O’Connor (2012)	0,909	-0,182	-0,128	-0,046	-0,007	-0,016
Rwelamila (2007)	0,906	-0,168	-0,123	-0,051	0,049	0,101
Thamhain (1991)	0,893	-0,144	-0,103	0,005	-0,029	0,188
Meredith, and Mantel (2000)	0,884	-0,194	-0,136	-0,017	-0,016	-0,032
Besner, and Hobbs (2006)	0,872	-0,174	-0,137	-0,050	0,004	0,098
Crawford (2005)	0,871	-0,194	-0,142	0,160	0,018	0,049
Kerzner (2003)	0,827	-0,148	-0,122	-0,040	0,035	0,275
Project Management Institute (2013)	0,813	-0,248	-0,205	-0,122	-0,167	0,053
Crawford, and Pollack (2007)	0,789	-0,213	-0,148	0,392	-0,047	-0,015
Wirick (2009)	0,667	-0,216	-0,180	0,336	-0,029	0,291
Andersen, Grude, and Hague (1987)	-0,183	0,941	-0,092	-0,055	-0,013	0,016
Jaeger, and Thompson (2003)	-0,137	0,922	-0,060	-0,029	0,007	0,059
Heeks (2003a)	-0,178	0,918	-0,090	-0,055	-0,012	-0,006
James (1997)	-0,178	0,918	-0,090	-0,055	-0,012	-0,006
Collins, and Bicknell (1997)	-0,178	0,918	-0,090	-0,055	-0,012	-0,006
Iacovou (1999)	-0,178	0,918	-0,090	-0,055	-0,012	-0,006
Jaeger (2003)	-0,178	0,918	-0,090	-0,055	-0,012	-0,006
Standish Group (2004)	-0,178	0,918	-0,090	-0,055	-0,012	-0,006
Irani, Love, Elliman,and Jones (2005)	-0,211	0,916	-0,112	-0,067	-0,015	0,008
Gupta, Kumar, and Bhattacharya (2004)	-0,190	0,905	-0,099	-0,062	-0,015	-0,017
Gil-Garcia, and Pardo (2005)	-0,206	0,890	-0,113	-0,052	-0,016	-0,025
Heeks (2003b)	-0,206	0,890	-0,113	-0,052	-0,016	-0,025
Heeks (2006)	-0,219	0,881	-0,122	-0,055	-0,019	-0,019
Moon (2002)	-0,228	0,823	-0,135	-0,094	-0,040	-0,139
Project Management Institute (2008)	-0,222	0,820	-0,120	-0,040	0,008	0,068
Winter, Smith, Morris, and Cicmil (2006)	-0,196	0,773	-0,109	-0,070	-0,048	-0,098
Yeo (1993)	-0,232	0,733	-0,137	-0,089	-0,020	-0,132
Cicmil, and Marshall (2005)	-0,263	0,688	-0,164	-0,111	-0,032	-0,154
Huang, Kwan, and Hung (2001)	-0,179	-0,134	0,915	-0,068	-0,018	-0,043
Potts (2009)	-0,179	-0,134	0,915	-0,068	-0,018	-0,043
Vrijhoef, and Koskela (2000)	-0,179	-0,134	0,915	-0,068	-0,018	-0,043
Love, Irani, and Edwards (2004)	-0,179	-0,134	0,915	-0,068	-0,018	-0,043
Abd, Mohammad, Mahbub, and Ismail (2011)	-0,179	-0,134	0,915	-0,068	-0,018	-0,043
Busby, and Hughes (2004)	-0,179	-0,134	0,915	-0,068	-0,018	-0,043
Ibrahim, Roy, Ahmed, and Imtiaz (2010)	-0,179	-0,134	0,915	-0,068	-0,018	-0,043
Horvath (2001)	-0,179	-0,134	0,915	-0,068	-0,018	-0,043
Eriksson, and Nilsson (2008)	-0,179	-0,134	0,915	-0,068	-0,018	-0,043
Ward, and Mitchell (2004)	-0,048	-0,127	-0,094	0,915	-0,052	-0,015
Zimmerer, and Yasin (1998)	-0,082	-0,133	-0,102	0,839	-0,037	-0,016
Brunetto, and Farr-Wharton (2003)	-0,082	-0,133	-0,102	0,839	-0,037	-0,016
Torres, and Pina (2004)	-0,082	-0,133	-0,102	0,839	-0,037	-0,016
Crawford, Costello, Pollack, and Bentley (2003)	-0,127	-0,106	-0,094	0,741	0,261	0,053
Baldry (1998)	-0,032	-0,178	-0,139	0,684	-0,073	-0,065
Melin, and Axelsson (2009)	-0,017	0,103	-0,089	0,650	-0,070	0,241
Ren, and Yeo (2004)	0,175	0,007	0,016	0,033	0,938	-0,067
Fageha, and Aibinu (2013)	0,119	-0,032	-0,017	0,033	0,875	-0,036
Nonaka (1994)	0,032	-0,077	-0,068	-0,049	0,799	0,065
Nicholas, and Steyn (2011)	0,065	-0,041	-0,024	-0,011	0,736	-0,089
Turner (2008)	-0,070	-0,086	-0,100	-0,062	0,545	0,475
Kwak, and Xiao Yi Dai (2000)	-0,024	-0,066	-0,083	0,008	0,036	0,828
Kerzner (2001)	0,092	-0,063	-0,053	0,021	-0,077	0,794
Cooke-Davies, and Arzymanov (2003)	0,136	-0,069	-0,078	0,036	-0,035	0,760
Thomas, and Mullaly (2008)	-0,170	-0,092	-0,126	0,025	0,171	0,646
Project Management Institute (2003)	-0,044	-0,049	-0,072	-0,063	0,009	0,545
Variance accumulated	26,3%	44,5%	57,3%	63,5%	68,1%	72,6%
Cronbach’s alpha	0,990	0,983	0,989	0,910	0,808	0,789

• a. Rotation converged in 9 iterations. Source: Elaborated by the authors.

Box 1
Identification of cocitation factors

For network analysis the density and cohesion measures of each of the six subgroups were calculated (Table 3). The density is a subnet indicator that represents the level of connection within each analyzed factor (Otte & Rousseau, 2002). As a bibliometric indicator, it reflects the degree to which various currents within the research field pursue their agendas with common ground. Thus, while the first four factors (project management capabilities, e-government and project contexts, integrated construction supply chain management, and public project management) present strong density, the factor called project management procedures and tools has a very low level of connection between the works considered. Complementarily, cohesion relates the density of a factor to its interconnectivity with other factors. In bibliometric applications, cohesion indicates the extent to which a research subfield follows an agenda independent of other discourses (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). In the research, the most intense cohesion is in the factor called project management skills, since it is present in discussions of the work of other factors. On the other hand, integrated construction supply chain management follows its own line that does not interact with the other factors.

Figure 3
Cocitation network

Table 3
Cocitation network metrics

Factor		# Works	Explained variance	Density	Cohesion (%)
	Capabilities in project management	24	26,30%	0,95	1,90
	Project context and e-government	17	18,20%	0,97	0,49
	Integrated construction supply chain management	9	12,80%	1,00	0,00
	Public project management	7	6,20%	0,90	0,59
	Procedures and project management tools	5	4,60%	0,10	0,02
	Maturity in project management.	5	4,50%	0,50	0,23
		67	72,6%

• Source: Elaborated by the authors.

It is also worth mentioning the centrality of the network. It is defined in terms of the degree of each node as the number of links between this work with others considered (Freeman, 1978). In the study, the works of Crawford (2005) and the Project Management Institute (2013) have degrees 47 and 43, respectively. This is due to the themes of the works that address project performance and establish a body of knowledge with widely used practices in project management.

3.2 Coupling

The bibliographic coupling was generated from the matrix of cooccurrence of references. Documents with at least 3 loops and 2 nodes were considered, resulting in 1 matrix composed of 51 articles. EFA allowed the identification of 14 factors for the 51 works. The reliability of each factor was analyzed resulting in the exclusion of 8 factors, as they were below the minimum value (Cronbach’s alpha < 0.7). Thus, the matrix of the rotating component (Table 4) is composed of 27 articles and 6 factors with total explained variance of 71.2%, following the recommendation of Vogel and Güttel (2013). Box 2 shows the identification of each matching factor.

Table 4
Rotated component matrixª

Papers	Factors
	PA1	PA2	PA3	PA4	PA5	PA6
Amoatey and Hayibor (2017)	0,847	-0,008	-0,099	-0,157	-0,052	0,058
Tileubayeva, Dabyltayeva, Makasheva, Medukhanova, and Bekmukhametova (2017)	0,808	-0,004	0,001	0,175	-0,045	-0,041
Pilkaite and Chmieliauskas (2015)	0,782	-0,028	-0,042	-0,201	-0,248	-0,065
Rosacker and Rosacker (2010)	0,768	0,071	-0,019	-0,071	0,123	-0,095
Souza, Teixeira, and Moura (2014)	0,767	-0,010	-0,023	0,341	-0,085	-0,057
Javani and Rwelamila (2016)	0,760	0,028	0,031	-0,006	0,003	-0,070
Khalema, Van Waveren, and Chan (2015)	0,758	-0,003	0,225	0,192	0,113	-0,059
Darrell, Baccarini, and Love (2010)	0,669	0,033	0,404	0,304	0,250	-0,086
Mihescu, Demeter, and T,apardel (2013)	0,605	-0,068	0,048	0,056	0,197	-0,004
Aubry and Brunet (2016)	0,524	-0,049	0,431	-0,167	-0,232	-0,262
Sarantis, Charalabidis, and Askounis (2011)	0,105	0,872	-0,029	-0,038	-0,034	0,244
Melin and Wihlborg (2018)	0,024	0,848	-0,082	-0,077	-0,078	0,198
Sarantis and Askounis (2009)	-0,052	0,829	-0,041	-0,055	-0,051	0,450
Sarantis, Smithson, and Charalabidis (2010)	0,017	0,778	-0,115	-0,104	-0,074	-0,304
Furlong and Al-Karaghouli (2010)	-0,013	0,729	-0,065	-0,054	-0,012	0,025
Sarantis, Charalabidis, and Askounis (2010)	-0,028	0,619	-0,055	-0,050	-0,071	0,478
Baharuddin and Yusof (2018)	0,004	-0,093	0,898	0,020	0,056	-0,014
Al-Rubaiei, Nifa, and Musa (2018)	0,004	-0,093	0,898	0,020	0,056	-0,014
Karagoz, Korthaus, and Augar (2016)	0,085	-0,108	0,874	0,006	0,047	-0,009
Adighibe, Skitmore, and Wong (2010)	-0,078	-0,019	0,313	0,783	0,118	-0,120
Brent (2005)	0,164	-0,110	-0,075	0,736	0,065	-0,088
Salaheldin, Sharif, and Alami (2010)	-0,205	-0,153	-0,206	0,669	-0,224	0,124
Brunetto and Farr-Wharton (2003)	-0,009	-0,109	-0,020	-0,034	0,860	0,008
Dey (2002)	-0,028	-0,095	0,029	0,016	0,842	0,034
Medeiros, Danjour, and Sousa (2017)	-0,028	-0,010	0,126	0,136	0,746	-0,106
Winter, Smith, Morris, and Cicmil (2006)	-0,128	0,183	-0,022	-0,106	0,028	0,882
Winter, Smith, Cooke-Davies, and Cicmil (2006)	-0,179	0,354	-0,046	0,008	-0,097	0,786
Variance accumulated	19,7%	34,3%	45,4%	54,3%	63,1%	71,2%
Cronbach’s alpha	0,903	0,784	0,901	0,701	0,781	0,808

• a Rotation converged in 6 interactions. Source: Elaborated by the authors.

Box 2
Identification of coupling factors

The network of bibliographic coupling (Figure 4) was created for the researched works, divided into the 6 factors. As can be observed, the factor PA1 - Project Management in the Public Sphere - is central and shares several references with the other factors, except with the PA5 - Government Policies and Project Management -, which seems to follow its own agenda. The works that make up the PA2 cluster - e-Government Projects - present an intense reference sharing. They focus the discussion on e-Government projects, with emphasis on the flaws that have occurred, and on the need to expand the empirical-conceptual discussions (Sarantis et al., 2010, 2011; Sarantis, Smithson, & Charalabidis, 2010).

Figure 4
Coupling network

Similarly, to what was done for the study of cocitations, the measures of density and cohesion of each of the six factors that make up the network were calculated, as shown in Table 5. All factors have strong density, i.e., a high degree of connection within each factor analyzed. As a bibliometric indicator, such result indicates a high degree with which several currents within the research field pursue their agendas with common bases. The most intense cohesion is in the factor called project management in the public sphere because it is present in discussions of the work of other factors. On the other hand, the factor called government policy and project management seems to follow its own line, since it does not interact with the other factors.

Table 5
Coupling network metrics

Factor		# Works	Explained variance	Density	Cohesion (%)
	Project management in the public sphere.	10	19,7%	0,844	3,31
	E-government projects	6	14,6%	0,867	2,14
	Informality in the management of public projects	3	11,1%	1,000	0,62
	Performance of public projects	3	8,9%	1,000	0,46
	Government policies and project management	3	8,8%	1,000	0,00
	Research Agenda in project management.	2	8,1%	1,000	0,74

• Source: Elaborated by the authors.

4. DISCUSSION

The results of the research make it possible to improve the contextualization and understanding of the connections between the authors and the main concepts they approach in the management of public projects. Based on the analysis of the 76 articles present in the Web of Science and Scopus, for the period between 1997 and 2018, the factorial analysis revealed 6 factors.

The first factor, called Capabilities in project management, is the broadest. It addressed issues related to skills, success, performance, and learning. These themes, in fact, present a relationship as in the work of Gruden and Stare (2018) on behavioral competencies and project performance, indicating the need to deepen their discussion, since, according to the authors, it may make sense to study the importance of individual competencies in relation to the types of projects. Alam, Gale, Brown, and Kidd (2008) explored the relationship between project management competencies, benefit metrics and learning outcomes. Their conclusions are in line with the study conducted by Crawford (2000) on the profiling of project managers’ competencies and their relationship to project success. Such divergences point the need for further research.

The second factor is called Project context and e-government. Anthopoulos, Reddick, Giannakidou, and Mavridis (2016) indicate the existence of a gap between e-Government project design and its effective implementation, leading to the investigation of such reasons. They explore the context by creating a taxonomy tool, which summarizes the reasons and factors for failures in public projects of this nature. The work of Yahya, Al-Munawar, and Tuan (2015) indicates association between critical success factors and e-Government project performance and, complementarily, points to the need for additional studies involving association between technical project management tasks and e-Government project performance in different contexts.

Factor 3 was named Integrated construction supply chain management.Rahimia, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, Shojaie, and Cheraghi (2017) present a design of an agile model for the management of the construction supply chain using a hybrid method involving Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and Fuzzy Logic, and recommend the application with the same model for project portfolio. The work of Brinkhoff, Özer, and Sargut (2014) on supply chain project success stories indicates that confidence, although a stronger predictor compared to asymmetric dependence, is necessary but not sufficient for supply chain project success, providing insights on how to effectively manage supply chain projects and alliances between companies.

The fourth factor deals with the Management of public projects. It addresses several issues related to project management in the public environment, with emphasis on results and efficiency, also discussing modernization and organizational change. Tileubayeva et al. (2017) describe the principles of project management and its peculiarities in the governmental sphere, showing a set of requirements for efficiency, productivity, and process control to achieve the defined goals and objectives. They suggest ways to create favorable conditions for the successful implementation of project management in government, paving the way for new research in this environment.

Factor 5 deals with Project management procedures and tools. Seeks to identify means (procedures and tools) to achieve favorable organizational results. In this sense, Doskočil (2016) examines the level of use of methods, techniques and tools in management and their impact on the success of the project, also concluding that the use of modeling techniques is not well disseminated.

Factor 6, Project management maturity, has its focus on management evaluation and continuous improvement, measuring the organizational results achieved through the implementation of project management practices. According to Langston and Ghanbaripour (2016), organizations are more likely to deliver successful projects if they have a mature project environment based on a culture of continuous improvement. For this reason, they encourage the adoption of maturity measurement models in pursuit of increasing project success.

The cocitation and coupling networks, as well as the respective factor analyses, made it possible to generate a framework for integrating factors from the most frequent citations (Figure 5).

Figure 5
Factor integration

The PA3 factor deals with informality in the management of public projects and relies predominantly on project management procedures and tools (CC5). It indicates the prevalence of the conversion mode named, by Nonaka (1994), as socialization as the main (informal) process for the transmission of knowledge (tacit-tacit) in public projects. It uses the procedure developed by Fageha and Aibinu (2013) to manage the project scope and Ren and Yeo (2004), who proposed a risk management maturity model for complex projects. It indicates the need for public project managers to adopt formal processes, which, according to Nicholas and Steyn (2011) and Turner (2008), are fundamental for the achievement of the pre-established objectives.

The PA2 factor deals with e-Government. It is based on, mainly, to the CC2 factor, called Context of projects and e-Government. The literature points out different types of e-Government projects (Bhatnagar, 2007; Heeks, 2006), which requires specific managerial approaches, under penalty of failure (Collins & Bicknell, 1997; Heeks, 2003b; Iacovou, 1999; James, 1997). Although there is disagreement on how success is measured (Collins & Bicknell, 1997; James, 1997), there are indications that a high percentage of projects have partial or total failures (Heeks, 2003a). Thus, managerial, political, and legal factors have been identified as important elements to be taken into consideration in the elaboration and development of e-Government initiatives (Gil-Garcia & Pardo, 2005). As a characteristic of this nature, they require flexibility and capacity to deal with change (Gupta et al., 2004).

The PA6 factor, called the Project Management Research Agenda, is also anchored in CC2, which deals with the Context of projects and e-Government. The low success rate brings elements for reflection. Experience shows that people are the one who deliver successful projects, not methods and tools. The ability of people to engage intelligently and creativity with the complexity of projects is fundamental for positive results (Cicmil & Marshall, 2005). In this way, the agenda draws attention to ontological and epistemological studies in project management. There is a need to develop new models and theories that recognize and illuminate increasingly complex projects (Winter et al., 2006).

The PA1 factor - project management in public administration - is the most comprehensive component of the study. It uses CC1 when discussing the competencies of project managers (Birkhead, Sutherland, & Maxwell, 2000; Boyatzis, 1982; Brill, Bishop, & Walker, 2006; Dainty, Cheng, & Moore, 2005; Fisher, 2011; Toney, 2001; Udo & Koppensteiner, 2004) and particularities of public project managers (Virtanen, 2000). It also deals with project management practices (Crawford & Pollack, 2007; Kerzner, 2003; Morris, 2001; Project Management Institute, 2008, 2013) in the public environment (Wirick, 2009). It addresses the issue of project management skills (Crawford, 2005), linking to project management in the public sector (Rwelamila, 2007; Thamhain, 1991). This factor is also used in CC4 articles when expanding the discussions on the evolution of public project management, involving information technology (Crawford et al., 2003; Melin, & Axelsson, 2009). The articles that make up the CC6 factor are also referenced when discussing maturity in project management (Cooke-Davies & Arzymanov, 2003; Kerzner, 2001; Project Management Institute, 2003) and value of PMOs (Kwak & Xiao Yi Dai, 2000).

The PA5 factor addresses issues of government policy and project management. A study on management competencies presents the political competence of public project managers as a value in the implementation of project management culture in the new public management environment (Virtanen, 2000) present in the CC1 factor. The PA5 factor highlights the relationship between the two mentioned themes. As a highlight, it discusses the performance of the public project manager in the political environment (Rwelamila, 2007; R. Young et al., 2012).

5. CONSIDERATIONS

This research aimed to analyze public projects management publications by searching the Web of Science and Scopus databases. The study revealed that the number of publications increased year after year, which indicates growing concern and interest of researchers in this topic. In a practical way, the study presents two main contributions. First, presents the research trends, as well as the main topics under discussion. Then indicates the conceptual structure on which the most recent articles were anchored. It draws attention to the considerable percentage of studies on project management skills, since it directly impacts project results and organizational strategies. Also, noteworthy the amount of work dealing with e-government, given the number of projects that fails.

Inevitably, this study presented some limitations. The first can be defined in terms of the scope’s research. As disadvantage, two databases were defined, possibly not considering periodicals that could also approach the subject in focus. Hence, if the journal’s scope were expanded, there would be the possibility of presenting broader results (factors), both in the analysis of citations and in the analysis of coupling. However, it is certain that the chosen bases (Web of Science and Scopus) gather the most relevant journals when talking about project management. The second limitation is a direct consequence of the bibliometric technique. The method is anchored in the quantitative aspects of the production, dissemination and use of the registered information (vision of amplitude), although an analysis of the texts has also been carried out to understand their relationship. Additionally, a qualitative analysis could be recommended, by means of a systematic review of the literature, to complement the discussions on public project management.

The research made it possible to identify the need for reflection on some specific points in public project management. It opens possibilities for new studies involving the appropriation of existing theories in other areas of knowledge and to apply them to public project management. It enlarge the discussion on the complexity of public projects, vision of public projects as social processes, value creation in projects, sustainability of public projects, proposition of maturity model for public project management, evaluation of effectiveness of public projects, management of stakeholders of public projects, management of portfolio of public projects and learning and knowledge management in public projects.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES).

• [Translated version ] Note: All quotes in English translated by this article’s translator

REFERÊNCIAS

• Abd, A. S., Mohammad, M. F., Mahbub, R., & Ismail, F. (2011). Supply chain integration in industrialized building system in the Malaysian construction industry. The Built and Human Environment Review, 4(1), 108-121.
• Adighibe, C., Skitmore, M., & Wong, J. (2010). The management of transport construction projects: a survey of public sector organisations in Queensland Australia. International Journal of Construction Management, 10(1), 17-33.
• Alam, M., Gale, W. G., Brown, M., & Kidd, C. (2008). The development and delivery of an industry led project management professional development programme: a case study in project management education and success management. International Journal of Project Management, 26(3), 223-237.
• Al-Emadi, A., & Anouze, A. L. (2018). Grounded theory analysis of successful implementation of e-government projects: exploring perceptions of e-government authorities. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 14(1), 23-52.
• Al-Rubaiei, Q. H. S., Nifa, F. A. A., & Musa, S. (2018). Project scope management effect on variation orders in government funded projects: a proposed study on the sultanate of Oman. Malaysian Construction Research Journal, 3(1), 52-62.
• Amoatey, C., & Hayibor, M. V. K. (2017). Critical success factors for local government project stakeholder management. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 7(2), 143-156.
• Andersen, E. A., Grude, K. V., & Hague, T. (1987). Goal directed project management London, UK: Kogan Page.
• Anthopoulos, L., Reddick, C. G., Giannakidou, I., & Mavridis, N. (2016). Why e-government projects fail? An analysis of the Healthcare.gov website. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 161-173.
• Aubry, M., & Brunet, M. (2016). Organizational design in public administration: categorization of project management offices. Project Management Journal, 47(5), 107-129.
• Baharuddin, B., & Yusof, M. M. (2018). Evaluation of risk management practices in information systems project in the public sector. Jurnal Pengurusan, 53, 1-20.
• Baldry, D. (1998). The evolution of risk management in public sector capital projects. International Journal of Project Management, 16(1), 35-41.
• Barber, E. (2004). Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking. International Journal of Project Management, 22(4), 301-307.
• Besner, C., & Hobbs, B. J. (2006). The perceived value and potential contribution of project management practices to project success. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 37-48.
• Bhatnagar, J. (2007). Talent management strategy of employee engagement in Indian ITES employees: key to retention. Employee Relations, 29(6), 640-663.
• Birkhead, M., Sutherland, M., & Maxwell, T. (2000). Core competencies of project managers. South African Journal of Business Management, 31(3), 99-106.
• Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET 6 for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
• Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: a model for effective performance New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
• Brent, A. C. (2005). The application of life cycle management in decision making for sustainable development at government and corporate level: the integration of project, asset and product life cycles. Progress in Industrial Ecology, 2(2), 223-235.
• Brill, J. M., Bishop, M. J., & Walker, A. E. (2006). The competencies and characteristics required of an effective project manager: a web-based Delphi Study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(2), 115-140.
• Brinkhoff, A., Özer, Ö., & Sargut, G. (2014). All you need is trust? An examination of inter-organizational supply chain projects. Production and Operations Management, 24(2), 181-200.
• Brunetto, Y., & Farr-Wharton, R. (2003). The impact of government practice on the ability of project managers to manage. International Journal of Project Management, 21(2), 125-133.
• Busby, J. S., & Hughes, E. J. (2004). Projects, pathogens and incubation periods. International Journal of Project Management, 22(5), 425-434.
• Cicmil, S., & Marshall, D. (2005). Insights into collaboration at project level: complexity, social interaction and procurement mechanisms. Building Research & Information, 33(6), 523-535.
• Collins, T., & Bicknell, D. (1997). Crash: learning from the world’s worst computer disasters New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
• Cooke-Davies, T., & Arzymanov, A. (2003). The maturity of project management in different industries: an investigation into variations between project management models. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 471-478.
• Crawford L. H. (2000, June). Profiling the competent project manager. In Proceedings of the 2000 PMI Research Conference (pp. 3-15). Paris, France.
• Crawford, L. H. (2005). Senior management perceptions of project management competence. International Journal of Project Management, 23(1), 7-16.
• Crawford, L. H., Costello, K., Pollack, J., & Bentley, L. (2003). Managing softchange projects in the public sector. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 443-448.
• Crawford, L. H., & Helm, J. (2009). Government and governance: the value of project management in the public sector. Project Management Journal, 40(1), 73-87.
• Crawford, L. H., & Pollack, J. (2007). How generic are project management knowledge and practice?Project Management Journal, 38(1), 87-97.
• Culnan, M. J., O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1990). Intellectual structure of research in organizational behavior, 1972-1984: a cocitation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6), 453-458.
• Dainty, A. R. J., Cheng, M. I., & Moore, D. R. (2005). A comparison of the behavioral competencies of client-focused and production-focused project managers in the construction sector. Project Management Journal, 36(2), 39-48.
• Damoah, I. S., Akwei, C. A., Amoako, I. O., & Botchie, D. (2018). Corruption as a source of government project failure in developing countries: evidence from Ghana. Project Management Journal, 49(3), 17-33.
• Darrell, V., Baccarini, D., & Love, P. E. D. (2010). Demystifying the folklore of the accidental project manager in the public sector. Project Management Journal, 41(5), 56-63.
• Dey, P. K. (2002). Application of analytic hierarchy process to benchmarking of project management performance: an application in the Caribbean public sector. Vikalpa, 27(2), 29-48.
• Doskočil, R. (2016). The level of use of project management methods, techniques and tools and their impact on project success - selected region of Czech Republic. Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences, 24(1), 14-24.
• Eriksson, P. E., & Nilsson, T. (2008). Partnering the construction of a Swedish pharmaceutical plant: case study. Journal of Management in Engineering, 24(4), 227-233.
• Fageha, M. K., & Aibinu, A. A. (2013). Managing project scope definition to improve stakeholders’ participation and enhance project outcome. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 74, 154-164.
• Fávero, L. P., Belfiore, P., Silva, F. L., & Chan, B. L. (2009). Análise de dados: modelagem multivariada para tomada de decisões(5th ed.). Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Elsevier.
• Fisher, E. (2011). What practitioners consider to be the skills and behaviours of an effective people project manager. International Journal of Project Management, 29(8), 994-1002.
• Freeman, L. C. (1978). Centrality in social networks: conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215-239.
• Furlong, S., & Al-Karaghouli, W. (2010). Delivering professional projects: the effectiveness of project management in transformational e-government initiatives. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 4(1), 73-94.
• Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Pardo, T. (2005). E-government success factors: mapping practical tools to theoretical foundations. Government Information Quarterly, 22(2), 187-216.
• Gomes, C. F., Yasin, M. M., & Small, M. H. (2012). Discerning interrelationships among the knowledge, competencies, and roles of project managers in the planning and implementation of public sector projects. International Journal of Public Administration, 35(5), 315-328.
• Gracio, M. C. C. (2016). Pareamento bibliográfico e análise de cocitação: revisão teórico-conceitual. Revista Eletrônica de Biblioteconomia e Ciência da Informação, 21(47), 82-99.
• Gruden, N., & Stare, A. (2018). The influence of behavioral competencies on project performance. Project Management Journal, 49(3), 98-109.
• Gupta, M., Kumar, P., & Bhattacharya, J. (2004). Government online opportunities and challenges New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Habib, R., & Afzal, M. T. (2019). Sections-based bibliographic coupling for research paper recommendation. Scientometrics, 119, 643-656.
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2009). Análise multivariada de dados(6a ed.). Porto Alegre, RS: Bookman.
• Heeks, R. (2003a). Causes of egovernment success and failure: factor model Manchester, UK: Institute for Development Policy and Management.
• Heeks, R. (2003b). Most egovernment-for-development projects fail: how can risks be reduced? (i-Government Working Paper Series). Manchester, UK: University of Manchester.
• Heeks, R. (2006). Implementing and managing egovernment: an international text London, UK: SAGE.
• Horvath, L. (2001). Collaboration: the key to value creation in supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 6(5), 205-207.
• Iacovou, C. (1999). The IPACS project: when IT hits the fan. Journal of Information Technology, 14(2), 267-275.
• Ibrahim, A. R., Roy, M. H., Ahmed, Z., & Imtiaz, G. (2010). An investigation of the status of the Malaysian construction industry. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 17(2), 294-308.
• Irani, Z., Love, P., Elliman, T., Jones, S., & Themistocleous, M. (2005). Evaluating e-government: learning from the experiences of two UK local authorities. Information Systems Journal, 15(1), 61-82.
• Islam, S. (2016). Public sector project management practices & performance evaluation performed by public works department (PWD) (MA Dissertation). BRAC University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
• Jaeger, P. T. (2003). The endless wire: e-government as global phenomenon. Government Information Quarterly, 20, 323-331.
• Jaeger, P. T., & Thompson, K. M. (2003). E-government around the world: lessons, challenges, and future directions. Government Information Quarterly, 20, 389-394.
• James, G. (1997). IT fiascoes and how to avoid them. Datamation, 43(11), 84-88.
• Jarneving, B. (2007). Bibliographic coupling and its application to research-front and other core documents. Journal of Informetrics, 1(4), 287-307.
• Judgev, K. (2004). Project management as a strategic asset: what does it look like and how do organizations get there? In D. P. Slevin, D. L. Cleland, & J. K. Pinto (Eds.), Innovations: Project Management Research 2004(pp. 161-174). Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
• Karagoz, Y., Korthaus, A., & Augar, N. (2016). How do ICT project managers manage project knowledge in the public sector? An empirical enquiry from the Victorian public sector in Australia. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 20, 1-20.
• Kerzner, H. (2001). Strategic planning for project management using a project management maturity model New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons .
• Kerzner, H. (2003). Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons .
• Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14(1), 10-25.
• Khalema, L. S., Van Waveren, C. C., & Chan, K.-Y. (2015). The relationship between project management office maturity and organisational project management maturity: an empirical study of the South African government infrastructure departments. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 26(3), 12-26.
• Kwak, Y. H., & Xiao Yi Dai, C. (2000). Assessing the value of project management offices (PMO). In Proceedings of the 2000 PMI Research Conference Paris, France.
• Langston, C., & Ghanbaripour, A. N. (2016). A management maturity model (MMM) for project-based organisational performance assessment. Construction Economics and Building, 16(4), 68-85.
• Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317-323.
• Love, P. E. D., Irani, Z., & Edwards, D. J. (2004). A seamless supply chain management model for construction. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9(1), 43-56.
• Marôco, J. (2018). Análise estatística com o SPSS Statistics(7a ed.). Pero Pinheiro, Portugal: ReportNumber.
• Mathur, G., Jugdev, K., & Fung, T. S. (2014). The relationship between project management process characteristics and performance outcomes. Management Research Review, 37(11), 990-1015.
• Medeiros, B. C., Danjour, M. F., & Sousa, M. V., Neto. (2017). Gerenciamento de projetos: contribuições para a governança de TI no setor público brasileiro. Revista Gestão & Tecnologia, Pedro Leopoldo, 17(1), 54-78.
• Melin, U., & Axelsson, K. (2009). Managing e-service development: comparing two e-government case studies. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 3(3), 248-270.
• Melin, U., & Wihlborg, E. (2018). Balanced and integrated e-government implementation - exploring the crossroad of public policy-making and information systems project management processes. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 12(2), 191-208.
• Mendes, M. (2009). Eficiência no gasto público no Brasil: incentivos na alocação de recursos públicos. In P. C. Medeiros, & E. Levy (Orgs.), Novos caminhos da gestão pública: olhares e dilemas (pp. 57-77). Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Qualitymark.
• Meredith, J., & Mantel, S. (2000). Project management: a managerial approach New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
• Mihǎescu, C., & Tapardel, A. (2013). A public administration based on project management. Administration and Public Management, 20, 97-107.
• Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: rhetoric or reality? Public Administration Review, 62(2), 424-433.
• Morris, P. W. G. (2001). Updating the project management bodies of knowledge. Project Management Journal, 32(3), 21-30.
• Nicholas, J. M., & Steyn, H. (2011). Project management for business, engineering, and technology: principles and practice (3a ed.). Boston, MA: Elsevier.
• Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.
• Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28(6), 441-453.
• Persson, O., Danell, J., & Schneider, J. W. (2009). How to use Bibexcel for various types of bibliometric analysis. In O. Persson, J. Danell, & J. W. Schneider. (Eds.), Celebrating scholarly communication studies: a Festschrift for Olle Persson at his 60th Birthday (pp. 9-24). Leuven, Belgium: International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics.
• Pilkaite, A., & Chmieliauskas, A. (2015). Changes in public sector management: establishment of project management offices - a comparative case study of Lithuania and Denmark. Public Policy and Administration, 14(2), 291-306.
• Potts, K. (2009). Construction supply chain management: concept and case study Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
• Project Management Institute. (2003). Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3). Newton Square, PA: Autor.
• Project Management Institute. (2008). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (4th ed.). Newton Square, PA: Autor .
• Project Management Institute. (2013). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK Guide) (5th ed.). Newtown Square, PA: Autor.
• Quevedo-Silva, F., Biagi Almeida Santos, E., Moll Brandão, M., & Vils, L. (2016). Estudo bibliométrico. Orientações sobre sua aplicação. Revista Brasileira de Marketing, 15(2), 246-262.
• Rahimia, Y., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Shojaieb, S., & Cheraghi, I. (2017). Design of an innovative construction model for supply chain management by measuring agility and cost of quality: an empirical study. Scientia Iranica, 24(5), 2515-2526.
• Rego, M., & Silva, T. (2011). Desafios na implantação do escritório de gerenciamento de projetos em um governo estadual. Revista Economia & Gestão, 11(27), 151-180.
• Ren, Y. T., & Yeo, K. T. (2004). Risk management capability maturity model for complex product systems (CoPS) projects. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Engineering Management Conference, Singapore (pp. 807-811).
• Rosacker, K. M., & Rosacker, R. E. (2010). Information technology project management within public sector organizations. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 23(5), 587-594.
• Rwelamila, P. M. D. (2007). Project management competence in public sector infrastructure organisations. Construction Management and Economics, 25(1), 55-66.
• Saraiva, L., & Capelão, L. (2000). A nova administração pública e o foco no cidadão: burocracia ? marketing? Revista de Administração Pública, 34(2), 59-77.
• Sarantis, D., & Askounis, D. (2009). Electronic criminal record in Greece: project management approach and lessons learned in public administration. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 25, 132-146.
• Sarantis, D., Charalabidis, Y., & Askounis, D. (2010). A goal-driven management approach based on knowledge exploitation for e-government projects. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 6(3), 14-30.
• Sarantis, D., Charalabidis, Y., & Askounis, D. (2011). A goal-driven management framework for electronic government transformation projects implementation. Government Information Quarterly, 28(1), 117-128.
• Sarantis, D., Smithson, S., Charalabidis, Y., & Askounis, D. (2010). A critical assessment of project management methods with respect to electronic government implementation challenges. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 23(4), 301-321.
• Seibert, J. M. (2004). The identification of strategic management counseling competencies essential for the small business and technology development centre: a modified Delphi Study (Ph.D. Dissertation). North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
• Serra, F. A. R., Cirani, C. B. S., & Moutinho, J. A. (2019). Dicas sobre estudos bibliométricos - dúvidas frequentes relacionadas ao comentário editorial Doing Bibliometric Reviews for the Iberoamerican Journal of Strategic Management Revista Iberoamericana de Estratégia, 18(3), 1-16.
• Serra, F., Ferreira, M., Guerrazzi, L., & Scaciotta, V. (2018). Doing bibliometric reviews for the Iberoamerican Journal of Strategic Management Iberoamerican Journal of Strategic Management, 17(3), 1-16.
• Shah, S. I. H., Khan, A. Z., Bokhari, R. H., & Raza, M. A. (2011). Exploring the impediments of successful ERP implementation: a case study in a public organization. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(22), 289-296.
• Shivambu, X., & Thwala, W. D. (2019). Assessment of the delays in the delivery of public sector projects in South Africa. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 903, 902-908.
• Skulmoski, G., Hartman, G., & Demaere, R. (2000). Superior and threshold project competences. Project Management, 6(1), 10-15.
• Small, H. (1973). Cocitation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265-269.
• Smiraglia, R. P. (2011). ISKO 11’s diverse bookshelf: an editorial. Knowledge Organization, 38(3), 179-186.
• Souza, M. B. B., Teixeira, J. G. A., Filho, & Moura, H. P. (2014). Strategic planning in IS/IT: best practices for project management in government organization in Brazil. IEEE Latin America Transactions, 12(8), 1608-1614.
• Standish Group(2004) Third quarter research report. Recuperado de http://www.standishgroup.com
  » http://www.standishgroup.com
• Swan, J., Scarborough, H., & Newell, S. (2010). Why don’t (or do) organizations learn from projects? Management Learning, 41(3), 325-344.
• Thamhain, H. J. (1991). Developing project management skills. Project Management Journal, 22(3), 39-44.
• Thomas, J., & Mullaly, M. E. (2008). Researching the value of project management Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
• Tileubayeva, M., Dabyltayeva, N., Makasheva, K., Medukhanova, L., & Bekmukhametova, A. (2017). Project management in the public administration: evidence from Kazakhstan. International Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(4), 146-151.
• Toney, F. (2001). The superior project manager: global competency standard and best practices New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
• Torres, L., & Pina, V. (2004). Reshaping public administration: the Spanish experience compared to The UK. Public Administration, 82(2), 445-464.
• Turner, J. R. (2008). The handbook of project-based management: improving the processes for achieving strategic objectives (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill .
• Udo, N., & Koppensteiner, S. (2004, abril). What are the core competencies of a successful project manager? In 2004 PMI Global Congress Prague, Czech Republic.
• Virtanen, T. (2000). Changing competencies of public sector managers: tensions in commitment. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(4), 333-341.
• Vogel, R., & Güttel, W. H. (2013). The dynamic capability view in strategic management: a bibliometric review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(4), 426-446.
• Vrijhoef, R., & Koskela, L. (2000). The four roles of supply chain management in construction. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 6(3), 169-178.
• Ward, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (2004). A comparison of the strategic priorities of public and private sector information resource management executives. Government Information Quarterly, 21(3), 284-304.
• Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: methods and applications New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Williams, T., Vo, H., Bourne, M., Bourne, P., Cooke-Davies, T., Kirkham, R. ... Valette, J. (2019). A cross-national comparison of public project benefits management practices - the effectiveness of benefits management frameworks in application. Production Planning & Control, 31(8), 644-659.
• Winter, M., Smith, C., Cooke-Davies, T., & Cicmil, S. (2006). The importance of ‘process’ in rethinking project management: the story of a UK government-funded research network. International Journal of Project Management, 24(8), 650-662.
• Winter, M., Smith, C., Morris, P., & Cicmil, S. (2006). Directions for future research in project management: the main findings of a UK government-funded research network. International Journal Project Management, 24, 638-649.
• Wirick, D. W. (2009). Public-sector project management: meeting the challenges and achieving results Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
• Yahya M. A., Al-Munawar, N., & Tuan, Y. C. (2015). Critical success factor on e-government it projects in Brunei Darussalam. International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research, 13(8), 6529-6652.
• Yasin, M. M., Gomes, C. F., & Miller, P. E. (2009). Characteristics of Portuguese public-sector project managers: toward closing the effectiveness gap. Project Management Journal, 40(3), 47-55.
• Young, R., Young, M., Jordan, E., & O’Connor, P. (2012). Is strategy being implemented through projects? Contrary evidence from a leader in new public management. International Journal of Project Management, 30(8), 887-900.
• Zimmerer, T. W., & Yasin, M. M. (1998). A leadership profile of American managers. Project Management Journal, 29(1), 31-38.
• Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  02 Nov 2020
• Date of issue
  Sep-Oct 2020

History

• Received
  15 Sept 2019
• Accepted
  29 Apr 2020