The future of the managementof projects in the 2030s

Derek WalkerSchool of Property Construction and Project Management, RMIT University,

Melbourne, Australia, andBeverley Lloyd-Walker

Centre for Integrated Project Solutions, Property,Construction and Project Management, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

AbstractPurpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore recent literature on the impact of changes in the workplaceenvironment and projected trends through to the year 2030. This allows the authors to identify and discusswhat key trends are changing the nature of project organising work. The authors aim to identify whatknowledge and which skills, attributes and experiences will be most likely valued and needed in 2030.Design/methodology/approach – This paper is essentially a reflective review and is explorative in nature.The authors focus on several recent reports published in the UK and Australia that discuss the way that thefuture workforce will adapt and prepare for radical changes in the workplace environment. The authors focuson project organising work and the changing workplace knowledge, skills, attributes and experience (KSAE)needs of those working in project teams in 2030 and beyond. The authors draw upon existing KSAE literatureincluding findings from a study undertaken into the KSAEs of project alliance managers working in a highlycollaborative form of project delivery.Findings – The analysis suggests that there is good and bad news about project workers prospects in 2030.The good news is that for those working in non-routine roles their work will be more interesting andrewarding than is the case for today. The bad news is that for workers in routine work roles, they will bereplaced by advanced digital technology.Research limitations/implications – Few, if any, papers published in the project organising literaturespeculate about what this discipline may look like or what KSAEs will be valued and needed.Practical implications – This paper opens up a debate about how project management/project organisingwork will be undertaken in future and what skills and expertise will be required. It also prompts projectmanagers to think about how they will craft their careers in 2030 in response to expected work environmentdemands. This will have professional and learning implications.Social implications – The issue of the future workplace environment is highly relevant to thesocial context.Originality/value – This paper is about a projected future some 12 years onward from today. It bridges a gapin any future debate about how project organising jobs may change and how they will be delivered in the 2030s.Keywords Skills and capabilities, Project practice, Project management, Work-life experiencePaper type Research paper

1. IntroductionThe field of project management/project organising (PM) has for decades been expandingrapidly in recognition of the scope and its range of perspectives (Dalcher, 2016; Hodgson andCicmil, 2016; Svejvig and Grex, 2016; van der Hoorn, 2016; Walker and Lloyd-Walker, 2016).Projectification of work continues to proliferate. What used to be managed as operationalprocesses are now increasingly managed as projects (Midler, 1995; Midler and Beaume,2010). Governments are increasingly delivering policy through projects, despite concernsthat this may be elevating sectional interest of identified project stakeholders over the moregeneral public interest (Sjöblom and Godenhjelm, 2009, p. 183). This implies a prospect forincreased job and career opportunity for project workers due to increasing projectification ofbusiness and government project work may offer.

International Journal of ManagingProjects in BusinessVol. 12 No. 2, 2019pp. 242-266© Emerald Publishing Limited1753-8378DOI 10.1108/IJMPB-02-2018-0034

Received 28 February 2018Revised 21 August 201827 September 2018Accepted 27 September 2018

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:www.emeraldinsight.com/1753-8378.htm

This paper forms part of a special section “World views on projects and society”.

242

IJMPB12,2

Project work is not only undertaken by project-based organisations, constructioncompanies, for example, but also by project-oriented organisation that use projects as a vehiclefor delivery strategy and transformation (Andersen, 2008; Lundin et al., 2015). Institutions suchas the Project Management Institute (PMI) paint a rosy picture for future PM team jobs in its“2018 lobs report” (Rockwood, 2018). However, there are strong reasons to question some of theunderlying questions posed by that report. For example, the report does not rigorously explorehow future contextual trends may change the required nature of knowledge, skills, attributesand experience (KSAE) to be engaged in highly complex projects nor does it suggest howproject managers in the future may craft their careers. It also has a focus on “selling” its projectmanager professional (PMP) certification through quotes from individuals with a PMPwho discuss the “gig” economy and what it means to them but the PMP is heavily based on thePMI’s body of knowledge (PMBoK) such as its fifth edition (PMI, 2013). That version does nottake into account many of the soft-skills areas required to deal with a digitalised economy and itdoes not acknowledge that many projects are generally highly complex with many unknown-unknowns (Kurtz and Snowden, 2003; Snowden and Boone, 2007). Career opportunityprospects may be exciting for some project practitioners but may present challenges for othersdue to the likely impact of technology advances such as artificial intelligence (AI) and the use ofrobots (United Kingdom Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES), 2014; CEDA, 2015).

Future PM career prospects present a quandary: should project practitioners bepositively excited or negatively depressed by the paradox of advanced digitisation ofproject delivery? AI and use of robots advances make work easier but perhaps at the costof lost jobs and livelihoods.

Five foresight reports provide a useful background context to this paper in exploringtrends and scenarios of the workplace of the future. The five reports were chosen to capturea wide set of global insights as well as reports that dealt with the general transformation ofwork envisaged for the future as well as reports that specifically focus on projectmanagement future work. These reports are briefly summarised as follows:

(1) The UKCES (2014) report states it purpose as presenting “[…] the results of TheFuture of Work study which looks ahead to the labour market of 2030. It analysesstable trends that are already shaping the future of UK jobs and skills, and forecaststhe most likely disruptions to those trends. It then plots four anticipated scenarios ofwhat the UK’s work landscape might look like in 2030, and importantly, the skillsthat will be required under these conditions” (p. vi).

(2) The CEDA (2015) report presents a series of chapters about Australia’s future workforcewritten by academic and practitioner experts in their field. Chapter sections includeglobal trends that include seven chapters on the impact of disruptive digital technologiesincluding case studies of ground-breaking current advanced technology applications thatprovide insights into the future. It also has sections with chapters about how theeconomy is adapting and reacting to changes already in place. The section on “the futureworker” with chapters relating to demographic generational and gender issues providesinsights from both the worker and employer perspective. It also has a five-chaptersection on policy responses to the emerging radical changes in work practices.

(3) The PwC (2017) foresight report from their consultancy headquartered in London, UK,builds on work “[…] with the James Martin Institute for Science and Civilisation at theSaid Business School in Oxford to develop a map of the factors that were influencingbusiness and those that would become more influential in the future” (p. 32). The reportdiscusses 2030 job change impacts through development of four scenario projections.A section of the report discusses augmentation of AI and robots and its opportunity to areceptive workforce. It also discusses social and policy impacts through its scenarios.

243

Managementof projects

in the 2030s

(4) The future of work in the digital transformation report that describes the FourthIndustrial Revolution ( Jacobs et al., 2017) provides a highly well-informed Germanperspective of advanced technology adoption and adaptation. This is useful as itdiscusses change from an opportunities perspective. It has a strong focus on theimportance of worker’s lifelong learning and how industry might be supportivepartners in this aim.

(5) The future of project management report (Arup, 2017) is focused on future trendsand drivers of changing careers and job roles of project management team membersstretching out into the future. This report also uses a combination of academicliterature inputs together with scenarios.

Common general workplace assumptions made in each of their five reports that provide ameasure of triangulation of content include:

(1) Fierce global competition with development of the digital economy enabling peopleto offer their services virtually, being based anywhere in the globe.

(2) The pace of wider people-to-people and things-to-people connectivity and computingpower has increased drastically from recent years and that “Big Data”, gatheringand storage of digital transactions through “the Internet of Things” and adigital-based economy means that there is truly massive amount of data about everyaspect of people’s lives. Thus, it will become possible for AI machine applications todetect trends, patterns and potential opportunities as well as to monitor and helpcontrol actions for a range of applications.

(3) AI will allow machines to be far more effective and efficient than people at detectingpatterns and trends in data as well as to rapidly search vast data storage facilitiesfor meaningful information. AI may be able to be programmed to take the next stepfrom accessing information and data to suggest decisions. It will be possible for AIto make decisions and take action.

(4) Robotics will develop along with AI to allow machines to be able to physicallyundertake almost all the routine tasks manually undertaken today. Tiny repairrobots for example repairing things in small ducts, pipes and inside very smallspaces. Furthermore, machines may be far superior to people because robotsundertaking delicate operations can be scaled. For example, keyhole surgery iscurrently undertaken using robot-assisted machinery and tiny robots may be able toswarm to repair things that have miniscule access points or can be scaled as largemachines that autonomously manoeuvre themselves. The mining industry inAustralia already uses remotely controlled trucks (Gollschewski, 2015).

(5) Immersive communication technologies are the next-stage 3D virtual realityapplications. These allow virtual meetings to be held more effectively as people canappear to be present in 3D. This technology also allows people to “feel” as if they aresomewhere inside a building for example perceiving it at a human-scalevisualisation by “fly-through”. This may be from a “helicopter” view or enlargingthe view within a tiny space such as a pipe or duct.

(6) Demographic shifts in which four generational cohorts from baby boomers toMillenniums will need to work together respectfully accepting each cohort’s experienceof historical shifts in workplace practice and technology. The broad spectrum ofexperience helps overcome corporate and personal amnesia so that a richer contextualanalysis is possible. The UKCES (2014, p. 107) report, for example, claims that“By 2020, over 50 per cent of the workforce are expected to be Generation Y members

244

IJMPB12,2

who have grown up connected, collaborative and mobile”. UKCES (2014, p. 107) alsocites a UK thought leader as observing that “Different generations have to understandeach other. Fostering intergenerational solidarity in the workplace is extremelyimportant to future business performance”.

This suggests several questions specifically addressed to a PM context to be addressed inthis paper:

RQ1. What will the general workplace landscape look like for project managers andteam members in the 2030s?

RQ2. How will this workplace landscape relate to the values of society, business andprofessional project managers and their team members?

RQ3. Which core KSAEs will prepare them, sustain their career and deliver value totheir clients?

The paper is structured as follows. The next section briefly explains the research approachand underlying ontological and epistemological assumptions. This establishes the basis ofthe paper in explaining how we see the world and therefore how we interpret the literaturewe review. This is followed by a discussion of the literature and how the research questionsmay be addressed by that literature. We then discuss the evidence and foresight projectionsin the selected literature that address each of the three questions. Finally, we summarise ourpaper and suggest further research that may usefully complement this discussion paper.

2. The research approachThis discussion paper explores propositions that have been made in five selected foresightreports and related literature, to firmly position the implications of expected future trends onthe emerging project management environment. This is not an empirical research paper; ouraim is to identify potentially fruitful future empirical research avenues. Through focussedreflection on recent literature we explore how the business and workplace landscape maylook in 15–20 years’ time.

Our research can be seen as taking a snowball approach because it started with a chancediscussion about what changes we have seen in our careers over the past four or fivedecades and wondering what changes lie in store for the young graduates that we teach PMat a master’s degree level. Our attention was drawn towards a recent report on what skillsand experience Australia’s future workforce may be needed to work in the coming decades(CEDA, 2015). This led us to notice a number of foresight and future scenario reports fromthink-tank organisations (UKCES, 2014; Jacobs et al., 2017) and global consulting groups(Arup, 2017; PwC, 2017). Our aims and objectives are less concerned with undertaking areview of the literature about the future prospects for PM but rather to reflect on fiveimportant foresight reports and their meaning to the PM discipline. Our reflections then ledto review and consider the broader associated relevant literature as they applied to thethemes we reflected upon.

Trying to understand the impact of distant future events in order to develop long-rangestrategic plans poses significant challenges to academics and practitioners who prefer torely on empirical studies of past events. This is because it is impossible to conduct suchstudies on events that have not yet occurred. However, according to Durance and Godet(2010), scenario building may provide a useful tool to produce simple, rigorous andappropriable representation of likely future realities.

Amer et al. (2013) found that most attention in the literature has been focused on anintuitive logics school of thought proposed by Herman Kahn of the Rand Corporation in the1960s and adopted extensively by Royal Dutch Shell. This is the approach taken by scenario

245

Managementof projects

in the 2030s

reports considered for this paper where the impact of legacy constraints and speculationabout potential disruptive forces such as political, economic technology or social issues wereconsidered. That provides us with the basis to discuss the three research questions to arriveat credible conclusions about the future of PM work.

Varum and Melo (2010) undertook a comprehensive review of the scenario planningliterature and presented a comprehensive analysis of what this process is and what it is notas well as the advantages and pitfalls of undertaking scenario planning. Their analysisindicates that scenario planning is a relevant and appropriate tool to understand complexlikely future situations where there is obviously a lack of intelligence about events yet tooccur. Scenario planning provides guidance as a decision-making support tool rather thanproviding answers. Varum and Melo stress that the effectiveness of the process dependsupon the quality of the assumptions and the time and care taken in establishing scenarioprojected start and trajectory conditions as well as the depth of understanding of thescenario context. By using the selected five reports, we access the significantly build onwork already undertaken by those report’s authors to capitalise on their rigorous thinkingand analysis to provide valuable foresight (Durance and Godet, 2010).

We decided to focus on credible scenario planning reports that extended to the year 2030that were prepared by experts using a rigorous methodology to reveal key themes, trendsand issues that might affect the workplace landscape faced by organisations, project teamsand individuals engaged in delivering projects in 2030. This decision was based on theacceptability of scenario planning as a tool to support gaining foresight as indicated fromthe above literature reviews, and bearing in mind that we could only rely on literaturerelating to current and emerging workplace landscape trends. The reports went beyondpresenting and describing scenarios with analysis of likely impact upon the workforce in2030 and comments upon what action may need to be planned and taken to respond to thescenarios. In this way the five reports provides foresight. These identified suitable candidateissues and trends for discussion and examination in the project 2030 workplace landscape.We scanned our library literature databases for relevant peer-reviewed sources that helpedus to critically evaluate identified suitable candidate issues and trends from the five reportsand how the reports’ suggested conclusions may apply to our research questions.

The premise of our research questions is based on the usefulness of assessing the near,but to not too distant future (2030), based on existing trends but being aware that we live ina time of disruptive technology and business processes. The year 2030 is over a decadeyears away, and is the start of a fresh decade that is not too far distant to be unable topredict from current trends but far enough for disruptive technologies and workplacecontextual issues to gain momentum to transform the nature of PM work. Speculating toofar into the future presents risks. We could be directing our attention to something that mayprove irrelevant if radical disruptive change was to occur. Even when projections areaccurate, their implications may be poorly understood or utterly false. When the concept ofwidespread use of the motorcar was first introduced it was believed that this would reducepollution because horse drawn transport resulted in much horse manure, many flies anddead horses polluting streets and highways. The impact of petrol and diesel fumes on theenvironment was not seriously considered at that time (Utterback, 1994; Morris, 2007).

We set out to explore the impact of assumptions that relate to PM work used in fourscenarios constructed in the five foresight reports for the future of work, the nature of workundertaken and the skills required to perform that work. Our main concern was to describewhat the world of work for those engaged in PMmight be like in 2030, their career prospectsand the KSAEs required to work within projects. If, as many futurologists believe, AI androbots will be performing many, if not most, business tasks and jobs, many humandimensions of those jobs are likely to be lost such as enthusiasm, passion, trust and affectivecommitment. What might be the unintended consequences of entering that kind of

246

IJMPB12,2

workplace environment? Balogun and Johnson (2005), for example, note that response tochange is undertaken in a top-down fashion but often the action taken involves peer-to-peersensemaking. Thus, the actual response to a situation may yield different actions andresults than that originally intended. Also, as Merton (1936, p. 900) observes “situationswhich demand (or what is for our purposes tantamount to the same thing, appear to theactor to demand) immediate action of some sort, will usually involve ignorance of certainaspects of the situation and will bring about un- expected results”.

The general thrust of the UKCES (2014) report, for example, is that compared with today,the 2030 workplace context will have a profound impact on the development of skills andcompetences required to effectively undertake and manage project work. It opens up adebate about what will constitute “work” what KSAEs will be in demand in a little overa decade from now and how will PM workers craft their career. The five reports provide auseful framework for analysis although this research approach has scope limitations in itsfocus on themes. These inform our analysis to identify future PM employment roles,required KSAEs and how PM workers will craft their career.

We take PM systems integration perspective and argue that work will be undertaken byhumans in project teams in a variety of contexts and industry sectors. Work tasks will tendto be non-routine, specialised, complex and requiring system integration capabilitiescharacterised by collaborative and resilient behaviours. The traditional PM skills of detailedcost and time management and even risk forecasting and contingency planning andmanagement may be largely usurped by enhanced and superior AI systems within thecoming decades. If this is to be the case, the mechanistic aspects of the PM role may besubstantially changed.

3. Discussion about the salient literatureWe now provide critical analysis to some of the assumptions made in the five reports basedupon what we currently know from the relevant literature.

3.1 Project work in 2030Everyone is currently entering the fourth revolution, where work is increasingly beingdigitised and automated (Hirschi, 2018). The three preceding revolutions were brought “aboutas a result of mechanisation, electricity and IT” (Kagermann et al., 2013, p. 5). These threeconsecutive power and energy revolutions changed the way work was performed, and thetype of work that was performed. This fourth revolution, the Internet of Things and Services,has similarly occurred because of developments that enable new and different ways ofworking. With each of the previous revolutions, and now, some have predicted the death ofjobs, and aired concerns for society as a result of livelihoods being adversely impacted(e.g. Autor, 2015). Thus, we ask, what are the tasks that project managers will no longer berequired to perform, and will this make them obsolete? For example, will AI overtake the needfor humans to undertake much of the monitoring for control processes? With “Big Data” andasset tracking AI applications it is likely that these kinds of processes will be undertakenthrough digitised processes and analysis algorithm mechanisms.

3.2 Job insecurity or career opportunity?Fears that AI, robots and technological advances will eliminate jobs may lead to some people’sanxiety about losing their job and, with reduced job opportunities due to technologicaladvances, difficulty in finding work. Concerns about jobs drying up have accompanied each ofthe previous three revolutions, but this has not proven to be the case in the long run(Autor, 2015). Automation anxiety and related fears for jobs and economic survival is notnew (Autor, 2015). Hirschi (2018, p. 1) commented on these changes and referred to the work of

247

Managementof projects

in the 2030s

Brynjolfsson and McAfee (2014), acknowledging that these changes would “lead to theelimination of thousands of jobs and the disappearance or fundamental change of many currentoccupations”. Contrary to beliefs held by some that technological change and increasing use ofAI will remove jobs and career options, these innovations may support the developmentof “diverse and flexible career paths” (Kagermann et al., 2013, p. 16). As a response to theincreasing sophistication of AI and robotics, jobs will be reinvented (Arup, 2017).

It is acknowledged that it is the more routine tasks performed by lower-skilled workerswho will experience reduced demand as more routine work is performed by technology;robots and AI. This will lead to greater demand for workers capable of performing morecomplex roles, such as “planning, controlling and IT-related tasks” (Bonekamp and Sure,2015, p. 33), and “telecommunications and team management” (Arup, 2017, p. 14).

Job insecurity has been found to be more likely to be experienced by those with lowself-esteem (Kinnunen et al., 2003). As those choosing careers in project management havebeen found to have higher levels of self-efficacy (Aitken, 2011), it is likely they will be moreopen and resilient in finding ways to secure their employment rather than to fear job loss.

3.3 Taking controlIt is not always losing the job itself that employees fear; often it is certain features orelements within their current job that they fear losing (Hellgren et al., 1999). These may betasks or activities they particularly enjoy and quite possibly excel at. There are going tobe changes to the components of project managers’ roles. Technology, robots and AI willtake over some of the tasks currently performed by project staff. Enabling them to havesome control over these changes, to understand the potential benefits for them of thesechanges, and to gain their continuing efforts towards ensuring project success will be animportant consideration that organisations will need to address. Empowering project staffto work with those driving change in their organisation by allowing them to craft their rolesand ensure that the team is carrying out all required tasks to achieve a successful projectoutcome, using the latest technology to support their work, can mean enabling project teamsto craft their team roles.

Job design and job redesign have long been used as a top-down organisational activity tomake changes to work processes when new systems, structures or technology have beenintroduced. Management has modified, or redesigned, roles by incorporating principlesfound to ensure efficient and effective work completion, whilst increasing job satisfactionand worker motivation. They have used the job characteristics model ( JCM) to guide theirchanges (Hackman and Oldham, 1976). Job redesign was originally driven by the desire tomaintain competitiveness and it was assumed that employees would develop the new skills,knowledge or attitudes required to perform these changed roles, with training commonlyprovided by the organisation.

By comparison, job crafting relates to changes in behaviours that are initiated byemployees to better align their jobs with personal desires or preferences (Tims et al., 2012).Arup (2017) suggests that organisations will redesign jobs and their workforces; however, itis often employees who alter the content of their roles, in response to system, technologicalor process changes, so their roles fit the new environment. In doing so they have theopportunity to craft a role that continues to provide them with the interest, challengeand sense of achievement they desire; that continues to provide person job fit (Hardin andDonaldson, 2014). Because employees may desire different levels of each of the corecharacteristics of the JCM – skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomyand feedback (Hackman and Oldham, 1980) – and because these may change over time(Ling and Loo, 2013; Wegman et al., 2018), it is important for supporting job satisfaction andthe level of motivation that enable productivity improvement that employees have controlover deciding changes to their job content.

248

IJMPB12,2

The use of technology to support or remove more routine project tasks provides theopportunity for employees “to focus on creative value-added activities” (Kagermann et al.,2013, p. 21) and will do so into the future. Project employees are likely to possess higher levelsof self-efficacy (Aitken, 2011) and also likely to be employees with high growth needs(Ballout, 2009). This means they welcome the opportunity to take on challenging work. Theyare likely also to be prepared to take a more proactive approach to changing their job as newtechnology and structural changes occur around them; they will willingly apply proactivebehaviours to crafting their own role (Demerouti and Bakker, 2014). Whilst changing their roleto provide greater challenge and a sense of achievement their changes will also supportproductivity improvements. Accordingly, it is now acknowledged that the former top-downapproach to job design was not as effective as desired (Demerouti et al., 2015) and that jobcrafting better addresses the needs of both the job holder and the organisation, especially inthe complex work environment of today (Demerouti and Bakker, 2014).

Job crafting is not only an individual employee activity. Just as the JCM developed byHackman and Oldham (1976) demonstrated that linking characteristics of a job to the skillsand abilities of an employee could lead to increased motivation, engagement andcommitment to outcomes, so enabling employees to design their roles through job craftingcan also produce similar, or even improved, results. Research has shown that theseimprovements occur both at the individual and team levels (Tims et al., 2013), suggestingthat project team members may be able to design, or craft, and re-craft their roles toincorporate new digital technologies and to adjust to new structures such as virtual teamswith diverse membership.

Project personnel and project teams have adjusted when new technology has entered theirdomain over the years. Project teams have adjusted by changing the way they work, oraltering the tasks individuals perform, to collectively agree how to now deliver the projectoutcome given new technology and equipment. The introduction of new software andplanning tools, such as Building Information Modelling (BIM) used within constructionproject teams, is just one example and has been found to improve project outcomes(Bryde et al., 2013), although ensuring required training in use of BIM was provided.Such technology has the potential to free project staff from mundane and repetitive tasks,enabling new and different demands to be placed on team members, which, if addressed viateam role-crafting, could support employee willingness to change, whilst providing motivationand satisfaction. Much of the change that will be required by project personnel is that ofincreased use of higher level capabilities, for instance, to include actions that will ensuregreater sensitivity to the environment and society are part of the “successful” delivery of aninfrastructure of building project. Because new standards can be achieved, with the supportof technology, new and higher standards are being expected (Schoberova, 2015). This hasthe potential to provide project staff with challenging, rewarding and interesting roles into thefuture, but it brings with it a need to develop some new skills.

3.4 New work structuresWork is carried within project teams in organisations across industries and sectors(Whitley, 2006). Indeed today project-based work is a strong driver within today’s economy(Arup, 2017). It is within project teams that value creation happens; where innovation andcreativity occur. Increasingly, work will be performed within virtual teams. Supported by“information and communication technologies”, virtual teams have grown in number andsize and in 2015 it was estimated the number of “ ‘virtual workers’ around the world” was“1.3 billion” (Arup, 2017, p. 14). These teams, spread around the globe, bring with them achange in working culture and “the introduction of new social infrastructure in theworkplace” (Kagermann et al., 2013, p. 6) that make new demands of employees working inthese virtual teams.

249

Managementof projects

in the 2030s

The composition and structure of teams is also predicted to change, supported by digitaltechnologies and the growth of automation and human–machine collaboration (Arup, 2017).With team members less likely to be co-located, proficiency in use of “virtual collaborationtools, such as Google Drive for collaborative writing” and “Trello for collaborativeproject management” will be important skills for the project team members of the future(Colbert et al., 2016). Virtual teams, with members spread around the globe will see diverse,dispersed teams having to work together to achieve project outcomes. Add to this thepredicted transformation of the workplace as both work content and work processeschange, and you have employees and their managers, being asked to take on moredemanding and challenging roles (Kagermann et al., 2013). It has been suggested that“(t)hose running projects need new skills in communication and team management.The challenge might lie less in finding the right employees and more in finding managerswith the necessary skills to manage a virtual workforce” (Arup, 2017, p. 14).

3.5 New employment arrangementsAway from direct discussions of the impact of the Internet of Things and Services, there hasbeen a global trend to temporary, contract and casual employment, all of which are referredto as insecure or precarious forms of employment (Burgess et al., 2005; Connell and Burgess,2006; Campbell, 2010; Quinlan, 2012; Burrows, 2013; Lee et al., 2018). Discussions around theissues of technology changing the workplace environment have focused on both negativesand positives. Some see temporary and contract work as providing flexibility and the abilityto balance work and life.

A decreasing percentage of the workforce identifies as working in a continuing, full-timerole, contributing to a change in the nature of work as people work on a number of tasks orprojects, sometimes simultaneously (Arup, 2017; Hirschi, 2018). Contract employment, oftenviewed as precarious or insecure work, has become common (Connell and Burgess, 2006;Kalleberg, 2009; Campbell, 2010; Inkson, 2011; Quinlan, 2012). This change has not justimpacted those in low-skilled jobs; project managers and other professionals haveexperienced this change in work arrangements (McKeown, 2005). Because project work isinevitably temporary, whether project team members are all employees of the organisation,employees and contractors or all contractors, project team members’ roles within a specificproject will exist only for the duration of that project (Turner and Müller, 2003).

Those pursuing a career in project management are likely to be aware of the temporarynature of roles, as these are linked to the project. Some people find that temporaryemployment, or contract employment, provides the flexibility, challenge, interest andexcitement, as well as the income, they desire and these people form part of the “contractorby choice” group (Barley and Kunda, 2006). Institutionalists believe that employees stand tolose out in an environment of short term contacts, contingent work and decreasingopportunities for secure, continuing work. They have called for policies to minimise thepossible negative impact, especially on some groups in society, of increasingly insecurework. Supporters of the free market approach identify the advantages to employers ofreduced costs by effectively having a just-in-time workforce. For employees, free marketeerssee positives as no longer would employees need to feel bound by loyalty; they would be freeagents, selling their skills and knowledge to the highest bidder (Barley and Kunda, 2006).

For some project managers, especially during periods of high demand, it has been thecase that they can locate new, challenging and well-paying contracts. However, they do needto ensure that their skills and knowledge stay ahead of demand, especially in thisfast-changing environment. People choosing to work in project-based roles are likely to havehigh levels of self-efficacy when compared to a general population (Lloyd-Walker et al.,2018). Finding the time and support to upgrade skills to develop the profile required tocompete for contracts in this environment will not only be an issue for contract project

250

IJMPB12,2

managers (Connell and Burgess, 2006; Inkson, 2011), but for all organisations that employthem. The growth in the demand for high-quality project staff will continue to rise as aresult of the spread of project management across sectors, industries and organisationsaround the globe (Whitley, 2006; Packendorff and Lindgren, 2014; Arup, 2017).

Permanent jobs are no longer the only form of employment, with many highly skilledpeople with a talent for innovation and collaboration choosing to freelance ( Jacobs et al.,2017). But have project-based organisations, or all organisations that rely on project teamsto implement their strategies, considered the challenge that this presents for them, inensuring that they have such a high-value workforce available when required, andcommitted to delivering value to their customers?

3.6 Social implications of changeA range of views are held about the level of job and income insecurity and as a result stressthat is felt by those working in what could be termed “the Gig Economy”, with someexpressing concern about workers’ rights being reduced (De Stefano, 2016). Autor (2015, p. 8)acknowledge that “rapid automation may create distributional challenges that invite a broadpolicy response”, and Montealegre and Cascio (2017, p. 67) predict a need for “responsiblepublic policies across institutions” that address a wide range of related areas including socialand human issues predicted to present challenges. These policies will be required to assist thetransition into the new era. We are suggesting that an industry or profession-level response isalso required in relation to project management.

3.7 New skills and attitudesAt the same time, new occupations, new industries and fundamentally new ways of workwill likely emerge. These new roles in project management are predicted to involve the needfor increased collaboration and development of relationship skills to work within networksspanning organisations and industries and globally within virtual teams (Kagermann et al.,2013; Arup, 2017; Jacobs et al., 2017).

Project managers will be required to take on new challenges. It has been predicted thatby 2025 all projects, the major way in which organisations will deliver outcomes, will need tobe conducted in a socially responsible manner. Indeed, the importance of doing so will haveincreased in importance to such an extent that it is suggested that a separate chapter,outlining how to deliver projects in a socially responsible manner, will be required withinthe PMBoK.

Indeed it is expected that the nature of work in general as well as within project teamswill change placing “significantly higher demands on all members of the workforce in termsof managing complexity, abstraction and problem-solving” (Kagermann et al., 2013, p. 53);those tasks that even sophisticated artificially intelligent systems cannot yet perform, andare not expected to be able to perform in the near future. Soft skills, those of high-levelcommunication skills, the ability to collaborate and build relationships, will combine withthe need for higher levels of initiative to work more autonomously which will possiblyenrich employees work lives, but the need for lifelong learning and continuing professionaldevelopment (Kagermann et al., 2013) will occur at a time when “on-demand, always-available working will reshape our understanding of career development and professionaldevelopment, disrupting traditional restrictions of location, length and flexibility ofcontracts” (Arup, 2017, p. 14).

Undoubtedly, powerful computing capacity, cloud technology, automation androbotics are going to disrupt the workplace, the way work is performed and theworkers who perform it. Whereas the automation waves of the 1920s and the 1960s ledto workers moving to where major automated workplaces were established, the currentwave of technology-supported change removes the geographic imperative. There is the

251

Managementof projects

in the 2030s

possibility that the trend of people moving from rural towns to major cities for workcould end. Communication, collaboration and cooperation within and between teams, boththose co-located and those dispersed around the globe, will be supported by advancedcommunication technologies (Arup, 2017).

To undertake any task or job, people (or AI machines) need to bring into play fourseparate characteristics of ability: knowledge, skills, attitudes and experience. To performany task or job, physical-mental, organisational, governance, motivational and knowledgeinfrastructure is required. Furthermore, most tasks involve cooperation and collaborationbetween people and an ability to orchestrate the necessary resources to perform a task(Smith and Winter, 2010). For the future, these collaboration skills will also be requiredwithin human–machine collaboration. As AI and robotics become increasinglysophisticated they will enable collaboration and communication to occur “throughincreasingly intuitive user interfaces” with this “human–machine collaboration”having the potential to allow “virtual and network-based companies and value streams”(Arup, 2017, p. 21) to emerge.

3.8 Developing the project management skills of the futureA range of core competencies and skills that form a baseline of hard skills and experiencethat combine with personal attributes and values characterised by relational soft people-skills required for effective collaboration has been identified and described (Walker andLloyd-Walker, 2011a). This is supported by their relationship leadership qualitiesand attributes that they demonstrate as leaders or active followers. It was found that theseare enhanced at the highest professional excellence level by keen business communicationand influence skills, capabilities that both Arup (2017) and Kagermann et al. (2013) state willbe required by project managers in the future (Walker and Lloyd-Walker, 2011a). They alsofound that collaborative and triple bottom line (3BL) values supported excellence inrelational skills. 3BL refers to a balanced commercial, physical environment and socialoutcome focus (Elkington, 1997). The increased emphasis on social responsibility links with3BL principles. Arup (2017) predicted that social responsibility would become of such greatimportance within the project manager’s role that by 2025 a separate chapter would bededicated to it within the PMBoK.

Effective collaboration skills have been highlighted as required in the workplace of thefuture, by those working in teams. The working environment suggested by Kagermannet al. (2013, p. 6), where “networking and integration of several different companies throughvalue networks” will occur through collaborative partnerships resembles that of alliances orintegrated project delivery (IPD). “Our economy is increasingly driven by project-basedwork characterised by high degrees of collaboration” (Arup, 2017, p. 12). These forms ofwork organisation to deliver project outcomes rely a great deal on trust. Project managers ofthe future will need the skills to build trust in order to successfully collaborate. The conceptof trust considered by early writers on this topic was that trust is a psychological state inwhich people, being placed in a vulnerable position, have confidence that they will not sufferharm (Luhmann, 1979). Various models of trust have been developed with the Mayer et al.(1995) being well known. Their model shows three factors affecting trust, ability (confidencethat what is promised can be delivered), benevolence (goodwill and lack of harm directedtowards the trusting individual) and integrity (honesty and consistency between the rhetoricand reality of actions taken by the person, or organisation, seeking trust). This is moderatedby the trustor’s propensity to trust. Siebert et al. (2015) in reviewing the literature on trustmake a valuable contribution by more fully explaining what propensity to trust may entail.They draw upon the work of Fox (1974) who takes an historical pluralist and radical ratherthan unitarist perspective of trust based on perceived and actual power imbalances betweenemployers and employees.

252

IJMPB12,2

Siebert et al. (2015, p. 1039) explain the unitarist perspective as being very much alignedwith a unity of purpose, usually promoted by the employer with greater power and authority.Lack of trust is seen as a pathogen. The pluralist perspective accepts that multiplestakeholders within a situation will have a variety of interests with some complimentary andsupportive of the employer’s but some in conflict and others in between. Conflict is thereforeseen as inevitable and so the mediating impact of the trustor’s perception of the situation theyengage in largely determines how they perceiving the three ability, benevolence and integrityfactors. Their radical perspective adopts a more pessimistic view of trust propensity becausethis perspective holds that the power imbalance between peoples makes it impossible if notunlikely that true trust may be freely given by the trustor to the trustee. This is interesting inthe context of the 2030 foresight conditions. For those who perceive themselves to have littlepower within a relationship there will be unitary, radical or at best some pluralist featuresexhibited that govern the trustor’s propensity to trust. People who have mastered thetechnology and have the requisite knowledge, skills, attitudes and experience to be in greatdemand with greater control and autonomy over their career are likely to adopt a pluralistperspective of trust. They are, according to five foresight reports cited earlier, the people mostlikely to retain meaningful employment.

People who are effectively working in collaborative diverse cross-discipline and cross-cultural teams, possibly virtual teams, would be expected to exhibit attributes that support thepluralist perspective. For example, we would expect to see high levels of flexibility andcommitment to agreed goals, open-mindedness to consider other perspectives and understandthat people have a dynamic range of motivations. We would also expect them to exhibitshared leadership characteristics and be prepared to take leadership initiatives when qualifiedand authorised to do so, usually this happens when an individual has the knowledge and/orexpertise power in a group for a specific part of the task at hand to take over the role ofleading and influencing others (Carson et al., 2007; Drescher et al., 2014). This is similar to whathas been termed balanced leadership (Müller et al., 2017) in which the formal group leader andfollowers recognise the limitations of hierarchical authority. They engage in a matrix form ofleadership where team members with the required knowledge, experience and ability to lead aspecific task initiative will take a temporary leadership role and be “followed” by othersincluding the nominal team leader. This as Müller et al. (2017) observes happens when theteams’ attitude towards this form of leadership is shared and genuinely agreed upon; thesituation is appropriate for balanced leadership, and when team members have trust in eachother and the system governance to support the leadership approach.

4. Answering RQ1The above discussion and following summary points respond to RQ1. This is answered byilluminating what the general employment landscape for project managers and teammembers will look like in the 2030s. Review of the content of the above five foresight reportssuggests several conclusions about the impact of the workplace landscape on jobs andrequired KSAEs. These help paint a portrait of the 2030 workplace landscape:

(1) There will be high expectations about workers’ grasp of and ability to work withnew digital technologies that are capable of more effectively undertaking routineoperations such as scheduling and cost monitoring and control. The scale of thisexpectation is unknown at present but as Taylor (2015, p. 29) states, there will be adeeper technical skill need relating to: architecting (orchestrating components tobuild larger systems); designing (conceptualising new solutions to challenges andproblems); and analysing (making sense of data and information). Skills will requireadaptation, configuration and re-configuration of technological tools in innovativeways. Beitz (2015, p. 163) discusses digital skills categories and suggests that the

253

Managementof projects

in the 2030s

bulk of UK workers (46 per cent) currently employed are “digital workers” who usedigital technology purposefully and confidently. The reports we analysed suggestthat the percentage would have to be close to 100 per cent for those remainingemployed and that the scope and nature of the technologies in 2030 will be morecomplex and more ubiquitous than today.

(2) High value will be placed on social skills to build confidence and trust quickly, beable to communicate and collaborate with people from highly diverse backgrounds(discipline, nationality and social orientation) because groups of creative peopleare likely to be best at arriving at innovative problem solutions and approaches(Gratton and Ghoshal, 2003). These skills fit with the relational skills set identifiedby Walker and Lloyd-Walker (2015) for elements in their collaboration framework.

(3) Creative and entrepreneurial skills (Beitz, 2015, p. 163) are skills that allow people tocreatively use technology to significantly enhance their productivity and to usedisruptive technology creatively. This implies imagination, passion and acumen.This fits with the cluster of business skills identified by Walker and Lloyd-Walker(2015) as necessary collaborative framework elements.

(4) Foundationally, workers who are able to retain employment will need to haveexceptional base technical skills. For example, engineers with variousspecialisations working on infrastructure projects. This allows them thediscipline-based perspective that they may share with others in a multi-disciplinary collaborative integrated team approach to project delivery.

(5) Finally, workers will need cross-cultural communication and inter-connectivity skills(UKCES, 2014, p. 104). They will need these for sourcing work internationally inresponse to a highly globalised economy of 2030 and to be able to confidentlycommunicate and collaborate from people from a range of national, religious,business-organisational and social cultures (UKCES, 2014, p. xxvi). They will need tobe prepared for seizing the advantages offered by diversity.

The impression conveyed by the above is that people working in project teams will need to bemore broadly skilled than is generally evident today. This conclusion fits well with the KSAEsseen in high-performing alliance projects requiring intense team integration and collaboration.Reading the various scenarios proposed by UKCES (2014), CEDA (2015), PwC (2017),Jacobs et al. (2017) and Arup (2017), we see collaboration as a key theme. Collaboration isimportant between people and technology in the form of robots, AI and other digitaltechnology as well as collaboration between people working on various facets of projects. Wesee that technical base discipline knowledge, digital technology knowledge and social-culturalknowledge are important to permit people to understand and connect with each other. Oneimportant attribute that is stressed by the reports is the ability and capacity of people to learn.For example, UKCES (2014, p. xxix) states that individuals need to be “open to and takeadvantage of new and different approaches to learning, for instance self-directed, bite-sizedlearning, peer-to-peer learning and technology enabled training opportunities”. This wouldapply across their primary discipline as well as for people-related and cultural skills. Thevarious scenarios illustrate the levels of support that governments and employers maycontribute and these vary from strong support to zero support.

5. Answering RQ2A workplace landscape featuring high levels of collaboration and team-technologyintegration requires specific attitudes and attributes of workers as well as reflection uponand growth through experience.

254

IJMPB12,2

RQ2 focuses on the general workplace landscape and asks: How will this workplacelandscape relate to the values of society, business and professional project managers andtheir team members the professional project managers?

To address this we need to be clear about what the concept of work and job may mean toproject managers and their teams. This requires considering the nature of work and how itis perceived so that the impact of technology advances and the digitalisation of work may bebetter understood. It leads to an answer to RQ3. We answer that question in Section 6.

5.1 Jobs, tasks and the meaningfulness of workTo directly answer RQ2 and lead to the answer to RQ3 we need to understand the valuesconcept and how it is relevant to this topic. The Values, Attitudes and Moods (VAM) modeldeveloped by George and Jones (1997) provides a starting point for understanding workers’experience of meaningfulness of their jobs and the tasks they perform. George and Jonesdescribe a values system as a conceptual framework that people hold and default to thatrepresents what they perceive as the correct way to act and behave within a situation. It isinformed by a range of influences such as the norms of a cultural group (nation, family,organisation, etc.) that the person feels they belong to and should abide by.

More specifically, George and Jones see work values as guiding desired end-states.Coherently, working in manner aligned with those values should deliver an acceptableapproximation to a valued end-state. George and Jones see work attitudes as knowledgestructures stored in memory about feelings and thoughts about a person’s work experience.Finally, the VAM recognises the concept of moods that govern behaviour at any given timeand is informed by the context of the situation as well as work values. Work experience canbe felt “in the moment” retrospectively or prospectively. It fits with the KSAEs in that theexperience provides personal knowledge about a situation. It is best accessed throughreflection and awareness of perceived biases and filters. The experience is also influenced byattitudes and perception of the usefulness or accuracy of that experience.

All five foresight reports projected similar global trends and two of these the UKCES (2014)and the PwC (2017) reports portrayed likely and plausible scenarios to depict how the 2030workplace may look. Some of these trends are specifically relevant to worker’s perception ofthe job experience and how these may be shaped by their value systems. In each report therewas discussion about the values that will drive the nature of future work. The more corporate-centric scenarios emphasise competitive advantage, business survival and attracting the bestresources, particularly talented people. The UKCES (2014) and the PwC (2017) reports alsoillustrate more socially focussed scenarios that aim to ensure that productivity gains in thefuture benefit society as a whole and not just a narrow sectional interest.

All five reports also note the impact of the values held by workers currently in the earlystages of their career or are close to joining the workforce. Generation Y (born between 1982and 2000) workers, according to UKCES (2014, p. 34), could comprise well over half theworkforce in 2030. Their values are reported to favour a work-life balance and working fororganisations that demonstrate strong corporate social responsibility. This is likely to placegreater emphasis on ethical treatment of society and the natural environment in the futurethan at present (Arup, 2017; Jacobs et al., 2017). This orientation has a significant impact onperceptions of jobs, the skills expected to required, the identification of what the real task isand consideration of its impact. Thus, the meaning of work may be more socially orientedand collaborative in nature than at present. We can now look at the nature of work in termsof how the characteristics of work may be perceived through the workers values andattitudes lens and how their moods may also be influenced by job characteristics.

The JCM is a useful tool developed by Hackman and Oldham (1976) over 40 years ago.It posits that five job characteristics, core job dimensions, lead to worker’scritical psychological states and this triggers worker’s personal and work outcomes

255

Managementof projects

in the 2030s

(Hackman and Oldham, 1976, p. 256). Three core dimensions (skill variety, task identityand task significance) lead to the psychological state of experienced meaningfulness ofwork. An autonomy core job dimension leads to the psychological state of experiencedresponsibility for work outcomes. The fifth core job dimension, feedback, leads to thepsychological state of knowledge of the actual work outcome.

Enriched job/task design and allocation based on this model is posited to enhanceemployee’s skill growth need strength and so workers feel more motivated and put moreeffort and commitment into their work which contributes to a positive work outcome.The intention of the JCM was that management would use these dimensions to guide thedesign of jobs that would motivate and engage workers, and lead to them experiencing jobsatisfaction. This, in turn, was expected to lead to high levels of productivity and reducedstaff turnover. Forty years later, the model remains useful, but may be used now to supportindividuals or teams to craft their own roles, in a bottom-up rather than top-down manner.This can enable “employees to steer their work towards their passions to obtain moreenjoyment and meaning from their jobs” (Demerouti et al., 2015, p. 89). This approach hasthe potential to engage staff, and lead to the team crafting work to support projectexcellence, whilst addressing their need for challenge, learning and job satisfaction within ahighly collaborative environment, where teams work cooperatively and collaboratively asoutlined in several of the foresight report scenarios. All this relies on their work valuesincluding career growth and development as being a worker’s core value.

It may seem unwise of us to consider a model that is over 40 years old. However,Wegman et al. (2018) conclude in reviewing the US literature (on job characteristics studiesreferring to the JCM) that the model remains generally robust and can be considered asstill relevant and appropriate. They note, however, that the general work contexthas changed over the past 40 years with respect to ICT and other technology advances.As we see from the foresight reports all scenarios envisaged suggest that this trend willaccelerate markedly by 2030. Also, the impact of global competition has forcedorganisations to flatten their hierarchies and outsource specialised job activities. Workmay become potentially more enriched and motivationally enhanced due to some of thetechnology advances because now workers potentially have greater clarity about howtheir efforts fit “the parts” into the “whole” so that they can potentially receive clearer andimmediate feedback about their contribution.

PwC differentiate the potential impact of AI on jobs by the way that AI may be applied.PwC (2017) refer to AI application in terms of:

• Assisted intelligence, widely available today, improves what people andorganisations are already doing. A simple example, prevalent in cars today, isthe GPS navigation programme that offers directions to drivers and adjusts toroad conditions.

• Augmented intelligence, emerging today, helps people and organisations to dothings they couldn’t otherwise do. For example, car ride-sharing businesses couldn’texist without the combination of programmes that organise the service.

• Autonomous intelligence, being developed for the future, establishes machinesthat act on their own. An example of this will be self-driving vehicles, when theycome into widespread use (p. 8).

The above section cited literature that suggests that AI and other information technologytools may lead to greater job/task meaningfulness because:

(1) Task skills may be enhanced though the application of AI and informationtechnology increasing the scope and scale of activities that may be undertaken,provided that people using this technology are trained to use the technology to its

256

IJMPB12,2

full potential. It is likely that this skill level will vary between individuals as is thecase for any technological tool advance. The three foresight reports argue thatpeople who do not effectively use these technologies will be replaced by others whocan. Being proficient in using the technology will increase the skills of workers of2030 compared with today in this technology application arena.

(2) Task identity will change in the future with the application of digital technologies.All five foresight reports predict the loss of repetitive and routine work to machines,AI or robots. However, the reports predict that non-routine, more person-to-personinteractive and creative work will remain to be undertaken by humans but with theassistance of technology. Creative work is more engaging for intelligent activeworkers than is routine work so it is likely that these people will perceive their workto be more highly motivating.

(3) Task significance refers to how people perceive the likely impact that their workmakes and the contribution that it makes to an outcome. Using enhanced digitaltechnology enables people to more clearly visualise and conceptualise a task’soutcome. BIM, for example, has not only allowed people to more effectively visualisethe end product and to some extent outcome but also to more clearly see how theirtask component in the final outcome fits with other task components.

(4) The autonomy job/task characteristic is likely to be enhanced by those remainingin work using advanced digital technologies in 2030. This is because there willbe many tools and techniques that will be then available to be applied. The fivereports indicate that a key job role expected of workers in 2030 will to beorchestrators of their work. It will be their choice about which tools they willuse and how to use them. They will be configuring arrays of these tools in abespoke manner by fitting the best available tool to the challenge that theyrespond to and in a manner that they have framed for that challenge. This designthinking feature associated with task autonomy is likely to lead to workers gainingan enhanced sense of responsibility for the work because the outcome is linked totheir autonomy and agency.

(5) The task/job feedback characteristic refers to the extent, quality and manner inwhich feedback guides their actions. Advanced digital technologies, AI inparticular, can be configured to provide users of those tools with rich, rapid andhigh-quality feedback. This ability to fine-tune and customise feedback so that it ismeaningful to the user is likely to enhance the work experience and promotecontinuous improvement.

Above JCM features have the capacity to enhance the work experience as illustratedin Figure 1.

Figure 1 illustrates the way in which advanced digital technology may enhance the workexperience for workers in 2030. However, this paints a somewhat rosy picture predicated ona high quality and nature of worker’s KSAEs. The JCM is useful in providing a way to lookat KSAEs and how these may be applied to augmented and assisted technology use.It becomes clear from the five foresight reports that those who will be in work will beengaged in non-routine work and that getting to grips and mastering the use of powerfuldigital technology tools to support, augment and inform people’s work will form the basisfor competitive advantage.

Each of Figure 1 references to “digital technology” could also be attributed tocollaboration because as the reports highlight, the tasks and jobs that will not be done bytechnology such as AI will be done by groups of people collaborating together to orchestratean output or outcome. Thus, communication (including use of digital technology to assist in

257

Managementof projects

in the 2030s

the content, form and style of communication) and its meaning to the users (others in acollaborative team) will be a vital feature of work in 2030. Communication also includesaligning the communicated message with the cultural context (national, organisational,group, etc.) to ensure its effectiveness. Individuals within teams will strategize and designthe plans and means to undertake work and how best to organise the way in whichresources are marshalled and deployed to achieve the planned outcome.

5.2 Jobs, tasks and the value of workThis section helps to address RQ2. It becomes increasingly clear that in order to attract andretain the best talent in 2030, organisations may be compelled to adopt a more sociallyresponsible ethos and to configure work, or enable workers to configure their work, to beflexible and balanced.

This section also prepares us to answer RQ3 in Section 6.

6. Core KSAEs that will prepare 2030 workers for their careerThis section draws together our analysis of finding from the three identified foresightreports in light of literature that helps explain the meaning of work and the KSAEs that willbe necessary to operate within the 2030 work landscape.

6.1 Assumptions underpinning our analysisOur analysis has mainly focused on responding to the foresight scenarios suggesting thatthe nature of the 2030 workplace will be one in which advanced AI and technology willdestroy most current routine jobs. Jobs that will remain will be non-routine, highlyinteractive and dynamic and workers will be creative in the way they orchestrate resources,technology and people. Participants in this workforce will span four generational cohortswith the majority being Generation Y. If this cohort’s current general value system does notradically alter over the next decade, then their workplace culture will be one in whichcorporate social responsibility will be a key competitive advantage for organisations thatseek to attract and retain customers and key talent workers. The meaningfulness of workfor key talent will be linked to their value system. Their necessary KSAEs to perform theirwork will reflect and be supported by this ethos of corporate social responsibility.

Figure 2 illustrates anticipated KSAEs necessary for project delivery in 2030 and forworkers to build, develop and sustain their careers. We argue that project delivery will belargely collaborative in nature and reflect the need for many collaboration KSAEs as well astechnical features.

Task skills – gaining skills in use of digital technologies

Task autonomy – choice of digital technology tools use

Task feedback – digital technology tools feedback

Increasedsense of workrelevance

Increased motivation and

output/outcome quality

Increasedsense of choiceresponsibility

Enhanced workqualityexperience

Task identity – non-routine more creative tasks

Task significance – high-level visualisation and modelling

Figure 1.Job motivation andoutput/outcome

258

IJMPB12,2

Crawford et al. (2006) identified the need for PM people-related “soft” skills as well as theneed for “hard” technical and PM technique skills. This view has been justified bymany others interesting in PM KSAE topics, including thought leaders (Morris, 1994, 2013;Dainty et al., 2004; Muzio et al., 2007), and it is a widely shared view.

In Figure 2 we identify hard knowledge and skills being needed at the technical disciplinelevel so that people are aware of best practice and contextual issues that mediate how bestpractice may be applied. We also identify cross-discipline knowledge and skills to allowpeople to share enough understanding about each other’s context and technical situation tobe able to intelligently contribute in collaborative discussions such as when challengingplanned work methods approach assumptions for example. PM skills and knowledge arealso grouped with the hard skills area as knowing the range of PM tools and concepts isimportant when deciding how to apply those that are relevant and applicable. Similarlyunderstanding the organisational context and how the industry sector operates for a projectis also an important skill. These are generally timeless skills and knowledge, what is new tothe 2030 workplace landscape is the scale and depth of AI application and digital technologytools that will be available. Orchestrating tools and techniques to configure and design waysto use this resource will require current knowledge of this dynamic area and will be a vitalskill. These knowledge and skill abilities would be necessary in both the technical “hard”area as well as “soft” people-related aspects by understanding people, their motivation andpsychological needs and behaviours and how that impacts upon collaboration and jobperformance.

Contributing experience will cover technical, management, inter-disciplinary and cross-cultural interactions. Experience with the application of digital technologies to enable peopleto orchestrate that resource will be vital. Effective reflection upon experience shouldenhance a person’s ability to best learn from past successes as well as disappointments.Systems thinking links to experience with reflection being linked to the understanding thecontext in which an event was experienced.

Technical/Hard

SKILLS

Relational/Soft

SKILLS

3BL and Collaborative Core Values

PLUS

Core Competenciesand skills

ContributingExperiences

Relationalorientation

Personal attributes

Knowledge and skills:

Personality and engagement:

Relevant experience:

Team player:

Technical disciplineCross-disciplineTechnology orchestrationProject ManagementOrganisational context

Trustworthy and committedFlexibility and open-mindednessEmotional intelligence (EI)Divergent and convergent thinkingMotivation and confidenceAuthority and influenceClear strategic and holistic thinkingInnovation-seeking

Technical contextualTechnology orchestration

Project ManagementOrganisational context

Inter-disciplinaryCross-cultural

Resilience and recoverySystems thinking

Adaptive leader-followerInspiring proven confidence

ConsistencyExceptional communication

Collaborative focusResilience and adaptability

Reflective and empathicMulti-lingual

Source: Adapted from Walker and Lloyd-Walker (2011b, p. 12)

Figure 2.2030 core SKAEs

259

Managementof projects

in the 2030s

Personal attributes are important considerations as they shape the way in whichknowledge and skills may be applied to a situation. They also shape the way that others in ateam make sense in how to respond to them. Trust for example relies upon personalinteraction experiences and inherent values that shape a personality: commitment,reliability, flexibility and open-mindedness, motivation and confidence and authority andability to influence. The ability to deliver and perform depends not only on skills andknowledge but also how these are applied. That is why clear strategic and holistic thinkinghelps to set a context for motivation and action. The way that orchestration skills may bebest deployed relies upon innovative thinking and action and this makes a significantdifferentiating factor to most digital technologies that rely on being programmed.Human creative innovative thinking is the main reason why non-routine tasks will beundertaken by humans and not technology.

The final quadrant in Figure 2, the relational orientation component, is shown as beingimpacted by the other quadrants through the circle that depicts these three quadrantspotentially supporting relationship orientation. It suggests that the way in which corecompetencies and skills, contributing experience and personal attributes help shapes thatorientation. It may inform the meaningfulness of tasks or job elements, for example, throughthe way that deployed skills may be identified and matched to a task and how this matchingmay impact upon its perceived significance, how task autonomy may be interpreted andhow feedback may be reflected upon. Personal attributes are important due to their impactof how people relate to each other, understand another person’s perspectives, priorities andconcerns so that true dialogue may take place. Given the multi-cultural and multi-nationalglobal nature of PM, it would be appropriate for team members to have a workingknowledge of several languages in order that they not only might be able to communicatewith stakeholders in their own language but that knowing several languages also preparesone for understanding the cultural mindset through knowledge of the link betweenlanguage and cultural assumptions. Rampton (2002), for example, discusses teachingGerman to class of students in the UK and how they found that learning German gave themnew cultural insights. Senge (1990, p. 226) discusses the concept competitive tension whendiscussing the process of dialogue. He argues that the purpose of dialogue is not forone party to convince another of a preferred position but rather that each party explores theissue to explore assumptions that may be challenged: perhaps the problem may be re-framing and a novel solution found. Competitive tension dialogue leading to out-of-the-boxthinking is not likely to be available using AI in 2030. However, using AI and high levels ofdigital technologies may provide the background research capability to better explore andassess potential options and so AI augments and not replaces people in non-routine work.

At the base of Figure 2, we see the 3BL core values of success being seen from afinancial, environmental and social perspective. Those values help to supportcollaboration at a broader level that is beyond being restricted to delivery of time/cost/fitness for purpose targets.

This section helps to address RQ3. Figure 2 presents a way to visualise KSAEs and howthey link. Figure 2 suggests excellence in each aspect to represent an ideal state not whatwill be demanded or required of people. Those who can develop these KSAEs to a high levelof excellence will no doubt stay ahead of AI and digital technologies such as robots orautonomous AI bots.

7. ConclusionsOverall the changes that will occur to individual’s jobs, specifically project managers’roles, industries, sectors and society as a result of the Fourth Industrial Revolution willrequire action at a variety of levels. Individuals will need to pursue lifelong learning(Kagermann et al., 2013; Hirschi, 2018) to retain relevant and valued knowledge, skills and

260

IJMPB12,2

attitudes to fit the new environment. Organisations will need to work with employeesand other organisations to develop new structures, networks and ways of working.These changes will result in the disappearance of low-skilled jobs (Hirschi, 2018), putting80 per cent of people with lower levels of education at employment risk, while only18 per cent those with doctorate-level education will face the same possibility (Arup, 2017).Therefore, governments will have to ensure that appropriate education, among a range ofinitiatives, is offered to guard against negative social impacts (Autor, 2015; Montealegreand Cascio, 2017). Responses by industry may embrace inclusion of social responsibility inthe PMBoK, as suggested by Arup (2017), but there is likely to be a range of responseswhich will require attention over the coming 12–20 years. These may include ensuringthat the required lifelong learning is provided, especially for those project managers whoare temporary or contract employees.

This paper has identified some highly positive aspects of potential improvements in thequality of project work tasks and jobs that will feature in 2030 and beyond. Digitisation ofmost aspects of project work may relieve project workers in teams of many of the mundaneand boring tasks and, as Figure 1 illustrates, may enhance their sense of relevance, choiceand responsibility and quality of the work experience. Technology advances may act asenablers and augmentation for doing interesting work. However, the downside of thesetechnologies is that these advances require continual learning and training on their use andapplication. This means that the present cycle of continual change and “software upgrades/enhancements” is likely to accelerate. This may have two adverse unintended consequences.We have all probably experienced frustration in coping with software “upgrades” thatreduce operability or cause confusion due to unintended consequences relating to systemintegration. We also have probably felt frustrated by constant demands to re-train, un-learnand re-learn systems and tools. This downside of “progress” is likely to feature moreintensely in future. The need to develop training and development for the project workforceto effectively use new technology will also pose challenges and potential advantage toeducators. On the upside there are obvious opportunities for additional income streams fromcontinuous lifelong learning. The downside is that it may take a great deal of more researchto be funded and undertaken by the educational sector to develop appropriate learningmaterials and approaches. These institutions have been cutting back on funding and notinvesting as discussed in the five reports.

The paper makes several contributions. First, it makes a new theoretical contribution bylinking the 2030 future workplace with concepts such as the meaningfulness aspect of workand KSAEs for the collaborative nature of project work in 2030. A review of the literaturesuggests that there is little if any work that covers this aspect of PM despite the rapid andcontinued projectification of work.

It also makes a contribution to practice through Figure 2 by illustrating in detail whatKSAEs may be required in the future. Orchestration of AI, digital technologies and relatedtechnology application to work is a new skill that will be in demand for project workundertaken by people supported by technology. We also flag in Figure 2 the importance of3BL and ethics skills being needed and this is an underdeveloped area of focus in PM with afew exceptions (Loo, 2002; Jónasson and Ingason, 2013; Müller et al., 2013; Walker andLloyd-Walker, 2014).

The paper also suggests that in 2030 many companies will be concerned aboutcorporate social responsibility. Therefore, PM workers will need to consider framingand developing their values orientation towards 3BL outcomes. It also suggests thatproject workers, team members engaged in support or management roles on themanagement of projects, will be working in far many more collaborative arrangementsthan is currently the case. Contemporary literature on collaborative forms of IPD mayprovide a useful guide.

261

Managementof projects

in the 2030s

The paper has acknowledged limitations. The future is impossible to accurately predict,however, in projecting to 2030 we are looking ahead at conditions that will emerge in a littleover a decade from now. It was impossible to undertake empirical research on the future andso we relied upon finding based on surveys of experts undertaken by the authors of thethree chosen foresight reports.

We suggest future research. The manner in which project workers orchestrate digitaltechnologies they currently have access to would provide a sound basis for understandinghow that learning may be enhanced. Also, we suggest that more generational value systemresearch could be undertaken with a project delivery context because one key assumption ofthe five reports we based our paper on that over 50 per cent of project workers in 2030 willbe from Generation Y. It is unknown whether their current value system will prevail or howit may change during the next decade.

Finally, our analysis suggests that there is good and bad news about project workersprospects in 2030. The good news is that for those working in non-routine roles their workwill be more interesting and rewarding that is the case for today. The bad news is that forworkers in routine work roles, that they will be replaced by advanced digital technology.

References

Aitken, A. (2011), “Coping strategies of project managers in stressful situations”, Faculty of Business,Technology and Sustainable Development, Bond University, Gold Coast.

Amer, M., Daim, T.U. and Jetter, A. (2013), “A review of scenario planning”, Futures, Vol. 46, pp. 23-40.

Andersen, E.S. (2008), Rethinking Project Management – An Organisational Perspective, PearsonEducation Limited, Harlow.

Arup (2017), Future of Project Management, Arup, London, p. 68.

Autor, D.H. (2015), “Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplaceautomation”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 3-30.

Ballout, H.I. (2009), “Career commitment and career success: moderating role of self-efficacy”,Career Development International, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 655-670.

Balogun, J. and Johnson, G. (2005), “From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: the impact ofchange recipient sensemaking”, Organization Studies, Vol. 26 No. 11, pp. 1573-1601.

Barley, S.R. and Kunda, G. (2006), “Contracting: a new form of professional practice”, Academy ofManagement Perspectives, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 45-66.

Beitz, S. (2015), “Developing the capacity to adapt to industry transformation”, Australia’s futureworkforce? Committee for Economic Development Australia (CEDA), Melbourne, pp. 156-166.

Bonekamp, L. and Sure, M. (2015), “Consequences of Industry 4.0 on human labour and workorganisation”, Journal of Business and Media Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 33-40.

Bryde, D., Broquetas, M. and Volm, J.M. (2013), “The project benefits of Building Information Modelling(BIM)”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 971-980.

Brynjolfsson, E. and McAfee, A. (2014), The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in aTime of Brilliant Technologies, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, NY.

Burgess, J., Connell, J. and Rasmussen, E. (2005), “Temporary agency work and precariousemployment: a review of the current situation in Australia and New Zealand”, ManagementRevue, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 31-369.

Burrows, S. (2013), “Precarious work, neo-liberalism and young people’s experience of employment inthe Illawarra region”, The Economic and Labour Relations Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 380-396.

Campbell, I. (2010), “The rise in precarious employment and union response”, in Thornley, C., Jeffreys, S.and Appay, B. (Eds), Globalization and Precarious Forms of Production and Employment:Challenges for Workers and Unions, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 114-132.

262

IJMPB12,2

Carson, J.B., Tesluk, P.E. and Marrone, J.A. (2007), “Shared leadership in teams: an investigation ofantecedent conditions and performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 5,pp. 1217-1234.

CEDA (2015), Australia’s Future Workforce?, Committee for Economic Development Australia,Melbourne, p. 248.

Colbert, A., Yee, N. and George, G. (2016), “From the editors: the digital workforce and the workplace ofthe future”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 731-739.

Connell, J. and Burgess, J. (2006), “The influence of precarious employment on career development: thecurrent situation in Australia”, Education + Training, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 493-507.

Crawford, L., Morris, P., Thomas, J. and Winter, M. (2006), “Practitioner development: from trainedtechnicians to reflective practitioners”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24No. 8, pp. 722-733.

Dainty, A.R.J., Cheng, M.-I. and Moore, D.R. (2004), “A competency-based performance modelfor construction project managers”, Construction Management & Economics, Vol. 22 No. 8,pp. 877-888.

Dalcher, D. (2016), “Rethinking project practice: emerging insights from a series of books forpractitioners”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 798-821.

De Stefano, V. (2016), “The rise of the just-in-time workforce: on-demand work, crowdwork, andlabor protection in the gig-economy”, Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3,pp. 471-504.

Demerouti, E. and Bakker, A.B. (2014), “Job crafting”, in Peeters, M.C.W., de Jonge, J. andToaris, T.W. (Eds), An Introduction to Contemporary Work Psychology, John Wiley & Sons,Hoboken, pp. 414-433.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B. and Gevers, J.M.P. (2015), “Job crafting and extra-role behavior: the role ofwork engagement and flourishing”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 91, pp. 87-96.

Drescher, M.A., Korsgaard, M.A., Welpe, I.M., Picot, A. and Wigand, R.T. (2014), “The dynamics ofshared leadership: building trust and enhancing performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 99 No. 5, pp. 771-783.

Durance, P. and Godet, M. (2010), “Scenario building: uses and abuses”, Technological Forecasting andSocial Change, Vol. 77 No. 9, pp. 1488-1492.

Elkington, J. (1997), Cannibals with Forks, Capstone Publishing, London.

Fox, A. (1974), Man Mismanagement, Hutchinson, London.

George, J.M. and Jones, G.R. (1997), “Experiencing work: values, attitudes, and moods”, HumanRelations, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 393-417.

Gollschewski, M. (2015), “Case study: automation and Australia’s future workforce”, Australia’s futureworkforce? Committee for Economic Development Australia (CEDA), Melbourne, pp. 65-77.

Gratton, L. and Ghoshal, S. (2003), “Managing personal human capital: new ethos for the ‘volunteer’employee”, European Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-10.

Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976), “Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory”,Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 250-279.

Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Hardin, E.E. and Donaldson, J.R. (2014), “Predicting job satisfaction: a new perspective onperson–environment fit”, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 634-640.

Hellgren, J., Sverke, M. and Isaksson, K. (1999), “A two-dimensional approach to job insecurity:consequences for employee attitudes and well-being”, European Journal of Work andOrganizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 179-195.

Hirschi, A. (2018), “The Fourth Industrial Revolution: issues and implications for career research andpractice”, Career Development Quarterly, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 192-204.

263

Managementof projects

in the 2030s

Hodgson, D. and Cicmil, S. (2016), “Making projects critical 15 years on: a retrospective reflection(2001–2016)”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 744-751.

Inkson, S.P. (2011), “Contracting and careers: choosing between self and organizational employment”,Career Development International, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 542-558.

Jacobs, J.C., Kagermann, H. and Spath, D. (2017),The Future ofWork in the Digital Transformation –Agility,Lifelong Learning and the Role of Employers and Works Councils in Changing Times, Herbert UtzVerlag Jacobs Foundation Human Resources Working Group, Munich, 68pp.

Jónasson, H.I. and Ingason, H.T. (2013), Project Ethics – Advances in Project Management, GowerPublishing, Farnham.

Kagermann, H., Wahlster, W. and Helbig, J. (2013), “Securing the future of German manufacturingindustry, recommendations for implementing the strategic initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0”,Final report of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group, Federal Ministry of Education andResearch, Acatech – National Academy of Science and Engineering, Frankfurt, April.

Kalleberg, A.L. (2009), “Precarious work, insecure workers: employment relations in transition”,American Sociological Review, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 1-22.

Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T. and Mauno, S. (2003), “Job insecurity and self-esteem. Evidence from cross-lagged relations in a 1-year longitudinal sample”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 35No. 3, pp. 617-632.

Kurtz, C.F. and Snowden, D.J. (2003), “The new dynamics of strategy: sense-making in a complex andcomplicated world”, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 462-483.

Lee, C., Huang, G.-H. and Ashford, S.J. (2018), “Job insecurity and the changing workplace: recentdevelopments and the future trends in job insecurity research”,Annual Review of OrganizationalPsychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 5, pp. 335-359.

Ling, F.Y.Y. and Loo, C.M.C. (2013), “Characteristics of jobs and jobholders that affect job satisfactionand work performance of project managers”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 31No. 3, 10pp.

Lloyd-Walker, B., Crawford, L. and French, E. (2018), “Uncertainty as opportunity: the challenge ofproject based careers”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 11 No. 4,pp. 886-900.

Loo, R. (2002), “Tackling ethical dilemmas in project management using vignettes”, InternationalJournal of Project Management, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 489-495.

Luhmann, M. (1979), Trust and Power, Wiley, Chichester.

Lundin, R.A., Midler, C., Sydow, J.R., Ekstedt, E., Arvidsson, N. and Brady, T. (2015), “Chapter 3 –managingin project society”, in Lundin, R.A., Midler, C., Sydow, J., Ekstedt, E., Arvidsson, N. and Brady, T.(Eds), Managing and Working in Project Society: Institutional Challenges of TemporaryOrganizations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 80-128.

McKeown, T. (2005), “Non-standard employment: when even the elite are precarious”, The Journal ofIndustrial Relations, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 276-293.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An integrated model of organizational trust”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-735.

Merton, R.K. (1936), “The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action”, AmericanSociological Review, Vol. 1 No. 6, pp. 894-904.

Midler, C. (1995), “ ‘Projectification’ of the firm: the Renault case”, Scandinavian Journal ofManagement, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 363-375.

Midler, C. and Beaume, R. (2010), “Project-based learning patterns for dominant design renewal: thecase of electric vehicle”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 142-150.

Montealegre, R. and Cascio, W.F. (2017), “Technology-driven changes in work and employment”,Communications of the ACM, Vol. 80 No. 12, pp. 60-67.

Morris, E.A. (2007), “From horse power to horsepower”, Access, Vol. 30, 8pp., available at: www.accessmagazine.org/spring-2007/horse-power-horsepower/

264

IJMPB12,2

Morris, P.W.G. (1994), The Management of Projects a New Model, Thomas Telford, London.

Morris, P.W.G. (2013), Reconstructing Project Management, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.

Müller, R., Packendorff, J. and Sankaran, S. (2017), “Chapter 13: balanced leadership”, in Sankaran, S.,Müller, R. and Drouin, N. (Eds), Cambridge Handbook of Organizational Project Management,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 186-199.

Müller, R., Andersen, E.S., Kvalnes, Ø., Shao, J., Sankaran, S., Turner, J.R., Biesenthal, C., Walker, D.H.T.and Gudergan, S. (2013), “The interrelationship of governance, trust and ethics in temporaryorganizations”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 26-44.

Muzio, E., Fisher, D.J., Thomas, R. and Peters, V. (2007), “Soft skills quantification (Ssq) for projectmanager competencies”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 30-38.

Packendorff, J. and Lindgren, M. (2014), “Projectification and its consequences: narrow and broadconceptualisations”, South African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, Vol. 17 No. 1,pp. 7-21.

PMI (2013), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, 5th ed., Project ManagementInstitute, Sylva, NC.

PwC (2017), Workforce of the future: the competing forces shaping 2030, 42pp., available at: www.pwc.com/gx/en/services/people-organisation/workforce-of-the-future/workforce-of-the-future-the-competing-forces-shaping-2030-pwc.pdf

Quinlan, M. (2012), “The ‘pre-invention’ of precarious employment: the changing world of work incontext”, The Economic and Labour Relations Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 3-24.

Rampton, B. (2002), “Ritual and foreign language practices at school”, Language in Society, Vol. 31No. 4, pp. 491-525.

Rockwood, K. (2018), “2018 jobs report: in a time of change, demand for project talent will keep rising”,PM Network, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 28-47.

Schoberova, M. (2015), Job Crafting and Personal Development in the Workplace: Employees andManagers Co-Creating Meaningful and Productive Work in Personal Development Discussions.Business: Human Resources, Scholarly Commons, University of Pennsylvania, Chichester.

Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline – The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization, RandomHouse, Sydney.

Siebert, S., Martin, G., Bozic, B. and Docherty, I. (2015), “Looking ‘beyond the factory gates’: towardsmore pluralist and radical approaches to intraorganizational trust research”, OrganizationStudies, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 1033-1062.

Sjöblom, S. and Godenhjelm, S. (2009), “Project proliferation and governance – implications forenvironmental management”, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 169-185.

Smith, C. and Winter, M. (2010), “The craft of project shaping”, International Journal of ManagingProjects in Business, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 46-60.

Snowden, D.J. and Boone, M.E. (2007), “A leader’s framework for decision making”, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 85 No. 11, pp. 69-76.

Svejvig, P. and Grex, S. (2016), “The Danish agenda for rethinking project management”, InternationalJournal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 822-844.

Taylor, N. (2015), “The industrial revolution’s next wave”, Australia’s future workforce? Committee forEconomic Development Australia (CEDA), Melbourne, pp. 18-30.

Tims, M., Bakker, A.B. and Derks, D. (2012), “Development and validation of the job crafting scale”,Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 173-186.

Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., Derks, D. and van Rhenen, W. (2013), “Job crafting at the team and individuallevel: implications for work engagement and performance”, Group & Organization Management,Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 427-454.

Turner, J.R. and Müller, R. (2003), “On the nature of the project as a temporary organization”,International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 1-8.

265

Managementof projects

in the 2030s

United Kingdom Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES) (2014), The Future of Work: Jobsand Skills in 2030, London.

Utterback, J.M. (1994),Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation: How Companies Can Seize Opportunitiesin the Face of Technological Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

van der Hoorn, B. (2016), “Continental thinking: a tool for accessing the project experience”,International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 865-891.

Varum, C.A. and Melo, C. (2010), “Directions in scenario planning literature – a review of the pastdecades”, Futures, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 355-369.

Walker, D. and Lloyd-Walker, B.M. (2014), “Client-side project management capabilities: dealingwith ethical dilemmas”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 7 No. 4,pp. 566-589.

Walker, D.H.T. and Lloyd-Walker, B. (2016), “Rethinking project management: its influence on paperspublished in the international journal of managing projects in business”, International Journal ofManaging Projects in Business, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 716-743.

Walker, D.H.T. and Lloyd-Walker, B.M. (2011a), “Profiling professional excellence in alliancemanagement summary study report”, Alliancing Association of Australasia, Sydney, May, 36pp.

Walker, D.H.T. and Lloyd-Walker, B.M. (2011b), “Profiling professional excellence in alliance managementvolume one – findings and results”, Alliancing Association of Australasia, Sydney, 76pp.

Walker, D.H.T. and Lloyd-Walker, B.M. (2015), Collaborative Project Procurement Arrangements,Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.

Wegman, L.A., Hoffman, B.J., Carter, N.T., Twenge, J.M. and Guenole, N. (2018), “Placing jobcharacteristics in context: cross-temporal meta-analysis of changes in job characteristics since1975”, Journal of Management, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 352-386.

Whitley, R. (2006), “Project-based firms: new organizational form or variations on a theme?”, Industrialand Corporate Change, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 77-99.

Further reading

Blaikie, N.W.H. (2000), Designing Social Research: The Logic of Anticipation, Polity Press, Malden, MA.

Corresponding authorDerek Walker can be contacted at: derek.walker@rmit.edu.au

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htmOr contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

266

IJMPB12,2