Introduction

Luhmann 101

P1- E&PM should stay separated because of the existence of two distinct discourses

P2- E&PM should converge because of the potential action-oriented links

Discussion and conclusion

References

Abstract

Purpose – Both project investments and entrepreneurial ventures are considered powerful catalysts of economic prosperity and social progress. But these ventures and investments come with their inherent challenges and risks. Observing this situation, academics have paid close attention to the fields of entrepreneurship and project management (E&PM). Thus, for over 30 years, the two fields have witnessed remarkable developments among management and organization studies. The historical perspective reveals that these two multidisciplinary fields were built in parallel, on very distinct mindsets and cultures. The purpose of this paper is to offer a wider dialogic conversation between two distinct perspectives and related propositions: E&PM should stay separated; and E&PM should converge. Design/methodology/approach – In order to guide the investigation of these propositions, the authors call for Luhmann and a systemic-discursive perspective of both fields discourses. Ultimately, the purpose is to contribute to the debate surrounding the following questions: are E&PM fields so far from each other, and thus, irreconcilable? And, if so, is it so good? Findings – Finally, the authors will suggest that E&PM may stay far from each other as they do not share similar discourses and codes. This may be a good state of affairs, however, as distance generates a fruitful creative tension between them. Originality/value – While many researchers focus on linking E&PM, arguing that they largely agree as to their underlying goal, the paper aims to offer a wider dialogical conversation between the two distinct perspectives and their related propositions: E&PM should stay separate; and E&PM should converge. In order to do so, this paper calls for a Luhmannian and a systemic-discursive perspective.

Introduction

Both project investments and entrepreneurial ventures are considered to be powerful catalysts of economic prosperity and social progress both at micro and macro levels. However, these ventures and investments come with their inherent challenges and risks. Indeed, they both “involve ‘projection in the future’ and therefore possibility of deliberation (and decision making) about the future (plan), choice of means towards ends” (Bredillet, 2013, p. 64); and “because action takes place over time, and because the future is unknowable, action is inherently uncertain” (Von Mises, 1949; Bredillet, 2013, p. 68). Considering project investments, more than 25 percent of global economic activity appears in the form of projects, and in some emerging economies, this exceeds 35 percent. For instance, World Development Indicators data from 2015[1] show that 24 percent of the world’s $75 trillion gross domestic product is gross capital formation[2], which is almost entirely project based. In the meantime, only 62 percent of projects meet original goals/ business intent, 53 percent are completed within original budgets, 49 percent are completed on time, 45 percent experience scope creep, 32 percent encounter budget loss and 16 percent are deemed failures (Project Management Institute, 2016, p. 5). As stated by the Project Management Institute (2017, p. 2) report “Organizations are wasting an average of $97 million for every $1 billion invested, due to poor project performance.”