SILESIAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY PUBLISHING HOUSE

SCIENTIFIC PAPERS OF SILESIAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY 2022

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT SERIES NO. 161

PROJECT MANAGEMENT IN TURBULENT TIMES

OF COMPLEXITY OF SOCIAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL SYSTEMS

Seweryn SPAŁEK
Silesian University of Technology, Faculty of Management and Organisation; [email protected],
ORCID: 0000-0003-1261-0626

Purpose: The aim of the article is a Viewpoint based on the General Review of the state of
knowledge regarding current trends in project management, taking into account the high
volatility of the environment and the increasing complexity of social and technological systems.
Design/methodology/approach: The article presents a narrative review of the literature and
refers to the results of the author's own research.
Findings: With the increasing volatility of the environment and the increasing complexity of
social and technological systems, the importance of using hybrid project management and the
process approach to management in organisations will increase.
Practical implications: Nowadays, a vast majority of organisations manage projects in
a traditional way. Observations contained in the article will contribute to the potential attention
of decision-makers and the implementation of new management methods in organisations.
Social implications: Projects are not only inscribed in the activities of the organisation but also
their results affect the quality of life of the population. By improving the efficiency of project
management activities, it is possible to significantly affect the quality of people's lives.
Originality/value: The article presents the significance of hybrid project management and the
process approach in turbulent times of complexity of social and technological systems in
a systematic and review way.
Keywords: Project management, new technologies, uncertainty, complex environment.
Category of the paper: Viewpoint.

1. Introduction

Over the years, project management has been subject to constant changes (Kerzner, 2013;
Spalek, 2013c; Trocki, Bukłaha, 2016). These changes were undoubtedly related to the need to
improve the organisation's activities (Trocki et al., 2012, p. 15; Spalek, 2016a) in order to build
a competitive advantage (Martens, Franklin, Mauro, Silva, De Freitas, 2018 ). As results of the

http://dx.doi.org/10.29119/1641-3466.2022.161.18 http://managementpapers.polsl.pl/
262 S. Spałek

author's previous research have shown1, the improvement of project’s activities can be
considered in terms of process and structure. The first is related to the dynamic functioning of
the organisation, while the other is relevant to the static functioning. Recently, the importance
of the process approach to project management has increased, as enterprises are experiencing
a far-reaching dynamisation of activities linked to the introduction of breakthrough
technological changes. Therefore, it may be concluded that technological progress plays and
will continue to play an increasingly important role in creating changes in project management.
However, it may take a moderating and mediating or inductive form. The moderating and
mediating character becomes apparent in situations where the development of new technologies
affects the modification of the methods used so far (Davidson, Chiasson, 2005; Yen, Li,
Niehoff, 2008) or their wider dissemination (Tiwana, McLean, 2005; Wang, Wang, 2019).
Moreover, technological progress imposes the emergence of new ways of project management,
an example of which may be an agile approach to project management (Wyrozębski, 2016).
The subject of the influence of modern technologies on project management has already
been elaborated by researchers, although it was mostly focused on information systems and
their application possibilities to improve tools and techniques in project management
(Liberatore, Pollack-Johnson, 2003; Sambamurthy, Zmud, 1999). It was only at the constituting
of the last decade that attention began to be more closely paid to the impact that technological
progress may have on the activities of the organisation, including project management (Kwak,
Anbari, 2009). With the further development of modern technologies and their wider use in
enterprises, determining this impact becomes more and more desirable (Gomes, Oliveira,
Chaves, 2018; Roberts, Piller, Luttgens, 2016). This was confirmed by the author’s research2
carried out in 2019, which reveals that currently, technologies associated with social media and
Industry 4.0, including those very closely linked to modern technologies, have the greatest
potential impact on project related activities in enterprises.
Summing up, it should be noted that contemporary project management should take into
account far reaching changes in the activities of enterprises, which are brought about by the
expansive development of modern technologies, with particular emphasis on those related to
social changes.

1
The research was conducted as part of NCN grant no. N504 678740 and cooperation with the Project Management
Institute, the key conclusions were published in: Spalek, 2012, 2013a, 2013b, 2014.
2
International empirical research was carried out on a sample of 264 respondents (project managers or members
of project teams) from enterprises running IT, production and construction projects. The research results are
presented in the article: Spalek, S. (2020). Współczesne wyzwania technologiczne a zarządzanie projektami w
organizacjach. In: E. Sońta-Drączkowska, I. Bednarska-Wnuk (eds.), Wybrane aspekty zarządzania procesami,
projektami i ryzykiem w przedsiębiorstwach (pp. 103-114). Łódź: Publishing House of the University of Łódź.
Project management in turbulent times… 263

2. The impact of environmental variability on project management

As it has already been addressed, along with a growth in the dynamics of activities in
organisations, the importance of the process approach to project management has increased.
The high volatility of the environment has also resulted in the emergence of the concept of
Agile Project Management (APM) alongside traditional (waterfall) project management and
Hybrid Project Management (HPM) combining the two previously mentioned approaches.
Moreover, the concept of projectification (Maylor, Turkulainen, 2019) was introduced,
associated with an increase in the number of projects and their importance in the activities of
the organisation. Therefore, there was a need to define a system framework for project activities
in organisations.
Along with the ongoing dynamisation of the organisation's activities, the process approach
more and more often constitutes the basis for the functioning of the organisation (Nowosielski,
2009, p. 11), with particular emphasis on project management (Trocki, 2012a, pp. 66-67).
This statement is of particular importance in the context of project management in turbulent
times of complexity of social and technological systems. Moreover, the latest international
scientific studies indicate the important role of processes in project management (Antony et al.,
2019; Bordley, Keisler, Logan, 2019; Crama, Sting, Wu, 2019; da Costa, Amaral, Fernandes,
Rozenfeld, 2019; De Benedittis, 2019; Dolata, 2019; Jalocha, 2019; Karlsson, Kurkkio,
Hersinger, 2019; Li, Hall, 2019; Midler, 2019; Tarraco, Bernardes, Borini, Rossetto, 2019).
Therefore, it is advisable to focus on the process aspect of project management, as a response
to the increasing dynamics of activities undertaken in organisations.
Following Michał Trocki (2019a, pp. 10-11) and following the provisions of
ISO 21500:2012 Guidance on project management (ISO, 2012) standard, project activities
should be defined in terms of processes as a complete and coherent set of processes that create
three groups:
 project management processes,
 product processes,
 support processes.
It is significant that only the first group of processes, i.e. project management processes,
is the exclusive domain of project management, the other two are not unique to project
management (ISO, 2012, p. 8; Trocki, 2012, p. 68).
The structure of management processes can be considered from two perspectives (ISO,
2012; PMI, 2017): as groups of processes occurring at different stages of the project execution
and as groups of subject related processes, which are processes reflecting homogeneous issues
(Trocki, 2012b) also referred to in the literature as areas of knowledge in project management
(Wyrozębski, 2017, p. 101; Nogalski, Szpitter, Jabłoński, 2016, p. 21). The first group includes
processes related to management in the key areas of the project, i.e. integration, stakeholders,
264 S. Spałek

scope, resource, time, cost, risk, quality, procurements and communication. The other group
includes processes related to stages of the project management cycle, i.e. initiating, planning,
implementing, controlling and closing.
When analysing the intensity of the occurrence of processes at individual stages of the
project management cycle, it may be noticed that the particular intensity of management
processes occurs at the stages of planning and then successively for controlling and executing.
This observation shows the importance of organising, which is largely related to the three stages
mentioned. While, organising is understood as: (1) planning and coordinating individual stages
of activities, (2) creating a team for joint action or establishing an institution, organisation, etc.,
(3) being a factor determining the arrangement and functioning of the elements of a whole
(PWN, 1997-2019). In the context of changes brought about by complex social and
technological systems, organising as part of the project management processes has a special
place in them. The importance of organising was already indicated by Tadeusz Kotarbiński
(1999, p. 348), who stated that organising is a combination of elements of collective actions
(subjects, things, purposeful processes and actions) into a whole, so that the structure of the
resulting entity contributes to the achievement of the common goal of these items. In this way,
Kotarbiński foresaw the ‘material and immaterial’ idea of organising that is focused on creating
value for the customer, which can be successfully implemented in a symbiosis of modern social
and technological systems. The current trends in management also indicate the important role
of organising, and it is precisely with the use of the relationship between the various resources
of the enterprise (Pabian, 2017; Rokita, 2009; Zakrzewska-Bielawska, 2012).

3. Multiple complexity of systems and project management

It is assumed in the literature that Traditional Project Management (TPM) means the use
of tools and techniques in the waterfall management of project stages, with particular emphasis
on scheduling as well as budget and quality management in the project (Masciadra, 2017;
Spalek, 2016b). As Manfred Saynisch (2010) pointed out in their 2010 article, traditional
project management (TPM) cannot autonomously meet the challenges of increasing complexity
in social, economic and technological systems. This statement is also very relevant today.
This does not mean that the use of waterfall project management should be discontinued.
As yet, in some types of projects it works perfectly. However, over the years, traditional project
management has also undergone significant modifications. In its constituting, special attention
was paid to the triangle of constraints, also known as iron or gold, which included managing
time, costs and the scope of the project. Currently, this concept is still the focus of researchers
(Pollack, Helm, Adler, 2018), although it is often extended to the business aspects of projects
(Kloppenborg, Tesch, 2015). In addition, increasing attention is paid to managing change
Project management in turbulent times… 265

(Ansari, 2019), stakeholders (Toor, Ogunlana, 2010), communication (Yang, Chen, An, Cui,
2015) and project integration (Marques, Gourc, Lauras, 2011), with particular attention on
knowledge management in these areas (Camison-Haba, Clemente-Almendros, Gonzalez-Cruz,
2019).
The concept of agile project management (APM) was born on the wave of criticism from
traditional project management. The turning point in the emergence of the concept of agile
project management is the 2001 Agile Manifesto (Cohen, Lindvall, Costa, 2004). However,
both before and after that date, researchers focused on agility beyond the framework of
information systems (Thomke, Reinertsen, 1998; Ramesh Devadasan, 2007). It should be noted
that in its assumptions, APM rejects the main role of the triangle of constraints. In this concept,
it is assumed that the most important aspect is to match the product or service to the customer's
requirements in the best possible way. Therefore, the most important issues are: communication
with the customer, interactions in the project team, functionality of the solution and flexible
response to changes in requirements. Other aspects of project management are subordinated to
them. At the same time, while being part of IT project management, commonly accepted
methods of agile project management have been developed – such as SCRUM (Santos, Flentge,
Begin, Navarro, 2011) – in other industries, agile project management may take various forms
(Conforto et al., 2014). As such, it still remains a more general concept that is adapted to specific
enterprise applications (Nicholas, Steyn, 2017).
Comparing the principles of traditional and agile project management, it can be concluded
that TPM is better based on a hard (tools and techniques) approach to project management,
while APM emphasises the soft aspects of cooperation between people in the project. It is worth
emphasising that both approaches are aimed at providing a solution for the customer.
The application of TPM or APM may be limited by the environment in which the project is
operating. However, projects implemented with the use of agile methods are more suitable for
implementation in dynamic project environments (Serrador, Pinto, 2015).
After the initial period of an uncritical approach to agile project management and attempts
to popularise this practice, voices appeared pointing out the limitations of this concept (Boehm,
Turner, 2005; Katayama, Goldman, 2011). It is especially difficult to apply the principles of
agile project management in large and very formalised organisations. Problems with the
appropriate selection of members for project teams should also be indicated, who, having the
appropriate knowledge and experience, would be ready to work in very dynamic,
self-organising teams. Moreover, in agile project management we deal with a very high degree
of trust between the project team and the customer, while in many organisations there is a high
level of distrust resulting from previously implemented projects or business relationships.
Trying to meet the challenges resulting from the dynamisation of the environment,
increasing variability of customer requirements and technological progress, the organisations
were also forced to adapt the way of project management to the new realities. When the TPM
adaptation possibilities and limitations in the application of APM reached the limit, selected
266 S. Spałek

solutions from TPM and APM were used. This approach offered an opportunity, especially for
large enterprises outside the IT industry, to adapt products and services faster without the need
to introduce deep and costly organisational and personnel changes. This was made possible by
the use of agile practices for selected product elements or stages in the project life cycle, while
applying an overall flowchart of the traditional approach to project management. Over time,
this approach became popular under the name of hybrid project management (HPM) (Wysocki,
2011, pp. 405-408). It can be concluded that the organisation using HPM derives solutions from
both TPM and APM, and the scope of their application may differ depending on the enterprise
and the specifics of the project.
It is worth noting the results of international longitudinal research conducted since 2012
by Ayelt Komus of the University of Koblenz on the use of individual project management
methods in companies (Komus et al., 2020). The results of this research clearly show the
growing importance of HPM. Thus, in 2012, 27% of all researched projects were managed in
a hybrid way, and in 2019 as much as 43%. It is significant that HPM is also more frequently
adapted in sectors other than IT. Its importance in the new products development is also
growing – this level is currently estimated at 20%.
HPM can be both used at the project and programme or project portfolio level. Whilst, the
project portfolio is understood as a set of projects grouped in terms of benefits for the
organisation, as a result of the implementation of these projects various products or services are
created. The programme is understood as a set of projects whose common goal is to provide
a given product or service. As part of a single project, it is possible to apply TPM and use APM
only for the implementation of selected tasks for which there is a significant variation in
customer requirements or there is a high uncertainty of the methods and tools used. On the other
hand, utilisation at the portfolio or programme level is the selection of those component projects
that will be implemented using agile methods, while using TPM at the programme or portfolio
level.

4. Conclusion

Summing up, it should be noted that with the increasing complexity of modern social and
technological systems, hybrid methods of project management, combining traditional and agile
project management approaches, are growing and will continue to grow in importance.
Moreover, the high volatility of the environment imposes the combining of process and project
related approaches in organisations increasingly often.
The above observations constitute a strong premise for project managers in organisations
to redefine the existing traditional approaches to project management in organisations.
Project management in turbulent times… 267

References

1. Ansari, R. (2019). Dynamic Simulation Model for Project Change-Management Policies:

Engineering Project Case. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 145(7),
22.
2. Antony, J., Lizarelli, F.L., Fernandes, M.M., Dempsey, M., Brennan, A., McFarlane, J.
(2019). A study into the reasons for process improvement project failures: results from a
pilot survey. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 36(10), 1699-
1720.
3. Boehm, B., Turner, R. (2005). Management challanges to implementing Agile Processes in
traditional development organizations. IEEE Software, 22(5).
4. Bordley, R.F., Keisler, J.M., Logan, T.M. (2019). Managing projects with uncertain
deadlines. European Journal of Operational Research, 274(1), 291-302.
5. Camison-Haba, S., Clemente-Almendros, J.A., Gonzalez-Cruz, T. (2019). How
technology-based firms become also highly innovative firms? The role of knowledge,
technological and managerial capabilities, and entrepreneurs' background. Journal of
Innovation & Knowledge, 4(3), 162-170.
6. Cohen, D., Lindvall, M., Costa, P. (2004). An introduction to agile methods. Advances in
Computers, Vol. 62, iss. 62, 1-66.
7. Conforto, E.C., Salum, F., Amaral, D.C., da Silva, S.L., de Almeida, L.F.M. (2014).
Can Agile Project Management Be Adopted by Industries Other than Software
Development? Project Management Journal, 45(3), 21-34.
8. Crama, P., Sting, F.J., Wu, Y.Z. (2019). Encouraging Help Across Projects. Management
Science, 65(3), 1408-1429.
9. da Costa, J.M.H., Amaral, C.S.T., Fernandes, S.D., Rozenfeld, H. (2019). A new way to
diagnose the new product development process based on recurring current reality trees.
Business Process Management Journal, 25(4), 667-687.
10. Davidson, E., Chiasson, M. (2005). Contextual influences on technology use mediation:
a comparative analysis of electronic medical record systems. European Journal of
Information Systems, 14(1), 6-18.
11. De Benedittis, J. (2019). Transition between temporary organizations: Dimensions enabling
economies of recombination. International Journal of Project Management, 37(7), 912-
929.
12. Dolata, M. (2019). The sources of competitive advantage from the perspective of project
management – results of empirical studies. Management-Poland, 23(1), 75-89.
13. Gomes, F., Oliveira, M., Chaves, M.S. (2018). An analysis of the relationship between
knowledge sharing and the project management process groups. Knowledge and Process
Management, 25(3), 168-179.
268 S. Spałek

14. Jalocha, B. (2019). The European Union's multi-level impact on member state
projectification in light of neoinstitutional theory. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, 12(3), 578-601.
15. Karlsson, B., Kurkkio, M., Hersinger, A. (2019). The role of the controller in strategic
capital investment projects: bridging the gap of multiple topoi. Journal of Management &
Governance, 23(3), 813-838.
16. Katayama, E.T., Goldman, A. (2011). From Manufacture to Software Development:
A Comparative Review. Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme
Programming, 77, 88-101.
17. Kerzner, H. (2013). Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and
controlling. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
18. Kloppenborg, T.J., Tesch, D. (2015). How Executive Sponsors Influence Project Success.
Mit Sloan Management Review, 56(3).
19. Komus, A., Kuberg, M., Schmidt, S., Rost, L., Koch, C.-P., Bartnick, S. et al. (2020). Status
Quo (Scaled) Agile 2019/20. 4th International Survey. Benefits and Challenges of (Scaled)
Agile Approaches. Koblenz.
20. Kotarbiński, T. (1999). Dzieła wszystkie. Prakseologia. Część 1. Wrocław: Zakład
Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk (Ossolineum).
21. Kwak, Y.H., Anbari, F.T. (2009). Availability-Impact Analysis of Project Management
Trends: Perspectives From Allied Disciplines. Project Management Journal, 40(2), 94-103.
22. Li, C.L., Hall, N.G. (2019). Work Package Sizing and Project Performance. Operations
Research, 67(1), 123-142.
23. Liberatore, M.J., Pollack-Johnson, B. (2003). Factors influencing the usage and selection
of project management software. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 50(2),
164-174.
24. Marques, G., Gourc, D., Lauras, M. (2011). Multi-criteria performance analysis for decision
making in project management. International Journal of Project Management, 29(8), 1057-
1069.
25. Martens, C.D.P., Franklin, J.M., Mauro, L.M., Silva, F., De Freitas, H.M.R. (2018). Linking
entrepreneurial orientation to project success. International Journal of Project
Management, 36(2), 255-266.
26. Masciadra, E. (2017) Traditional Project Management, Vol. 5. Knowledge Management and
Organizational Learning. Springer Nature, pp. 3-23.
27. Maylor, H., Turkulainen, V. (2019). The concept of organisational projectification: past,
present and beyond? International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 12(3), 565-
577.
28. Midler, C. (2019). Projectification The forgotten variable in the internationalization of
firms' innovation processes? International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 12(3),
545-564.
Project management in turbulent times… 269

29. Nicholas, J., Steyn, H. (2017). Agile Project Management and Lean Project Management
for Engineering, Business and Technology. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 453-480.
30. Nogalski, B., Szpitter, A., Jabłoński, M. (2016). Zarządzanie projektami w kształtowaniu
elastycznych modeli biznesu operatorów systemu dystrybucyjnego. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo
Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.
31. Nowosielski S. (ed.) (2009). Podejście procesowe w organizacjach, Vol. 52. Wrocław:
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu.
32. Pabian, A. (2017). Organizowanie jako funkcja zarządzania zrównoważonym
przedsiębiorstwem przyszłości. Zarządzanie organizacją. Koncepcje. Wyzwania.
Perspektywy. Częstochowa: Wydawnictwo Wydziału Zarządzania Politechniki
Częstochowskiej.
33. PMI (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide).
Project Management Institute (PMI).
34. Pollack, J., Helm, J., Adler, D. (2018). What is the Iron Triangle, and how has it changed?
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 11(2), 527-547.
35. PWN (1997-2019). Słownik języka polskiego PWN. Retrieved from https://sjp.pwn.pl/,
31.10.2019.
36. Ramesh, G., Devadasan, S.R. (2007). Literature review on the agile manufacturing criteria.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 18(2), 182-201.
37. Roberts, D.L., Piller, F.T., & Luttgens, D. (2016). Mapping the Impact of Social Media for
Innovation: The Role of Social Media in Explaining Innovation Performance in the PDMA
Comparative Performance Assessment Study. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
33(S1), 117-135.
38. Rokita, J. (2009). Dynamika zarządzania organizacjami. Prace Naukowe, Akademia
Ekonomiczna w Katowicach.
39. Sambamurthy, V., Zmud, R.W. (1999). Arrangements for information technology
governance: A theory of multiple contingencies. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 261-290.
40. Santos, R., Flentge, F., Begin, M.-E., Navarro, V. (2011). Agile Technical Management of
Industrial Contracts: Scrum Development of Ground Segment Software at the European
Space Agency. Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming, 77.
41. Saynisch, M. (2010). Mastering Complexity and Changes in Projects, Economy, and
Society via Project Management Second Order (PM-2). Project Management Journal,
41(5), 4-20.
42. Serrador, P., Pinto, J.K. (2015). Does Agile work? A quantitative analysis of agile project
success. International Journal of Project Management, 33(5), 1040-1051.
43. Spalek, S. (2012). The role of project management office in the multi-project environment.
International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, 12(2), 172-188.
44. Spalek, S. (2013a). Dojrzałość przedsiębiorstwa w zarządzaniu projektami. Gliwice:
Publishing house of the Silesian University of Technology.
270 S. Spałek

45. Spalek, S. (2013b). Improving Industrial Engineering Performance through a Successful

Project Management Office. Engineering Economics, 24(2), 88-98.
46. Spalek, S. (2013c). Rozwój metod i koncepcji w zarządzaniu projektami od lat 50.
ubiegłego stulecia do dziś. In: A. Czech, A. Szplit (eds.), Nauki o zarządzaniu dla
przedsiębiorstw i biznesu (pp. 593-603). Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego
w Katowicach.
47. Spalek, S. (2014). Does investment in project management pay off? Industrial Management
& Data Systems, 114(5), 832-856.
48. Spalek, S. (2016a). Doskonalenie zarządzania projektami w przedsiębiorstwie.
Management Forum, 4(2), 3-9.
49. Spalek, S. (2016b). Traditional vs. Modern Project Management Methods. Theory and
Practice. Smart and Efficient Economy: Preparation for the Future Innovative Economy,
499-506.
50. Spalek, S. (2017). Zarządzanie projektami w erze przemysłu 4.0. Ekonomika i Organizacja
Przedsiębiorstwa, 9(812), 106-112.
51. Tarraco, E.L., Bernardes, R.C., Borini, F.M., Rossetto, D.E. (2019). Innovation capabilities
for global R&D projects in subsidiaries. European Journal of Innovation Management,
22(4), 639-659.
52. Thomke, S., Reinertsen, D. (1998). Agile product development: Managing development
flexibility in uncertain environments. California Management Review, 41(1).
53. Tiwana, A., McLean, E.R. (2005). Expertise integration and creativity in information
systems development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(1), 13-43.
54. Toor, S.U.R., Ogunlana, S. O. (2010). Beyond the 'iron triangle': Stakeholder perception of
key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector development projects.
International Journal of Project Management, 28(3), 228-236.
55. Trocki, M., Bukłaha E. (ed.) (2016). Zarządzanie projektami – wyzwania i wyniki badań.
Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH.
56. Trocki, M., Bukłaha, E., Grucza, B., Juchniewicz, M., Metelski, W., Wyrozębski, P. (2012).
Nowoczesne zarządzanie projektami. Warszawa: PWE.
57. Trocki, M. (2012a). Model procesowy projektów. In: M. Trocki (Ed.), Nowoczesne
zarządzanie projektami (pp. 65-77). Warszawa: PWE.
58. Trocki, M. (2012b). Wprowadzenie do zarządzania projektami. In: M. Trocki (Ed.),
Nowoczesne zarządzanie projektami (p. 74). Warszawa: PWE.
59. Trocki, M. (2018a). Project Governance – kształtowanie ładu projektowego organizacji.
Studia i prace Kolegium Zarządzania i Finansów SGH, 159, 9-25.
60. Trocki, M. (2019a). Miejsce i rola projektów w zarządzaniu. In: M. Trocki (Ed.), Społeczna
odpowiedzialność działalności projektowej (pp. 9-21). Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza
SGH.
Project management in turbulent times… 271

61. Wyrozębski, P. (2016). Zwinne modele zarządzania przedsiębiorstwem inteligentnym.

In: S. Gregorczyk, W. Mierzejewska (Eds.), Zarządzanie przedsiębiorstwem inteligentnym.
Wybrane zagadnienia. Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH.
62. Wyrozębski, P. (2017). Metodyka PMBoK Guide. In: M. Trocki (Ed.), Metodyki
i standardy zarządzania projektami. Warszawa: PWE.
63. Wysocki, R.K. (2011). Effective project management: traditional, agile, extreme. John
Wiley & Sons.
64. Yang, D.H., Chen, Y.F., An, Y.N., Cui, M.X. (2015). Evaluation of project communication
management capability based on the Triangular Fuzzy Number. Advances in Energy
Science and Equipment Engineering, 1715-1718.
65. Zakrzewska-Bielawska, A. (2013). Zasobowe uwarunkowania koopetycji w przedsię-
biorstwach high-tech. Przegląd Organizacji, 2, 3-8.
Copyright of Scientific Papers of Silesian University of Technology. Organization &
Management / Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Slaskiej. Seria Organizacji i Zarzadzanie is the
property of Silesian Technical University, Organisation & Management Faculty and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.