Sometimes project networks can
anticipate the likelihood of needing
new sources of expertise in a complex
project by including representatives
with diverse previous project experiences and expertise. This intentional
injection of diversity and novelty into
a project network comes with the risk
that the new project partners may lack
the past experience of working with
its other partners who share common
past project engagements. As a result,
the challenge becomes one of integrating new project partners into a project
network where other project network
partners have past project experience that shapes their expectations for
their respective project relationships.
Such relationships, characterized by
trust and reciprocity, must be earned,
whereas project responsibilities, roles,
and routines are more an artifact of
industry- or region-wide project norms
and historical practice.
Paradoxical Tensions in Project
Networks
Project networks are subject to a
variety of tensions whose resolution
or even mitigation poses problematic
dilemmas for the participating indi-
viduals or organizations (DeFillippi,
Grabher, & Jones, 2007). These ten-
sions are referred to as paradoxical
insofar as they typically resist simple
binary choices among alternatives for
their management (Lewis, 2000). A
recent review of the paradox literature
describes paradoxes as persistent con-
tradictions between interdependent
elements (Schad, Lewis, Raisch, &
Smith, 2016). Our discussion will exam-
ine a set of tensions and contradictions
between interdependent elements in
project networks and note the implica-
tions of these paradoxes for project net-
work governance. In more detail, we will
present the distance paradox, the learn-
ing paradox, the identity paradox, the
difference paradox, and the temporal
paradox. All five paradoxes—and others
(cf. with regard to interorganizational
relationships more generally, Sydow,
The uncertainties of complex proj-
ect work may induce unexpected proj-
ect changes and a search for innovative
solutions to these uncertainties, which
may be exogenous and/or endogenous
to the project network. As a result, proj-
ect participants may be compelled to
make real-time adaptations to their
original expectations for project respon-
sibilities, roles, routines, and relation-
ships for working with one another. It
is during these periods of crisis, uncer-
tainty, and innovative challenge that the
quality of the contractual relationships
among project participants is tested and
becomes—or fails to become—the rela-
tional governance mechanism for cop-
ing with these uncertainties (Macneil,
1974). In these situations, the “required”
trust must be swift (Meyerson, Weick, &
Kramer, 1996), but must also be nur-
tured during a complex project, or even
a series of projects, by large and small
actions that signal reciprocal commit-
ment to the project and the basis for
making larger trust-based actions that
may not have been anticipated ex ante
in the project contract (Swärd, 2016).
Recent work has examined the multidi-
mensionality of trust, and such concep-
tual development should contribute to
more nuanced applications in examin-
ing trust-based governance of project
network relations (Shazi, Gillespie, &
Steen, 2015).
propose that trust evolves out of prior
relations that reduce transactional
uncertainty and increase the shared
understanding needed for effective
coordination. Ebers and Maurer (2016)
have empirically tested and modeled
how prior relationships by project partners and relationship-specific investments by these partners can overcome
recent project collaboration disappointments and provide the trust for these
partners to renew their collaborations
on future projects. However, such project commitments are not absolute. The
availability of alternative potential partners whose expertise better fits new
collaborative project requirements can
lead to such new partners joining collaborations.
Network analysis of the structural
embeddedness among project network
participants offers additional insights
into the importance of these characteristics on project performance. For
example, Sedita and Apa (2015) investigated how a contractor’s network
position affects his or her success in
winning public procurement projects, measured as the average value
of projects won. They examined the
network positions of general contractors involved in public procurement
projects in the construction industry
in the Veneto, Italy region from 2008 to
2012. They employed three measures
of network position: breadth, reach,
and brokerage. Only network breadth
was found to be crucial in determining
the success of firms in public procurement practices. Such studies promise
to enrich our understanding of how the
structural positions of key individual
actors within project networks can support their collaborative success.
Project networks, quite like single
projects or project-based organizations,
occur in a context that impacts the use
and effectiveness of these governance
mechanisms. In particular, the institutional or regulatory context may allow
for some contract or work arrangements
and not for others. Moreover, particular
coordinative practices may be common
