The article “Where Do Projects Come From? Project Shaping as a Foundational Domain of Project Studies” (Söderlund & Locatelli, 2025) argues that project management research has focused too heavily on executing projects (“doing projects right”) while paying too little attention to how projects are conceived, framed, justified, and selected in the first place (“doing the right projects”).
Project shaping is the early-stage process of creating and defining a project before formal execution begins. This includes:
- identifying the problem the project should solve,
- defining scope and stakeholders,
- assessing risks and feasibility,
- building political and organizational support,
- deciding whether a project should proceed at all.
They emphasize that projects do not simply “appear”; they are socially, politically, and strategically constructed through negotiation, persuasion, and decision-making.
Why this matters
Many project failures originate in weak early-stage decisions rather than poor execution. Traditional project management often assumes projects are already given, focusing on scheduling, budgeting, and delivery. The authors believe the field should broaden its attention to:
- why certain projects are approved,
- why others never happen,
- who benefits from project selection,
- and how political, psychological, and institutional forces shape outcomes.
The Five Perspectives on Project Shaping
1. Strategic Perspective
Projects originate from strategic intent and organizational goals. This perspective views shaping as a process of aligning projects with:
- competitive strategy,
- long-term organizational direction,
- innovation goals,
- portfolio priorities,
- and resource allocation.
Key questions:
- Why is this project needed?
- How does it support strategy?
- Which projects deserve investment over alternatives?
Project shaping often determines whether organizations pursue the right opportunities, not merely whether they execute efficiently.
2. Political Perspective
Projects are shaped through power, negotiation, and coalition building. Different actors compete to define:
- project goals,
- scope,
- funding,
- and success criteria.
The paper highlights:
- lobbying,
- stakeholder influence,
- institutional interests,
- symbolic value,
- and conflicts among actors.
Projects may move forward not because they are objectively best, but because influential groups successfully mobilize support.
3. Psychological Perspective
Human cognition strongly affects early project decisions. The article discusses biases such as:
- overconfidence,
- optimism bias,
- planning fallacy,
- anchoring,
- escalation of commitment,
- and groupthink.
These biases can distort forecasts and lead organizations to approve unrealistic or overly ambitious projects. This perspective explains why poor assumptions are often embedded into projects before execution even begins.
4. Institutional Perspective
Project shaping is constrained and enabled by institutional environments. Organizations operate within:
- regulations,
- norms,
- professional standards,
- governance systems,
- cultural expectations,
- and industry practices.
Projects gain legitimacy when they align with accepted institutional logics. Many projects are shaped less by pure rationality than by pressures to conform to what is considered legitimate or fashionable within a field.
5. Process Perspective
Project shaping is an evolving and iterative process rather than a single decision point. The authors emphasize:
- experimentation,
- reframing,
- negotiation over time,
- learning,
- adaptation,
- and gradual convergence.
Projects are not fully defined at inception; they evolve through interaction among stakeholders and changing circumstances. This perspective highlights the dynamic nature of shaping and rejects the idea that projects begin with fixed objectives.
Main takeaway
The central argument is that project success is heavily determined before execution starts.
Traditional project management focuses on:
- scheduling,
- budgeting,
- risk management,
- and delivery.
But the article argues the field must also study:
- how projects are conceived,
- why certain projects are selected,
- who influences them,
- and how assumptions become embedded early on.
The authors propose project shaping as a foundational domain of project studies because many project outcomes are effectively “locked in” during these formative stages.
Future development of the Project Shaping
1. Moving from execution-centric to front-end-centric project management
A major future shift is likely to be:
from “How do we deliver projects efficiently?”
to
“How do we decide what projects should exist at all?”
This means more attention to:
- opportunity framing,
- problem definition,
- stakeholder alignment,
- strategic fit,
- and societal value creation.
Organizations may increasingly treat project shaping as a formal capability rather than an informal pre-project activity.
2. Stronger integration with strategy and innovation management
Project shaping could evolve into a bridge between:
- corporate strategy,
- innovation management,
- portfolio management,
- entrepreneurship,
- and transformation programs.
Future organizations may use shaping processes to:
- explore uncertain opportunities,
- test assumptions early,
- prototype project concepts,
- and continuously redefine project value.
This is especially relevant in AI, digital transformation, sustainability, and public infrastructure where uncertainty is high.
3. Greater use of behavioral and cognitive science
The psychological perspective is likely to expand significantly.
Future shaping practices may include structured methods to reduce:
- optimism bias,
- planning fallacy,
- political distortion,
- and escalation of commitment.
Possible developments:
- premortem analysis,
- decision-quality audits,
- cognitive diversity in shaping teams,
- independent challenge functions,
- probabilistic forecasting,
- and AI-supported scenario analysis.
Project shaping may increasingly resemble strategic decision science rather than traditional planning.
4. AI-assisted project shaping
One of the biggest likely developments is the use of AI in early project formation.
AI systems could help:
- generate alternative project concepts,
- model scenarios,
- simulate stakeholder impacts,
- detect hidden risks,
- identify cognitive biases,
- analyze political and institutional constraints,
- and evaluate portfolio tradeoffs.
Instead of static business cases, organizations may develop continuously adaptive “living project models.” This could fundamentally change front-end project governance.
5. More adaptive and iterative shaping processes
The process perspective suggests future shaping will become:
- less linear,
- less stage-gated,
- and more experimental.
Instead of defining projects fully upfront, organizations may:
- shape incrementally,
- validate assumptions continuously,
- run discovery phases,
- and evolve scope dynamically.
This aligns with:
- agile methods,
- lean startup thinking,
- design thinking,
- and systems approaches.
Project shaping may become a continuous activity throughout the project lifecycle rather than a one-time initiation phase.
6. Increased focus on societal and sustainability outcomes
Future project shaping will likely include broader evaluation criteria beyond cost and schedule.
Projects may increasingly be assessed based on:
- environmental impact,
- social legitimacy,
- resilience,
- ethical implications,
- stakeholder equity,
- and long-term public value.
This is particularly important for:
- megaprojects,
- urban infrastructure,
- climate transition projects,
- and public-sector investments.
The shaping phase could become the main arena for negotiating societal tradeoffs.
7. Development of project shaping as its own discipline
Project shaping may become a distinct subfield within Project Management and Organization Studies.
Future research could produce:
- dedicated shaping frameworks,
- maturity models,
- governance structures,
- shaping methodologies,
- and specialized professional roles.
Possible future roles:
- project architects,
- strategic shapers,
- front-end innovation leads,
- or portfolio designers.
8. Better integration of politics and governance
The article criticizes traditional project management for pretending projects are politically neutral.
Future development may involve more explicit treatment of:
- stakeholder power,
- legitimacy,
- institutional conflict,
- public accountability,
- and negotiation dynamics.
This could lead to more transparent shaping methods in government and large organizations.
Overall trajectory
The broader direction is that projects may increasingly be viewed not as fixed technical undertakings, but as:
- evolving socio-technical systems,
- strategic interventions,
- and negotiated organizational constructs.
In that future, the most important project capability may no longer be execution alone — it may be the ability to shape the right projects under uncertainty.
Denis Vedernikov
©denisvedernikov
Leave a Reply