Optimising Project Stakeholder Value through Knowledge Management: A Social Capital Lens

Abstract

Knowledge is the essence of organisational performance; without knowledge nothing would be produced. Knowledge management can be simply seen as the processing of information to be introduced as business outcomes: projects, services and products. Having said this, organisations must be keen to put knowledge into practice. By adopting a social capital lens, this paper aims to shed light on the link between knowledge as a theoretical construct and its practical implications. The paper explores the role of social capital and networks in optimising project stakeholder value within three Jordanian telecommunication companies operating in a competitive, technology-based context. The structural, relational and cognitive dimensions of social capital are employed to understand how project stakeholders create, exchange and exploit knowledge to achieve their as well as their organisation’s objectives. The paper offers findings that support knowledge management as a determinant of overall organisational performance and help project managers to capitalise on social networks to optimise project stakeholder value.

1. Introduction

Projects are increasingly considered as the means of creating stakeholder value [1]. This view is more in keeping with the challenges of modern society, in that project value cannot only be measured according to the traditional budget, time and scope constraints, but it also has to consider stakeholder satisfaction. The role of a project manager should thus exceed that of planning and controlling activities to effectively and efficiently managing stakeholders, who are seen as actors in a collaborative project network [2].

Value is mainly created at the front end of projects, making it a strategic phase in which stakeholder needs, requirements, expectations and goals are captured [1]. The front-end phase ensues with the very early point in the generation of a project idea, all the way to its final development to be either approved or shelved [3]. This phase is however known as fuzzy; it lacks definition and alignment due to the unsettled project network and the scarcity of knowledge about the novel, explorative project idea.

This paper employs a social capital lens to understand how project networks can be formed to create, share and exploit knowledge to optimise stakeholder value. The paper maps the best front-end interactions and relationships, leading to the development of a holistic model that demonstrates the preferred structural, relational and cognitive network attributes to enhance stakeholder alignment and facilitate decisions. Having such conceptualisation of projects as being embedded in complex networks of relationships lags behind [4], prompting the following questions:

1. How does social capital help in managing knowledge and optimising stakeholder value in the front end of projects?

2. What social network attributes should be maintained to facilitate decisions and optimise stakeholder value in the front end of projects?

Addressing these questions contributes to an enhanced understanding of how best project stakeholder value is optimised, which can only be done by considering social capital and networks in the highly turbulent and fast-changing environment of the fuzzy front-end phase. Next, the paper reviews the existing literature to explain the related concepts and views and develop the research propositions. The paper later explains the methods used and the context within which the research was pursued, ending with discussing the findings and conclusions.

2. Literature review

Organisations currently rely on fast transformation through developing project models that cope with ever-changing business needs and optimise stakeholder value. To understand this issue, the literature on project management and social capital is reviewed to shed light on the dependability of stakeholder value on the nature of knowledge channelled within project networks.

2.1 The modern view of projects

Projects can be viewed as social networks initiated with the aim of creating stakeholder value within collaborative settings [3]. Within this ‘modern view’, projects are much broader than conceived when positioned on the instrumental base of planning and monitoring [1]. This change in view has reshaped the context of project management to address the requirements of the political, economic and social forces, imposing new actions to be considered in the front end of projects: ensuring that the needs and requirements of stakeholders are clearly captured; managing the impact of those stakeholders on the project vision; and aligning the expected project value with their strategic intent. These actions are inevitable for project managers to link project value to the objectives of related forces [5].

2.2 The fuzzy front end

The front end is part of an expanded project life cycle with a strategic role as the initiation phase [6]. This view of the front end is more concerned with the activities related to managing stakeholders rather than managing processes. The focus of the front end is to align the goals of stakeholders in a holistic project definition, all the way to submitting a value-optimised proposal to decision-makers to approve its finance. The front end is therefore seen as a network of relationships and not a set of well-defined tasks [7].

Throughout the front end, three sub-phases take place: idea generation, idea development and evaluation and project definition [3]. These sub-phases occur when a formal review is undertaken to discuss progress and evaluate the various alternatives for underlying issues (e.g. human capabilities, technological solutions and market opportunities). The result of each sub-phase comes in the form of a decision on whether to proceed to the next (Figure 1). The final sub-phase usually involves the participation of the top management to agree on the documentation and sign the project proposal, triggering the planning and implementation activities [8].

Figure 1.

Front-end sub-phases.

Managing the front end for value creation requires considering the different needs and perspectives of stakeholders. It requires viewing the front end as a social network in which stakeholder relationships are treated as crucial resources of knowledge and alignment [6]. Cooperation and coordination between project stakeholders can lead to various benefits, including improved communication, timely conflict resolution, effective decision-making and creative problem-solving [9]. These benefits create an environment that supports learning and knowledge exchange and exploitation, enabling the alignment of divergent stakeholder goals around an agreed project definition to capture a higher value end-state [10].

2.3 Social capital and networks

Social capital is a concept that initially appeared in community studies, where social networks are used to study the basis for trust, cooperation and access to resources. Social capital is channelled within social networks to form the patterns of relationships among actors according to three dimensions: structural, relational and cognitive [11].

The structural dimension refers to the number of existing ties and the power of actors, affecting their centrality and connectivity [12, 13]. The relational dimension focuses on the strength of ties and trust among actors [14]. Both dimensions are critical for knowledge creation and exchange [15]. The cognitive dimension focuses on having shared goals (i.e. the degree to which actors have a similar understanding of project value) and culture (i.e. the degree to which network relationships are governed by the same norms of behaviour). This dimension studies the network resources from which shared meaning and understanding of available knowledge is reached, enabling better exploitation [11].

Social capital can enhance project value through capitalising on the interactions and relationships of the involved actors [16, 17]. Since social capital is considered as a project resource, then more ties or trust should support more value [18]. This was the dominant thought until research found that ‘sociability cuts both ways’ ([19], p.18), meaning that social capital has a dark side. This dark side of social capital manifests itself in two main aspects: reinforcing inequality and supporting siloing and antisocial behaviours [20]. Knowing this opens the door for exploring the favourable network attributes to channel social capital and resources in a way that optimises stakeholder value in the front end of projects while avoiding its negative impact.

2.4 Research propositions

Engaging powerful actors in the early project network provides more knowledge for idea generators about the expected project outcomes [21]. In such a network, decision-makers are also provided with a sense of what can really be achieved, which affects stakeholder objective alignment and decision-making criteria. Regarding the structural network attributes, high interaction among desirable actors is seen to facilitate front-end value:

• P1: High interaction among desirable network actors increases the likelihood of idea adoption and optimises front-end stakeholder value.

The nature of actor relationships surrounding an idea would affect its maturity and selection. The various ties that span across a network determine the nature of knowledge creation and exchange [22]. Knowing that strong and weak ties have their merits and drawbacks [23], it is likely that both types of ties should be supported throughout the front end to enhance value creation:

• P2: Networks of actors that evolve from weak to stronger ties increase the likelihood of idea adoption and optimise front-end stakeholder value.

Front-end value creation requires actors to build interpretative frameworks that reflect their individual understanding of concepts [24]. Actors may have discrete goals and different purposes when they jointly discuss project contents [7]. Developing mutual understanding among network actors allows for the effective exploitation of knowledge, which increases the likelihood of idea adoption:

• P3: Building mutual understanding among network actors increases the likelihood of idea adoption and optimises front-end stakeholder value.

The three propositions represent the road map for exploring how social capital and network dimensions can optimise project stakeholder value in the fuzzy front-end phase through better channelling and exploitation of knowledge. The next section discusses the context selected, and the methods employed, to pursue the research enquiry, leading to discussing the findings and conclusions.

3. Methodology

3.1 Research context

The total Jordanian telecommunication sector was studied, one global and two regional companies. The three companies are anonymised as Company1, Company2 and Company3. Whereas Company1 employs 550 employee and holds 30% of the market share, the other 2 companies enjoy 35% of the market share each, but with 1000 employee working for Company2 and 1800 working for Company3. These companies compete aggressively, creating a huge pressure to optimise project stakeholder value. In such dynamic and competitive environment, projects require noticeable exploration in their early phases to be approved and adopted by decision-makers.

3.2 Method and design

A qualitative method was employed as the means of studying the network attributes within which social capital can optimise stakeholder value in the front end of projects [25]. This helps to answer the ‘how’ element of the research enquiry due to its explorative nature [26, 27]. This allows developing the propositions to build on existing theory. For the ‘what’ element of the research enquiry, a multiple case study design was adopted to compare the effects of social network dimensions on front-end value creation across organisations to gain a detailed insight [28].

3.3 Research approach

This research relies on the inductive approach to build on the theory related to social capital and networks and front-end project management [29]. Such an approach suits this qualitative research where limited literature is available and primary data is collected from a small sample, focusing on a specific context to make inferences about the enquiry domain [30].

3.4 Data collection

Thirty-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with project managers, product owners, project management office managers and top management personnel (Table 1). Using purposive sampling, the HR department in each company was contacted and provided with the interview guide. Based on the provided questions, nine experts were chosen as a core sample (three from Company1, two from Company2 and four from Company3). The sample then was snowballed by asking interviewees at the end of every interview to name potential experts who could provide further insight. Field notes were compiled during interviews to flag the main codes and topics and identify the gaps in the collected data [31]. After thirty-one interviews, both the interviews and supportive documents were unable to provide new insights; thus, data collection was ceased due to saturation [32].

Managerial level	No. of interviewees	Gender	Average duration
Top management	8 interviewees	1 female–7 males	60 minutes
Middle management	13 interviewees	3 females –10 males	45 minutes
Lower management	10 interviewees	3 females–7 males	50 minutes

Table 1.

Interviewing details.

3.5 Data analysis

The 31 interviews resulted in having 25 hours of voice recordings that were transcribed into 256 pages of text. These scripts were cleansed to enhance meaning and clarity since interviewees were second language English speakers. Summaries were produced for interviews to register any notes related to the content and context of the interviews to better interpret any variance in responses [33]. The personal and organisational names of interviewees were anonymised, keeping with the ethical obligations of the interviews.

Content analysis was conducted using NVivo software to explore the available scripts. Different types of codes were utilised for this purpose, including in vivo codes, descriptive codes and process codes, highlighting the main passages of the text and identifying key themes and categories [34, 35]. This process was supported by running word frequency, text search and other NVivo queries to further explore the text and dive into key topics. Higher-level inferences were drawn, which were then examined in line with the supportive documents [36]. During the content analysis, the iteration between the data-driven codes, categories and themes and theory was carefully maintained to ensure data validity and reliability.

4. Findings

Twenty-one out of 26 projects explored in this research were reported by interviewees to be satisfying; value was created for the stakeholders on both personal and organisational levels (Table 2). While organisational value is derived from meeting the sustainability and expansion objectives such as increasing sales and market share numbers, personal value is derived from aspects like incorporating stakeholders’ needs in project definitions, achieving career-related promotions, appreciating their contributions and recognising learning opportunities. In some situations, especially with top management personnel, stakeholder value was intertwined so that achieving personal goals was linked to organisational objectives:

Projects done by	Satisfying	Dissatisfying	Description
Company1	5 projects	2 projects	Some projects were chosen by several interviewees as the focus of interviews
Company2	5 projects	1 project
Company3	11 projects	2 projects

Table 2.

Perception of stakeholder value in the front end of projects.

‘This project was requested by [the group name] because of customer needs and complaints, and that we have objectives to meet: time to deliver and time to repair. These are strategic objectives to the company and to [the group name]. When we first presented the project to the top management, we tried to cover every single point that may help us achieve our objectives and meet all stakeholder requirements. The top management reviewed the project proposal, and the result was to go. We developed the project based on the proposal and once we completed the project and presented the results, all stakeholders were satisfied’ [IT & Network Build Coordination and Support Manager, Company3].

Within these project networks, several attributes were considered as common to enhance stakeholder value accrual in the front end. These attributes were tracked according to the dimensions of social networks (i.e. structural, relational and cognitive) within each front-end sub-phase (i.e. idea generation, idea development, evaluation and project definition). A holistic model was therefore developed including the social network attributes that should take place throughout the front end of projects to optimise stakeholder value. It is worth noting however that the measures used to describe these network attributes were derived from the interviewees’ own words, making them context sensitive (Table 3).

Measure	Synonyms sample	Example quote
High	Usual, more, high, similar, always	‘When we first discussed the concept, we had more interaction’
Low	Alone, sometimes, low, different	‘Then we took some time alone to do our homework to prepare the business case’
Medium	Maintained, medium, less often, moderate	‘It is maintained, we cannot say that we were isolated, we always have interactions’
Strong	Frequent, strong, deep, increased	‘Due to that we built a strong relationship together, we started to share information’
Weak	Normal, weak, not yet, cautious	‘It started to increase in the middle phase, in the start, we were not afraid but cautious’

Table 3.

The process of identifying the network attributes.

4.1 Structural network attributes

This dimension explores the social attributes related to the network size and frequency of interaction: both with whom they should take place and how they should change as the front end unfolds for optimised stakeholder value. The first finding explains that higher interactions among the right actors is critical to spark creative insights and encourage coordination in project networks (Figure 2). This helps transforming project ideas from the phase of being plain thoughts (i.e. idea generation) into more comprehensive and well-considered plans (i.e. idea development) where the organisational orientation and stakeholder ambitions are reflected in a holistic project documentation (i.e. evaluation and definition).

Figure 2.

The recommended network size and interaction for optimised value.

As shown in Figure 2, in the idea generation phase, network actors were found to build multiple ties and to have multilateral and interdepartmental interactions with less involvement of powerful actors. In this early phase, the large network size and heterogeneity was helpful to increase the pool of available knowledge that was needed to allow more innovative thoughts and suggestions regarding the various aspects of the project idea. Heterogeneous ties were also helpful to decide on the number and type of actors needed to guarantee that the proposed form of the project idea contained the needs and requirements of all stakeholders. This, as shown in Table 2, led to more stakeholders perceiving better value being created from project ideas.

Moving to idea development, interactions were higher and more concentrated in the core project network while keeping a lower level of contact with less related actors. Turning into a more cohesive project network was crucial in this phase, as twenty-one interviewees explained, to reduce distraction and validate the main aspects of the project idea that must be further developed. With such structural dynamics, network actors were able to abandon aspects of the project idea that had marginal benefits and focus on the long-term value:

‘The structure dynamics varied according to the level of interaction. When we first discussed the concept, we had more interaction. Then, we took some time separated to prepare the business case and the model itself. After that, we had more interaction to validate the concept and ensure that everything is going well. However, we cannot say that we were totally isolated at any point in time, we always have interaction’ (Pricing & Business Planning Manager, Company1).

As opposed to the idea generation phase, a high level of engagement from powerful actors in the evaluation phase was required to avoid any potential scope creep (Table 4). Although ideas in the generation phase were more vulnerable to be biased to the benefit of powerful actors, the existence of those actors in the evaluation phase was essential to keep the balance between actors’ objectives. This balance ensured relevant decisions were made, which raised the probability of top management adopting and financing project ideas. Such observation explains what was earlier proposed about the critical need to direct the interaction in each phase to the right network actors to arrive at comprehensive project definitions:

Front-end sub-phase	Level of interaction	Network cohesion	Powerful actor involvement
Idea generation	High	Low	Low
Idea development	High	High	Medium
Evaluation and definition	High	High	High

Table 4.

Social network attributes related to the structural dimension.

‘The top management nominated X as the Business Owner for this product. But down the road, I started to understand who the real decision-maker is, and I knew that X is just a messenger from that person who is not free working on another project. I used to talk to the Business Owner, then I jumped to his manager who had all details. This was very important to accelerate decisions by ensuring that I had the full details of the business rules and that they would not change later on’ [Project Management Office Manager, Company1].

The higher the interaction among desirable project actors during the front end, the more benefits attained by stakeholders. These benefits ranged between providing enough room for learning through answering several inter-functional questions, easing control over work and facilitating relevant decisions. In contrast, networks that had poor frequency of interaction and haphazard involvement of actors leaned towards arriving at defective value, since project definitions were only reflecting the needs and goals of specific stakeholders without a clear link to the organisational strategy:

‘We had high interaction with all parties to be able to answer their concerns and questions from one aspect and to speed up the approval cycle from another. This is because the project itself took a month from the idea to the approval of the implementation, and we had many concepts and parameters to include as part of the business case of this new project. Thus, we had high interaction to ensure that we are covering all these KPIs or parameters’ [Pricing & Business Planning Manager, Company1].

‘Because I dealt with many stakeholders in this project: Finance, Supply Chain, Technical and IT, I gained a very good knowledge and experience from them. I gained information that I did not recognise before; I started to understand the meaning of server storage users and the beverage of the users’ [IT & Network Build Coordination and Support Manager, Company3].

‘During that analytical phase, one of the major stakeholders, who was a manager from IT, managed to convince the Business Owner to develop the product in an inefficient way only because it was easier for him to implement. For the Business Owner, he managed to have the product on the portal, and for me, it was okay, but the pain for the company was to lose the full integration between all systems’ [Project Management Office Manager, Company1].

Developing ideas and solutions without proper representation of the opinions of actors can lead to catastrophic outcomes if they manage to pass the different front-end check windows to implementation. Such ideas and solutions might allow for temporary and marginal benefits, but they have multiple negative impacts on the overall project journey. These impacts can cause major resource losses and poor customer satisfaction and exhaust other project stakeholders who may have less negotiation power when trying to reconcile these impacts:

‘The Commercial Owner attempted to launch the solution in less than thirty days to claim establishing a new enterprise e-commerce platform in a short time. But after a while, many complaints will be received about bad customer experiences. He will then be punished by the top management, and he will start asking for a change request from the vendor. This will put us in a weak negotiation state because the vendor is the developer of the solution, and it is the only entity that can do the change request. Thus, he will put a huge cost on us, and we will accept it as we will not have any bargaining power, and the Commercial Owner will lose his position’ [Product Development Manager, Company1].

In such situations, the involvement of powerful actors in the evaluation phase is important to interrupt this unsophisticated development of the idea to correct the project direction towards better stakeholder value:

‘I interrupted the project, and I convinced the Commercial Owner that he needs to consider this e-commerce platform as an additional communication channel for the customer to subscribe, manage her/his profile and submit payments, but not as an isolated channel. Then, the whole project was reviewed, and the scope of the documentation was changed, and we started the project from the scratch, or from my point of view, we corrected the whole project to get more value for the end user’ [Product Development Manager, Company1].

To compare the three cases, in Company1, the processes lacked stickiness as a result of higher personal relationships, which required continuous scrutiny of actor engagement to reduce the probability of individuals opportunistically attempting to reap benefits for themselves. In Company3 and Company2 (but especially the latter), such structural dynamics were easier to maintain due to well-defined business procedures. However, in all cases, involving the right actors with the advisable interaction level occurred in all satisfying projects. This confirms and develops the first research proposition:

• P1: High interaction among desirable network actors optimises stakeholder value through encouraging coordination that sparks creative insights and increases the likelihood of project idea adoption.

4.2 Relational network attributes

This dimension discusses the strength of ties among network actors; when, how and with whom they evolve throughout the front end for optimised stakeholder value. The second finding explains networks that evolve from weak to stronger ties to optimise front-end stakeholder value. Building strong ties was difficult in the early phases when the number of actors was high but manageable afterwards when fewer actors were involved (Figure 3). With such network dynamics, actors used to take enough time to decide on knowledgeable and experienced candidates with whom to discuss their shared interests and build trusting partnerships (i.e. idea generation) that assist in collectively improving project concepts (i.e. idea development) and to make decisions that increase the probability of ideas adoption (i.e. evaluation and definition).

Figure 3.

Combining the recommended structural and relational attributes.

Networks of actors, as shown in Figure 3, were found to coalesce around weak ties with lower emotional intensity and intimacy in the idea generation phase. This phase included actors who sometimes had to adopt conflicting positions in their pursuit of proving the superiority of their needs. Actors were also exploring knowledgeable and experienced candidates with whom to develop strong ties. With several multilateral departments involved in this phase, such cautious behaviour helped actors to review their choices of viable future partnerships:

‘At the beginning, we only had the product concept, and we did not have much knowledge about the project itself. We were still exploring the different vendor approaches and what is the model that each one of them is adopting accordingly. For example, if we wanted to discuss anything with the Technical team, we used to only ask them if they have this or that thing and, in a nutshell, they just tell us, yes, this is something that we already do, and we can provide. Once we selected the vendor with the most suitable business model and reviews, we started working with them and we went more into details about the technical and commercial aspects, and the involvement of the related teams started to get deeper then’ [Digital & VAS Products Management Expert, Company2].

‘At the beginning, the relationships were normal since it was a team formation process until we reached the storming stage where everybody was trying to prove her/himself right. Then, we moved to team norming, and everybody was working aligned together. But it was difficult at the beginning to set the rules and to clarify who is responsible for what’ [Customer Experience & Quality Director, Company3].

In the idea development phase, where the network size tends to be smaller and ties shift from being heterogeneous to more cohesive ones, interactions were denser and could support building strong ties and dyadic collaborations. This resulted in actors starting to exchange extensive information, which increased their knowledge and awareness about project concepts and visions and pushed them for better development:

‘I got in touch with a guy from IT who I never met before this project. We started to get in touch more often to talk and share ideas and thoughts. Due to this strong relationship that we built in this project, we shared knowledge and experiences, and I started to understand things technically about the network that I did not use to know, which helped me to make efficient decisions’ [IT & Network Build Coordination and Support Manager, Company3].

The impact of building strong ties in the development phase was not only about increasing the density and depth of communication but also about reducing the time needed to complete explorative tasks of the front end. Actors who built strong ties in the development phase reported easier communication processes and patterns, which, according to seventeen interviewees, resulted in shorter development periods when compared to the long period of time consumed in the generation phase when ties were weak and scattered. This was critical in the dynamic and fast-changing telecommunication sector to avoid outdated launches:

‘The early project preparations took long time as the relationships were not yet built. But the development took only one month because our communications started to be more friendly. For example, when I used to call a person, her/his reply was like okay, I am busy today, you can call me tomorrow, which made the process faster, and the development was faster’ [Senior Business Demand Analyst & Technical Project Manager, Company3].

Network ties in the evaluation phase were mostly stronger and triggered extra cooperation efforts to create a fit between the various needs and requirements of project actors (Table 5). The cooperation efforts also eliminated individual obstacles to help identify holistic objectives. In so doing, the probability of ideas adoption was higher as actors collectively worked towards convincing the decision-makers (i.e. top management) of the feasibility of their suggestions:

Front-end sub-phase	Strength of ties	Cooperation and coordination	Scarcity of knowledge
Idea generation	Weak	Low	High
Idea development	Strong	Medium	Medium
Evaluation and definition	Strong	High	Low

Table 5.

Social network attributes related to the relational dimension.

‘When we started the Fibre project, we used to sell the Fibre services without providing Wi-Fi solutions to our customers. These solutions are expensive and need a large budget, which made some project stakeholders think that they are not necessary. They justified their decision by the fact that we already had Internet services and that we did not provide such service before. Me and my Technical partner were not convinced, and insisted that the Wi-Fi solutions are needed by customers. We provided full presentations to the top management, and we repeated them several times. Eventually, we managed to get through and convince them that this is a point of improvement that we should do’ [Customer Experience & Quality Director, Company3].

‘We were cautious in the start and middle of the project preparation. When we approached the last phase of the preparation, trust between us was higher, and we could rely on each other, so we could share information and ideas with each other. This is because we were together in the ups and downs in each single step. The time was an important factor to build trust and it increased after the middle phase of the preparation till the end’ (Channel Events & Brand Activation Team Leader, Company2).

The relationship between tie strength and decisions and stakeholder value creation in the front end of projects was evident. The 31 interviewees explained in more than 66 occasions that strong ties and trusting relationships had led them to achieve multiple advantages, including promoting knowledge exchange, bridging interest gaps, encouraging extra cooperation and supporting easier and faster delivery. However, strong ties were not without disadvantages as they required extra effort and emotional intensity to keep and limited distant network actor suggestions in a way that confined the understanding of network actors to the views of their close ties.

Although the identified relational network attributes were common in most projects, they can vary based on the structure and business dynamics of companies. Since the three companies employ non-dedicated teams (i.e. employees reported to both functional and project managers), some projects involved actors who already had existing ties due to previous experience working together. These projects, as found with nine interviewees, showed slightly different social network dynamics throughout the front end. Actors within these networks exhibited more readiness to have high interaction frequency from the idea generation phase onward because they did not need to spend time deciding on their partnerships:

‘Because I have been in Company3 for seven years, and in the Marketing team for almost three years, relationships were already built. I already knew other people and there was no big gap between us because we worked together on several projects. So, the relationships were not only from this project, but also built from other projects and still developing’ (Marketing Team Leader, Company3).

‘I think our relationships do not come in one project and disappear in another; they are built over the years. I have had almost fourteen years in Company1, which is a long time during which I established trust. Healthy relationships come from good experiences and trust, and feeling that each party is careful about the success of the other and the project we are working on. Once all parties feel that you are responsible and trustable, and that you are not faking communication just to avoid blaming, they will be interested in building a good relationship with you’ [Business Development Manager, Company1].

Actors within networks were compromising the risk and cost of committing to a strong tie with the reciprocal benefits that can be obtained. This explains why in Company2, as an early mover in the market, building strong ties and trusting relationships used to require extra time and scrutiny to decide on the credibility of other actors and to guarantee confidentiality when introducing new solutions. Company1 and Company3 (but especially the former) had different dynamics, since actors exhibited easier development of strong ties as these companies are usually late movers in following the technological trends set by Company2, which further supports and develops the second research proposition:

• P2: Project networks that evolve from weak into stronger ties optimise stakeholder value through promoting trusting partnerships and cooperation that assist in making relevant decisions and increase the likelihood of idea adoption.

4.3 Cognitive network attributes

This dimension explores actors’ understanding of project ideas, needs and goals; both the level of similarity and how it changes throughout the front-end for better alignment. The last finding insists on building mutual understanding and a similar background within project networks to optimise stakeholder value in the front end. Bridging mental and business gaps among actors was necessary to avoid divergence in understanding project underpinnings (Figure 4). Mutual understanding helps blend the needs and requirements of network actors (i.e. idea generation) into commonly shared objectives (i.e. idea development) that are later finalised in a convincing project proposal submitted to decision-makers to be agreed on (i.e. evaluation and definition).

Figure 4.

The full network attributes preferred for optimised stakeholder value.

As shown in Figure 4, in the idea generation phase in which the kick-off meeting takes place as the first formal point of discussion, divergent understandings of the project vision were found to surface due to the diverse backgrounds of the actors involved. Network actors, in this early phase, were cognitively biased to perceive ideas and concepts in a way that better serves their own interests and priorities. Such behaviour was reinforced by the existence of many weak ties and the poor cooperation and coordination among network actors:

‘One of the reasons why this project was delayed is that each party had different interests. We had two major stakeholders and each one needed something from the project that the other did not care about. The first one is from the Business side, and only wanted to launch to claim digitalising a product. While the main interest of the other Technical guy was to deliver the new product rather than the old product; the Technical team only wants to deliver’ [Project Management Office Manager, Company1].

In the idea development phase, having closer ties and dense communications facilitated similar understanding among network actors. This was more noticeable in projects where networks were early finalised, which allowed for a longer period of adaptation needed for actors to be aligned through framing mutual interpretations of ideas and concepts:

‘Close the whole cycle from day one, and if it is not closed from early stages, you can keep closing it. You have to list all areas down to know that this is a pending area that is still open. But never ever complete the development without closing all areas. You also need to clarify related stakeholders at early stages to know the remaining areas or the pending tasks in this project, so not to miss them later on’ [Product Development Manager, Company1].

With more engagement of powerful actors in the evaluation phase, network actors were able to reach some sort of final compromise about their needs and goals. Powerful actors, because of their holistic views gained from their central positions, managed to trigger collaboration efforts to inform project actors about the reasons for their recruitment and the top management expectations from their streams. These efforts also allowed the top management to envisage the potential outcomes, which helped them amending their decision-making criteria to meet network capabilities and ease actors’ agreement on project objectives (Table 6):

Front-end sub-phase	Divergence of understanding	Alignment of actors	Disparity of objectives
Idea generation	High	Low	High
Idea development	Medium	Medium	Medium
Evaluation and definition	Low	High	Low

Table 6.

Social network attributes related to the cognitive dimension.

‘Everything went well in this project because, as the assigned Project Manager, I used to describe everything to everyone. I started at the very beginning to clarify the goal of the project to them and what we need from each one of them, and why they were invited. It is very important to prepare this ahead because it is the responsibility of the Project Manager to clarify to the team why they are joining the project, and then to point roles or tasks to each one of them’ [Marketing Manager, Company3].

‘In the start of the preparation, the project vision was not the same for us all. In the middle of the preparation, I think we shared eighty percent of the project vision and with time, it started to increase. In the end of the preparation, the project vision became clearer for all of us as we had more opportunity to meet and discuss the project idea and its ultimate goal’ [Agile Supervisor & Application Development Specialist, Company1].

New project concepts that involve less extant knowledge usually accept various interpretations and trigger cognitive gaps. These concepts require long time and extra creativity from network actors to realise their mutual value. They also require having a common language to collectively understand and exploit the available tacit and explicit knowledge. This ensures the development of these concepts fits with overall organisational objectives. The following compares the difficulties faced by project actors when dealing with both completely new and well-established project concepts in the exact same context (i.e. Company2):

‘In the preparation phase, it was hard to be aligned together since the project was completely different with zero commercial goals. When we were trying to set the budget for this project, we started to negotiate and to brief about the outcome that we want to achieve. It was actually hard in the beginning of the preparation to be aligned with all stakeholders’ [Channel, Events & Brand Activations Team Leader, Company2].

‘With time moving forward, things were getting clearer, and everyone started to understand the vision of the project in the same way. The project idea was easily agreed because it bridges a gap that everyone could see. All participants in the preparation of the project were aware of its topic and were well prepared. It was noticed that everyone had enough knowledge about the purpose, the details and the goals of the project’ [Sales Support & Development Analyst, Company2].

In both situations, twenty-three interviewees explained that selecting the right communication channels to discuss project concepts was important to improve actor alignment. While formal patterns were insufficient to reduce divergence in sense-making, flexible patterns (i.e. formal and informal) were enough to encourage effective discussions to agree on project objectives:

‘Having misunderstandings or different opinions over a matter happens in all projects. We have different mindsets, and at the end of the day, I may understand something that my colleagues might not understand in the same way. But we usually discuss and get to a middle area either through a meeting or a phone call; it depends on how many people are involved and who are the people I am dealing with’ (Value Adding Services Expert, Company3].

‘It is important to select the right communication method; when to communicate verbally, via emails or by having a meeting. This is because meetings may waste stakeholders’ time, so they stop responding to other meeting calls. Stakeholders must feel that they are spending their time on something that adds value, instead of reading emails to agree on vague points’ [Product Development Manager, Company1].

‘I learned that by setting the right communication at the right time using the right channel, I can reach people and make them work together to overcome obstacles; and by having a clear vision from the beginning that sticks in the minds of everybody, I can achieve better results’ [Consumer Experience & Quality Director, Company3].

It is worth mentioning that in a couple of projects, alleviating the distraction caused by the functional departments of network actors was critical to minimise the impact of their business backgrounds on the understanding of project concepts. In these situations, actors had to separate the locations in which they meet to discuss project concepts (e.g. designated meeting rooms, subsidiary locations) from their functional locations where they perform their day-to-day routine work (e.g. offices, company meeting rooms), which facilitated better alignment:

‘When we wanted the team members to be isolated to minimise the business interruption, we invited them to have brainstorming sessions in [the name of a subsidiary business incubator]. We used to reserve a room there to meet all and discuss the project. We used to make sure that all stakeholders are included to exchange ideas and be able to come up with a document that is agreed by all of us in the end of this session’ (Product Development Manager, Company1).

‘In the beginning of the project, I tried to create a family-like environment, which triggered the idea of the Fibre Wareroom. The Fibre Wareroom is a room where we brought all team leaders who were working on the Fibre project to have open discussion meetings. These meetings had no dedicated time because in the beginning of the project, we needed to have communication between people who were not communicating very well before. So, we had to make them feel important and have what is needed to deliver and achieve our global target’ [Fibre Project Manager, Company3].

The choice of suitable communication channels for an organisation is understood in terms of its workplace and market environments. Company1 and Company3 (but especially the former) place more value on personal relationships and tend to use flexible discussions and dialogues. Company2, on the other hand, is more process-oriented, and for that reason, it has less flexibility. Although flexible communications may be recommended, the choice of Company2 is justifiable since it is the market leader, which forces communicating behind closed doors and with highly conservative networks of actors to avoid any leakage of information.

Developing a mutual understanding of project ideas, needs and goals is necessary not only for better network alignment but also to motivate actors by increasing their knowledge about the value of their engagement. Actors who are not properly involved in project visions show fewer links to strategic objectives, thus providing shallow contributions. This explains why in the satisfying projects, effective discussions were frequently taking place to reflect on project ideas and concepts and to enhance actors’ exploitation of knowledge, leading to acceptable project definitions. This confirms and develops the third research proposition:

• P3: Building a mutual understanding among network actors triggers collaboration efforts that stimulate alignment around objectives to amend decision-making criteria and increases the likelihood of project idea adoption.

5. Discussion

5.1 Answering the research questions

The research findings suggested a correlation between carefully facilitated social capital and optimised project stakeholder value. They identified a comprehensive set of network attributes that commonly occur in the front end of most satisfying projects. Following is a reflection on how these findings answer the two research questions.

The first question is: how does social capital help in managing knowledge and optimising stakeholder value in the front end of projects? Social capital (e.g. actor power, tie strength) was found to promote knowledge creation and exchange and organisational learning. Proper social capital, which is defined based on the identified network attributes, enables creative ideas to come through, thus determining the likelihood of the developed solutions to meet stakeholders’ objectives. In contrast, too much social capital such as excessive interactions and uncontrolled relationships leads to wasted resources and unwelcome behaviours (e.g. high information load, irrelevant conversations, procedural breaches and siloing and antisocial behaviours).

Social capital is not like any other project resource (e.g. time, money and technology) where always more is better; it should be wisely used to avoid scope creeps and catastrophic consequences. For example, while lower stakeholder alignment around project objectives in the idea generation phase promotes creative insights and diverse suggestions, it hinders arriving at an acceptable project definition if it continues to occur in the development and evaluation phases. Social capital hence should not be haphazardly channelled within project networks, but should be reviewed according to their unique nature and needs as well as the ultimate front-end goals to optimise stakeholder value.

The second research question is: what social network attributes should be maintained to facilitate decisions and optimise stakeholder value in the front end of projects? Networks should include a larger group of actors with multiple weak ties and high interaction in the idea generation phase (Table 7). Although these network attributes may spark issues of control and lower alignment, they allow for accessing a broader range of internal and external knowledge and facilitate novel concepts. In the idea development phase, networks are recommended to move into focused groups with more cohesive and strong ties and higher interaction among core actors. This allows extra focus on essential expansion aspects to better shape and validate project ideas to fit with the strategic orientation of organisations.

Front-end sub-phase; Dimensional attributes		Idea generation	Idea development	Evaluation and definition
Structural	Level of interaction	High	High	High
	Network cohesion	Low	High	High
	Powerful actors’ involvement	Low	Medium	High
Relational	Strength of ties	Weak	Strong	Strong
	Cooperation and coordination	Low	Medium	High
	Scarcity of knowledge	High	Medium	Low
Cognitive	Divergence of understanding	High	Medium	Low
	Alignment of actors	Low	Medium	High
	Disparity of objectives	High	Medium	Low

Table 7.

The full list of attributes within network dimensions.

Moving to the evaluation and project definition phase, higher engagement of stream leaders and decision-makers should take place to facilitate effective discussions and encourage alignment around objectives. This higher interaction with desirable network actors assists in building stronger ties and mutual understanding towards the evaluation phase, which raises the likelihood of project definition consensus and idea adoption.

5.2 Theoretical implications

Building on prior research exploring projects as networks of interorganisatioal relationships [4], this paper identified a list of social network attributes that should be sought throughout the front end to ensure a higher probability of project ideas adoption. The list extends the one from Kijkuit and Van Den Ende [21] through covering detailed attributes within the structural, relational and cognitive dimensions of social networks and discussing the dynamisms in which these attributes interact to optimise stakeholder value. It also contains some discrepancies to previously identified network attributes, particularly the ones unique to the explorative, highly dynamic and fast-changing telecommunication sector.

When looking at key works from Kijkuit and Van Den Ende [21], Morris [1], Stevens [24], Matinheikki et al. [7] and Sydow and Braun [4], this paper offered a holistic view of how stakeholder value is optimised in the front end of projects. A view focusing on the dimensional elements of social capital and networks to promote innovation capabilities and induce value creation. It is a view that fits with the ‘age of relevancy’ issued by Morris [1] to ensure that stakeholders’ needs and goals are driving project initiatives. This revolutionises project management through providing relevant social indicators of project performance outcomes.

5.3 Practical implications

Social interactions and relationships within projects are usually dealt with as a secondary resource managed on a situational basis. To explain, project managers only take actions to address social issues when they occur, without having a prepared framework to govern them. These situational responses are insufficient to capture the benefits of social capital. Changing the managerial perception about social capital to be perceived as an essential determinant of stakeholder value is necessary in modern project management. Project managers should focus on developing strategic planning and communication competencies to be able to facilitate proper stakeholder engagement and relevant project outcomes.

Project managers and decision- and strategy-makers can use the proposed list of network attributes to decide on social dynamisms preferred to navigate the project to its objectives. These include actor interaction, tie strength, trust and alignment, as well as when it is best for these elements to take place and their respective weights, which cannot be allowed to be random. It is of high significance for decision-makers to decide on these elements to avoid their dark side. This paper explained several occasions where social capital was administered to reduce the dominance of specific actors and control their engagement in front-end decision-making. A lesson to emphasise is that social capital cannot be optimal at any end of the spectrum; it is optimal when wisely balanced in light of its distinct contextual conditions.

Top management must invest in both formal and informal project relationships. Such approach fits with recent PMI updates for its PMBOK^TM Guide that included stakeholder management as one of the ten project management knowledge areas [37]. As noticed in the explored companies, projects where managers supported the development of relationships reported higher stakeholder satisfaction. On the other hand, projects where relationships were restricted, especially the informal ones, reported more tiresome micromanagement precautions. It is recommended thus that top management invests in activities that aim to invigorate both formal and informal bonds among project stakeholders (Figure 5).

Figure 5.

Bonding activities and their desirable outcomes.

Project managers must be engaged from the outset to participate in the generation of project visions. Traditional perspectives of project management restricted the role of project managers to planning and controlling the execution of downstream activities, which led to two-thirds of projects worldwide deemed as failures [38]. Keeping the project manager remote from the front end creates a gap between what is originally envisaged and what happens in reality. Modern and future project management is required to emphasise a social view where project managers are involved from early phases to reflect on project visions and link them to stakeholder needs, requirements and objectives to enhance their value accrual and guarantee their satisfaction.

6. Conclusion

This paper employed a three-dimensional lens to explore the impact of social capital and networks on the value created for stakeholders in the front end of projects. The paper sought to develop a holistic understanding of the dynamisms that govern the use of social networks and resources to increase the probability of project ideas adoption. To do so, it linked the extant literature about social capital impact on organisational performance to the management of the front-end phase that is characterised with a highly fuzzy and explorative nature.

The central conclusion of the paper is the necessity of redirecting the efforts of project management researchers and practitioners from the basic notions of how to secure extra organisational resources to developing efficient ways of using what is available. This efficiency can only be generated in the minds of employees and stakeholders; thus, knowledge and social resources must be the focus. The ability of project stakeholders to collectively utilise their tacit and explicit knowledge is critical for modern project management. Having limited resources is a common project constraint that must trigger novel and creative concepts and outputs to allow organisations to achieve their sustainability and expansion goals.

Creating value in the front-end of projects is dependent on the willingness of stakeholders to utilise their social resources to reduce fuzziness. This requires managing both the internal and external network channels to encourage their collaboration. Similar insights are not new in the organisational theory, but are unclear in terms of the restraining dynamics in project management, particularly in that on the front end. The paper explored how social relationships are key in controlling interaction and collaboration within project networks and how they disseminate knowledge to provide a conventional context for decision-making. The paper also explained how these social relationships are tied to the variations in the power and positions of actors within project networks, which determines their access to knowledge, thus their importance and centrality for front-end stakeholder value optimisation.

Social network attributes decide the level of knowledge creation, exchange and exploitation, which affects stakeholders’ perceptions of value. Project networks that have high interactions, strong relationships, intense communications and the right engagement of actors are more likely to develop creative and innovative ideas. The combination of these attributes constitutes the limits of using stakeholders’ social capital resources, which are then moulded according to the unique circumstances and confidentiality of the project and the changes in the market dynamics of the parent organisations. This forms the basis of the ability of stakeholders to come out with a sophisticated project proposal and an agreed definition that reflects their needs and expectations and that is then perceived to be satisfying on all business levels.

Abbreviations

PM	project management
PMI	project management institution
APM	association for project management
SH	stakeholder
PJM	project manager
PPM	principal project manager
PO	project owner
PMO	project management office
PT	project team
PMBOK	project management body of knowledge
FE	front-end
SCT	social capital theory
SNA	social network analysis
CPM	critical path method
PERT	program evaluation review technique