International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 569–574

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Doing things right and doing the right things

Time and timing in projects
Hans Rämö*
School of Business, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden

Abstract
This paper discusses the relationship between time and project management in the context of clock-time’s rule of doing things
right according to deadlines, and doing the right things at the right moment, irrespective of clock-time. It is argued that clock-time
(chronos time) is the ruling factor in efficiency and timely moments (kairos time) are crucial in questions of effectiveness. This
distinction is accentuated by the importance in managing project organisations to do the right things in that such organisations are
less institutionalised than more permanent (going concern) organisations and have to deal with unplanned situations more
frequently as compared with permanent organisations. # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Chronos; Effectiveness; Efficiency; Kairos (and IJPM keywords:); Managing projects; Time

1. Timely moments and project management
Nowadays, a great deal of attention is being paid to
the notion of time and temporality. Still, temporal
aspects in organisation studies are somewhat neglected
and temporal aspects in studies of project organisation are
no exception. Nevertheless, some scholars have chosen the
assignment to enter into different aspects of the question
of time and temporality in organisational settings, for
instance Adam [1,2], Bluedorn and Denhart [3], Blyton et
al. [4], Burrell [5], Butler [6], Clark [7,8], Lee and Liebe-
nau [9], Whipp [10], Zerubavel [11]. Reflexive studies on
the aspects of time and temporality in project organisa-
tions—beyond more or less standardised time manage-
ment techniques—are even fewer, for instance Lindkvist
et al. [12], Lundin and Söderholm [13], Thoms and
Pinto [14]. Several writers have also noted that the qua-
litative analysis of organisational time has been con-
sistently overlooked, for instance Adam [1,2], Bluedorn
and Denhart [3], Burrell [5], Butler [6], Zerubavel [11].
Almost without exception this attention to the limitations
of treating organisational time as exclusively quantita-
tive and homogenous (i.e. clock-time) still rely upon an
understanding of time as chronological time, depicted as
linear, circular, or spiral time.
This paper focuses on different notions of chronological
and non-chronological time in organisational settings,
* Tel.: +46-8-16-1209; fax: +46-8-674-74-40.
E-mail address: hra@fek.su.se (H. Rämö).
0263-7863/02/$22.00 # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
PII: S0263-7863(02)00015-7
with particular focus on managing project organisations.
The paper begins with a brief overview of some notions
of chronological and non-chronological time and then
goes on to mention Drucker’s well-known division
between efficiency and effectiveness [15]. The aim (and
the possible novelty) of this paper is to bring together
chronological and non-chronological notions of time with
questions of doing things right, according to the book
and the clock and doing the right things at the right
moments. It is claimed in this paper that the difference
between doing things right and doing the right things
implies questions of chronological and non-chron-
ological time, particularly in managing project organi-
sations. This is because one characteristic that is typical
of project organisations is their frequent encounter with
impromptu solutions. Whereas more ‘permanent’ orga-
nised establishments have institutionalised their job
description and rules, project organisations have to rely
more on the ability to handle unexpected incidents that
cannot formally be handled ‘by the book’.
The powerful impact of clocks of all kinds on our
contemporary society has strengthened a fixation in a
clock-type understanding of time. This is not only
inevitable but also in many cases desirable. However, in
some instances this unidimensional understanding of
time has led to a notion of time that tends to be taken-
for-granted, that is, clock-time.
Economic exchange time is an abstract exchange
value that enables the work of people and machines to
be translated into money. As such, it depends centrally
570 H. Rämö / International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 569–574
on quantification that is achievable only on the basis of
the rationalised and decontextualised time of the clock.
Distanced from the variable rhythms and contextual
difference of living systems, clock-time recasts time in a
uniform way. It can thus be applied anywhere and at
any time. In parallel, the idea of industrial production
implies that everything is capable of being quantified
and standardised.
To comprehend the notion that time is something
beyond the successive reading of a clock is intuitively
easy because a human’s ability to coordinate his or her
doings has a history that is much older than the history
of mechanical clocks. This non-chronological under-
standing of time is also discernible in our ability to act
intelligently (judiciously) and wisely at an opportune
occasion. For instance, in organisational settings including
more or less permanent (Going Concern) organisations
or project organisations, there are different dimensions
of management performance. A simplistic picture of this
is that managers not only have to manage and improve
what already exists and is already known, but they also
have to be keenly aware and attentive of possible threats
and opportunities. The latter is an example of action in a
concrete, timely, and opportune situation, quite frequently
regardless of clock-time, checklists, and regulations.
It must be noted, however, that many permanent
(Going Concern) organisations develop more and more
towards a sort of project organisations. Consequently,
any clear-cut general distinction between permanent
(Going Concern) organisations and project organisations
could be questioned. Nevertheless, this paper highlight
aspects of time and timing as important factors in any
project organisation—regardless if the project is a part
of a larger permanent (Going Concern) organisation or
separate from other groupings.
There is, of course, an overabundance of project
organisations, ranging from recurrent projects to unique
events and from short events to long projects (long
projects occur most notably in the pharmaceutical
industry). To distinguish a project organisation from a
more permanent (Going Concern) organisation is not
easy, as illustrated by the following four examples:
1. In 1995, a consortium led by the Swedish build-
ing contractor Skanska won a contract to build a
bridge linking the Öresund sound between Den-
mark and Sweden. The inauguration of the 7845 m
long bridge took place in July 2000. Skanska’s
railroad tunnel project through the Hallandsåsen
ridge in southwestern Sweden has on the other
hand been dogged by problems since it began in
1992 and today is still (2001) in an unfinished
state [16]. Skanska as a building contractor was
founded already in 1887 and Skanska’s permanent
organisation has since been involved in numerous
project organisations (i.e. building projects).
2. The organisation responsible for the Stockholm
Water Festival (dissolved in 1999) was an all year
round organisation for the administration of the
annual festival, which in itself had a time frame
of some 15 days from physically building up the
festival to dismantling at the premises. The all
year round administrative organisation of the
Stockholm Water Festival can be characterised
as a ‘semi-permanent’ organisation. The festival
itself was a project very limited in time, but the
administrative organisation was permanent for
many years (cf. theatres).
3. The planning and implementation of 1200 pro-
jects during the 365-day project Stockholm—
Cultural Capital of Europe 1998 started already
in May 1994 and the organisation ceased to exist
in April 1999 [17]. This gives a clear example of
project organisations having a pre-project, pro-
ject, and a post-project phase, which extends the
time frame far beyond the actual realisation of a
temporary project.
4. Local action groups that have launched numer-
ous campaigns and petitions illustrate grassroots’
‘earthly’ engagement as a form of a project organi-
sation. One example is Nacka municipality’s
‘environmental team’ (Nacka Miljöteam) east of
Stockholm, which was launched in 1992 as a part of
the Local Agenda21. The environmental team has
initiated numerous environmental improvement
projects in the local community.
These examples of project organisations include indi-
vidual projects that are limited in scope and time. In
addition, they also tend to involve extemporaneous
situations that must be handled swiftly, without relying
on running-in periods or (non-existent) formalised
decision-making processes. Correct timing in business
planning implies being aware of the key economic
indicators as well as the ability to handle unexpected
incidents. Apart from Skanska’s experience as a building
contractor, each individual building site involves unex-
pected challenges and difficulties in which textbooks and
manuals are inadequate. Managers (and contractors)
usually take the blame for the mistakes of their organi-
sation—such as the case of Skanska’s untimely use of
toxic grouting agent in the problematic tunnel building
through the Hallandsåsen ridge. Yet, at the same time
the company passes on the credit for its success—for
instance in Skanska’s building of the bridge linking the
Öresund sound, which included timely communication
between different subcontractors (with different cultures
and nationalities). The realisation of the annual Stock-
holm Water Festivals and the Stockholm Cultural
Capital project entailed timely problems that had to be
solved on an impromptu basis by the front line staff.
Such public events include numerous ‘micro’ incidents
 H. Rämö / International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 569–574
during which front line staff have to handle unexpected
problems, inquire and complain without having time to
consult neither their managers nor manuals. Similarly,
though less dramatic, are the enthusiasts who were behind
Nacka municipality’s ‘environmental team’s’ timely deci-
sion to launch and implement a new and successful
concept. Particularly one enthusiastic environmentalist,
Dick Tillberg, who did not work by the book or by the
clock, initiated Nacka municipality’s environmental
team in 1992. Tillberg’s enthusiasm remained the driving
force behind the environmental team until he resigned; a
fraction of the team was eventually included in the local
environmental board.
Action and communication based on right moments
to act intelligently in a unique situation are thus
encouraged virtues in project organisations. However,
such judgement-based decisions cannot be a basic char-
acterisation of many ‘permanent’ middle-management
environments, such as in operating everyday technolo-
gical production systems in large companies.
2. Chronological and non-chronological time
As stated in the introduction, time theories on project
organisational settings in particular and in social science
in general are analysed with a partisan focus on chron-
ological time, may it then be depicted as clock-time,
linear, circular, or spiral time. This paper is against
ideas of universal symbolic languages in social settings,
such as a partisan focus on clock-time. Instead, every-
day practices derive their meaning in social life only
through the structure of social relations within which
they come into play: in this case, in interplay between
different forms of human action, organising (e.g. pro-
jects), and time.
The economist’s valuation of the opportunity cost of
time has become increasingly stressed, embracing almost
every aspect of human life (animals and nature). Particu-
larly in management, time has become not only a tool for
organisational study, but also a means, or a commodity,
to gain competitive advantages in the marketplace. The
control of time has become the ultimate imperative,
either in terms of cutting off yet another fraction of time
in ventures undertaken, or in terms of finishing some-
thing according to a strict deadline. Everyone proficient
in reading a clock experience situations in which the
reified clock-time runs our daily duties from place to
place. In this configuration, industrial time is not only
central to the way science, business, and politics con-
duct their activities, but also deeply implicated in the
way people in general have become progressively ‘Time
Managers’ (particularly in the western world).
Situations under the influence of clock-time can be
characterised as chronos-time, a notion that has a long
history. Already in Aristotle’s Physics [18], chronos is
571
defined as the ‘number of motion with respect to the
before and the after’, which is a classical expression of
the concept of (chronos) time as change, measure, and
serial order. Therefore, despite Aristotle’s antiquated
understanding of physics—and a possible circularity in the
definition—in this paper chronos is used as a definition of
an exact quantification of time (e.g. passing time
expressed in successive readings of a clock). In terms of
managerial performance in project organisations, this
clock-time of chronos is the ruling factor, particularly in
time management, administration, and improvement of
what already exists and is already known.
This omnipresent characterisation of time as clock-time
(i.e. chronos-time) is, however, only one delimited way of
understanding time. Although being an important and
inescapable aspect of modern life, the clock-time of
chronos eventually creates blinders. Analyses of the the-
ory of time, and its different representations include a vast
field of philosophical studies, see, for instance Macey [19].
With reference to Snow [20], there is subdivision after
subdivision, also in studies of time, but it easily becomes
meaningless to discuss not only two theories, but also a
hundred and two, or two thousand and two theories of
time. Therefore, for the sake of practicality, the earlier
mentioned concept of clock-time, chronos, will hereafter
be discussed together with a more timely and non-chron-
ological aspect of time, namely kairos. These two concepts
of time, chronos and kairos, should not be seen as two
sharply distinguished classifications, but rather as a com-
plementary pair of human time concepts.
The second and more obscure Greek notion of time,
kairos, and its ‘kairic’ stem is nowadays sparsely used.
The words due measure, proportion and, above all, the
right moment are some of the English translations of
kairos that carry ideas of wisdom and judgement in
timely situations, see, for instance Kerkhoff [21], Kin-
neavy [22], Kinneavy and Eskin [23], Smith [24,25],
White [26]. On chronos and kairos in organisational
settings, see, for instance Bartunek and Necochea [27],
Berman Brown and Herring [28], Jaques [29], Rämö
[30,31]. The present paper’s particular focus on chronos
(clock-time) and kairos (timing) in project organisations
is, however, innovative and unique (as far as known).
In addition to administrating according to the clock
of what already exists and is already known, all man-
agers also have to seize new opportunities, in ‘windows
of opportunities’, opportunities that exist for a finite
period of time. Furthermore, all managers face timely
situations characterised as ‘moments of truth’, which
might imply intelligent actions beyond the mechanically
learned and beyond timetables. The chronological time
of chronos, whether it is described as clock-time, linear,
circular, or spiral, remains inadequate in such timely
situations. Instead, the chronological time of chronos—
and most notably clock-time—must be complemented
by such a non-chronological notion of time as kairos.
572 H. Rämö / International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 569–574
In summary, the temporal notions proposed here
make a distinction between two notions of time. One
notion, chronos time, particularly concerns the ‘exact’
quantification of passing time expressed in successive
readings of a clock. The second concept of time includes
non-chronological timely moments in which we man-
ifest abilities to act intelligently and wisely at a concrete
and opportune occasion, that is, kairos-time.
In the next section of this paper these notions of time
are discussed in terms of the organisational aspects
of efficiency and effectiveness. A final section con-
cerns a discussion about time and timing in project
organisations.
3. Efficiency and effectiveness
Ever since Taylor’s study of manual labour in manu-
facturing processes, efficiency is largely credited for the
revolution in manufacturing. Concepts ranging from
Taylor’s Scientific Management to Deming’s Total
Quality Management are rooted in the basic strategy of
efficiency: to do things right according to the book and
(just) in time [32]. This imperative of doing things right
has its clear logic in the creation of smooth, swift, and
thrifty flows of goods and services from the supplier via
the manufacturer to the customer. To do such things
right places great demands upon ‘exact’ clock-time,
chronos. However, such ideas of efficiency and doing
things right presupposes management and improvement
of what already exists and what is already known.
Consequently, much evidence from the last century
indicates that a partisan focus on efficiency tends to
restrain innovativeness and awareness of changing
demand. Neither individuals nor organisations can be
successful over time if they stick with old assumptions.
The present paper therefore follows Drucker’s well
known discussion on efficiency and effectiveness: ‘Effi-
ciency is concerned with doing things right. Effectiveness
is doing the right things’ [15].
It is suggested here that Drucker’s discussion on the
difference between efficiency and effectiveness also
implies a dualism of time, where chronos’ clock-time is
the ruling factor in efficiency and kairos’ timely
moments are crucial in questions of effectiveness. To
screen out and seize ‘windows of opportunities’ requires
a keen sense of timing. Chronos’ clock-time do not
govern such a sense of timing; instead, it is based on a
‘kairic’ feeling for the right moment.
This argument, that planning according to the clock is
inadequate and in need of abilities to act intelligently
and wisely on concrete and opportune occasions is
straightforward. The question is then if it has anything
to do with project organisational settings in particular,
in addition to organisational settings in general. The
answer is yes. Management of any organisation requires
both efficiency and effectiveness, but project organisa-
tions in fact bring these matters to the forefront.
Some general characteristics of project organisations
are that they are ‘given, plannable and unique task(s),
limited in time, complex in their implementation and
subject to evaluation’ [33]. Atkinson [34] argues that a
‘finite time resource is possibly the feature which dif-
ferentiates project management from most other types
of management.’ Lundin and Söderholm, on the other
hand, specify four concepts as key elements in tem-
porary (project) organisations: time, task, team, and
transition [35]. These four concepts are possibly usable
in the classification of any organisation, but Lundin
and Söderholm argue that they are particularly rele-
vant in understanding human actions in temporary
organisations:
Permanent organizations are more naturally defined
by goals (rather than tasks), survival (rather than
time), working organization (rather than team) and
production processes and continual development
(rather than transition) [36].
Herein lies hidden also a dualism between time as
clock-time, chronos, and time as kairos-time; the latter
form of time is implicitly emphasised as a key element in
project organisations. Drucker’s discussion on the
difference between efficiency and effectiveness, together
with their claimed kinship with time understood as
chronos and kairos, are accentuated by the importance
in project organisations to do the right things. Whereas
more permanent organisations have institutionalised
their job description and rules, project organisations
have to rely more on the ability to handle unexpected
incidents through improvisation. Such a sense of timing
in handling incidents and opportunities is based on a
‘kairic’ feeling for the right moment, which is not ruled
by chronos’ clock-time.
One example of the importance in project organisations
to do the right things is illustrated by the so called
Successive Principle, which has been used in project
management, risk management, budgeting and other
general management situations [37]. The Successive
Principle deliberately uses the idea of doing the right
things instead of doing the things right, which means that
timing becomes a crucial complement to the strict clock-
time. Following the proactive concept of Successive
Principle, main elements of a given task is subjected to a
rough quantitative evaluation of its size of order as well
as its degree of uncertainty. Then the most important
element is chosen to be subjected to a further specifica-
tion. After a series of such successive iterations a high
quality result appears, in terms of realistic budget and
schedule forecasts. At a global level the concept of
Successive Principle has been used toward thousands of
projects and other tasks, including several mega projects
 H. Rämö / International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 569–574
(including e.g. the 1994 Winter Olympic Games in Lil-
lehammer, Norway).
4. Summary and ideas
This paper has sought to explore some (somewhat
forgotten) aspects of time in project organisation
practices in which attention was directed to two notions
of chronological and non-chronological time (chronos
and kairos), and two dimensions of managerial perfor-
mance (efficiency and effectiveness). On the whole, the
two types of time notions were delineated in this
paper and their underlying implications to managerial
performance in project organisations were outlined.
First, the purely abstract and generally applicable
chronological clock-time of chronos was described. The
clock-time of chronos—with time expressed as infinite-
simal slices—is discussed in terms of efficiency: the
decree of doing things right according to the book and
constantly working by the clock. Such ideas of efficiency
and doing things right presuppose management and
improvement of what already exists and is already
known, which might be a normal situation in middle-
management environments, such as in operating tech-
nological production systems. However, it is suggested
that (always) doing things right according to the book
and constantly working by the clock cannot be a basic
characterisation of many project organisations.
A second type of non-chronological time notion,
kairos time, was discussed as the ability to act
intelligently and wisely on a concrete and opportune
occasion. At such a particular moment, a ‘kairic’ feeling
for the timely can trigger bold new ideas with respect to
innovativeness and awareness of changing demand. A
‘kairic’ feeling is accentuated by the importance in pro-
ject organisations to do the right things at the right
moment. Project organisations have to rely to a great
extent on the ability to handle unexpected incidents in
an impromptu manner, whereas more permanent
organisations frequently have more institutionalised job
descriptions and rules.
It must be noted that to acquire a sense for such
timely ‘kairic’ moments cannot be dictated from a
manual: matters of timing cannot be explored explicitly.
However, the elusive character of timing (e.g. kairos)
should not lead us to underestimate its importance.
‘Kairic’ timing remains tacit but any able professional
has a grasp of his or her subject far beyond the text-
books; he or she knows the crucial moment for intelligent
acting. Analysis of time in social settings also remains
crippled if there is a partisan focus on chronological
time only, regardless of whether it is depicted as clock-
time, as linear, as circular, or as spiral time. However, it
must be noted that this dualistic notion of time—
chronological and non-chronological (e.g. chronos and
573
kairos)—is not concerned with establishing what time is
but to better understand what we do with it and how
time enters into our system of values.
By distinguishing between different aspects of
chronological (clock-time, linear, circular, or spiral)
and non-chronological (e.g. kairos) notions of human
time, the means to understand what goes beyond the
reified objectivisation of not only time but of humans as
well is provided. For instance, time management in
project organisations does not only involve mechanical
processes ruled by the clock. Further, the object cannot
only be to ascertain how much activity one can stuff
into 1-h or 1-day buckets. Rather, we must also pay
attention to the more creative aspects of time, when a
feeling for the right moment to act can result in unfolding
new and bold ideas. Anything else is a waste of time.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank three anonymous reviewers
for constructive guidance.
References
[1] Adam B. Time and social theory. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990.
[2] Adam B. Timewatch: the social analysis of time. Cambridge:
Polity Press, 1995.
[3] Bluedorn AC, Denhart RB. Time and organizations. Journal of
Management 1988;14(2):299–320.
[4] Blyton P, Hassard J, Hill S, Starkey K. Time, work and organi-
zation. London: Routledge, 1989.
[5] Burrell G. Back to the future: time and organizations. In: Reed
M, editor. Rethinking organizations: new directions in organiza-
tion theory and analysis. London: Sage, 1992.
[6] Butler R. Time in organizations: its experience, explanations and
effects. Organization Studies 1995;16(6):925–50.
[7] Clark PA. A review of theories of time and structure for organi-
zational sociology. Research in the Sociology of Organizations
1985;4:35–73.
[8] Clark PA. Chronological codes and organizational analysis. In:
Hassard J, Pym D, editors. The theory and philosophy of orga-
nizations. London: Routledge, 1990.
[9] Lee H, Liebenau J. Time in organization studies: towards a new
research direction. Organization Studies 1999;20(6):1035–58.
[10] Whipp R. A time to be concerned: a position paper on time and
management. Time & Society 1994;3(1):99–116.
[11] Zerubavel E. Patterns of time in hospital life: a sociological per-
spective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.
[12] Lindkvist L, Söderlund J, Tell F. Managing product development
projects: on the significance of fountains and deadlines. Organi-
zation Studies 1998;19(6):931–51.
[13] Lundin RA, Söderholm A. A theory of the temporary organiza-
tion. Scandinavian Journal of Management 1995;11(4):437–55.
[14] Thoms F, Pinto JK. Project leadership: a question of timing.
Project Management Journal 1999;30(1):19–26.
[15] Drucker PF. Management. tasks, responsibilities, practices. Lon-
don: Heinemann, 1974.
[16] On issues of risk, trust, time, and space in the Hallandsåsen ridge
railway tunnel project, see Boholm A, Lofstedt R. Issues of risk,
trust and knowledge: the Hallandsas tunnel case. Ambio 1999;
28(6):556–61.
574 H. Rämö / International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 569–574
[17] Porsander L. Tittskåp för alla. En berättelse av Lena Porsander om
hur Stockholm blev kulturhuvudstad. Göteborg: BAS, 2000 (Peep-
show for everyone. Stockholm—cultural capital of Europe 1998).
[18] Aristotle. Physics IV(11):219b.
[19] Macey SL. Encyclopedia of time. New York: Garland Publish-
ing, 1994.
[20] Snow CP. The two cultures: and a second look. An expanded
version of the two cultures and the scientific revolution. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959 1964.
[21] Kerkhoff M. Kairos. In: Ritter J, editor. Historische wörterbuch
der philosophie Vol. IV. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftlische Buchge-
sellschaft, 1976.
[22] Kinneavy JL. Kairos: a neglected concept in classical rhetoric. In:
Moss JD, editor. Rhetoric and praxis. Washington DC: Catholic
University of America Press, 1986.
[23] Kinneavy JL, Eskin CR. Kairos in Aristotle’s rhetoric. Written
Communication 1994;11(1):131–42.
[24] Smith JE. Time, times, and the ‘right time’, chronos and kairos.
The Monist 1969;53(1):1–13.
[25] Smith JE. Time and qualitative time. Review of Metaphysics
1986;40(1):3–16.
[26] White EC. Kaironomia: on the will-to-invent. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1987.
[27] Bartunek JM, Necochea RA. Old insights and new times: kairos,
inca cosmology, and their contributions to contemporary manage-
ment inquiry. Journal of Management Inquiry 2000;9(2):103–12.
[28] Berman Brown R, Herring R. The circles of time. An exploratory
study in measuring temporal perceptions within organizations.
Journal of Management Psychology 1998;13(8):580–602.
[29] Jaques E. The form of time. New York: Crane Russak, 1982.
[30] Rämö H. An aristotelian human time-space manifold: from
chronochora to kairotopos. Time and Society 1999;8(2):309–28.
[31] Rämö H. Ancient ideas in a new setting. Chronos, kairos, chora,
and topos in a post-industrialized world. In: Soulsby M, Fraser
JT, editors. Time. Perspectives at the millennium. Westport: Ber-
gin & Garvey, 2000.
[32] Drucker PF. Management challenges for the 21st Century. New
York: Harper Business, 1999.
[33] Packendorff J. Inquiring into the temporary organization: new
directions for project management research. Scandinavian Jour-
nal of Management 1995;11(4):319–33.
[34] Atkinson R. Project management: cost, time and quality, two
best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success
criteria. International Journal of Project Management 1999;17(6):
337–42.
[35] Lundin RA, Söderholm A. A theory of the temporary organiza-
tion. Scandinavian Journal of Management 1995;11(4):437–55.
[36] Lundin RA, Söderholm A. A theory of the temporary organization.
Scandinavian Journal of Management 1995;11(4):437–55, p. 439.
[37] Lichtenberg S. Proactive management of uncertainty using the
successive principle. A practical way to manage opportunities and
risks. Lyngby: Polyteknisk Press, 2000.