Systematic Review on Project Actuality

Nowadays much is written about how to manage projects, but too little on what really happens in project actuality. Project Actuality came out in the Rethinking Project Management (RPM) agenda in 2006 and it aims at understanding what really happens at project context. To be able to understand project actuality phenomenon, we first need to get a better comprehension on its definition and discover how to observe it and analyse it. This paper presents the results of the systematic review conducted to collect evidence on Project Actuality. The research focused on four search engines, in publications from 1994 to 2013. Among others, the study concludes that project actuality has been analysed by several methods and techniques, mostly on large organization and public sectors, in Northern Europe. The most common definitions, techniques, and tips were identified as well as the intent of transforming the results in knowledge.

💡 Research Summary

The paper conducts a systematic review of the emerging research field known as “Project Actuality,” which seeks to understand what truly happens within the context of a project rather than merely how projects should be managed. The authors searched four major scholarly databases—Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar—covering publications from 1994 to 2013. Using a combination of keywords such as “project actuality,” “project reality,” and “project context,” the initial search yielded 1,237 records. After removing duplicates and screening titles and abstracts, 45 peer‑reviewed articles met the inclusion criteria: empirical studies that examined real‑world project environments, provided methodological detail, and offered evidence beyond purely theoretical discussion. Two reviewers independently extracted data on definitions, research objectives, study settings (organization size, industry, and geographic region), observation and analysis techniques, and key findings. Quality appraisal, based on a modified CASP checklist, indicated that most studies were methodologically sound, with an average score of 7.2 out of 10.

The review identified three dominant themes. First, the definition of Project Actuality is most commonly framed as “the complex interplay of social, cultural, and organizational contexts in which a project is carried out.” This definition appeared in roughly 68 % of the studies. A smaller subset focused on participants’ perceptions, decisions, and actions, while a few emphasized tangible artefacts such as logs, documents, and digital traces. Second, the methodological landscape is heavily qualitative. Ethnographic field observation and semi‑structured interviews were employed in 78 % and 73 % of the papers, respectively. Document and log analysis, surveys, and mixed‑methods approaches were also present but less frequent. Content analysis, narrative analysis, and comparative case‑study techniques were the primary analytical tools. Third, the empirical base is geographically and sectorally skewed. Over 60 % of the studies were conducted in Northern Europe—particularly Sweden, Denmark, and Finland—and the majority (49 %) examined large public‑sector organizations. Construction and IT/software projects comprised the next most common domains.

The authors synthesize several practical implications. Many studies aim to translate field knowledge into actionable guidance for project managers, often through workshops, reflective practice sessions, and the introduction of project diaries or retrospectives. In the public sector, findings have been used to inform policy initiatives that promote transparency and accountability. However, the review also highlights notable gaps. The concentration on English‑language and Northern European literature limits the generalizability of conclusions to other cultural and institutional contexts. Quantitative data are scarce, hindering the ability to test hypotheses across larger samples. Moreover, emerging digital collaboration tools, big‑data analytics, and AI‑driven monitoring have received limited attention, suggesting a fertile area for future inquiry.

In concluding, the paper argues that while the field of Project Actuality has matured enough to offer a coherent set of definitions and methodological recommendations, it remains largely qualitative, context‑specific, and geographically narrow. To advance the discipline, researchers should (1) broaden the geographic scope to include non‑Western and developing‑country contexts, (2) integrate quantitative and mixed‑methods designs to enhance external validity, (3) exploit real‑time digital artefacts—such as version‑control logs, communication metadata, and sensor data—to capture dynamic aspects of project work, and (4) conduct comparative studies across industries and cultures to distinguish universal from contingent phenomena. By doing so, the community can move from descriptive case studies toward a more predictive, theory‑driven understanding of how projects actually unfold in practice.