Open for business

Project-specific value capture strategies of architectural firms




architectural firms, developing strategies, value capture strategies, role negotiation strategies


Architectural firms can be regarded as creative professional service firms. As such, architects need to navigate creative, professional and commercial goals, while simultaneously attempting to fulfil client, user and societal needs. This complex process is becoming increasingly difficult, as the historically established role of architects has become more blurred, contested and heterogeneous. While attempting to reclaim their role or to take on new roles in collaborations with other actors, architectural firms are challenged to develop business models that are financially viable and professionally satisfactory. These business models need to facilitate firms in capturing both financial and professional value in co-creation processes, and they must also suit the project-based structure of the firm.

This research contributes insights into how firms might capture multiple dimensions of value in project-based work. It generates new perspectives on processes of organizational value capture and business model design, and provides concrete, practical insights into the difficulties of and opportunities involved in value capture by creative professional service firms.

Context and approach of the research

This research adopts a project-specific business model perspective (Kujala et al., 2010; Wikström et al., 2010) and multidimensional perspective on value to investigate the value capture strategies of architectural firms. While paying attention to the unique project contexts in which firms operate and the multiple dimensions of value they aim to capture, the purpose is to generate a better understanding of how firms attempt to capture value in order to attain their strategic goals. The research also aims to facilitate architectural firms and other organizations in dealing with the value capture challenges they face in practice. To reach these two objectives, two main research questions are addressed:

  1. How do architectural firms capture value in construction projects?
  2. How can architectural firms be supported in developing strategies for value capture?

Drawing on 40 case-based interviews with architects and clients from 24 recently completed construction projects, as well as observational data from 17 project-oriented strategy meetings, the value capture strategies of architectural firms are examined both in retrospect and as they unfolded in practice. The empirical insights were synthesized in a toolkit that can be used by firms to engage in projects and manage their value capture activities in these projects with greater awareness. Through the adoption of an engaged scholarship approach (Van de Ven, 2007), the researcher’s background and continued involvement in architectural practice helped to assure the scientific and practical relevance of the research.


Three types of project-specific value capture strategies were identified:

  • Strategies to negotiate one’s role in a project
  • Strategies to capture value in the project-based interaction with a client
  • Strategies to attain firm goals in a project

Strategies to negotiate one’s role in a project

By negotiating a certain role in a project, architectural firms attempt to shape the conditions for value capture in it. Different roles are associated with different opportunities to capture value, as certain activities or responsibilities may or may not allow firms to appropriate monetary or professional value.

A boundary work lens (Gieryn, 1983; Gieryn, 1999) was used to investigate role negotiation strategies. The analysis indicates that architects use different strategies to negotiate the boundaries of their professional role, as they have different perceptions of what their professional expertise means when collaborating with other project actors. It was found that firms attempted to reinstate their role boundaries and return to the established situation when they felt that their professional expertise was not being valued. In addition, architects were found to bend their role boundaries to take on activities and responsibilities which were tailored to project demands when they considered their expertise to be constantly changing. Firms were also found to pioneer role boundaries and pursue an active break with the established situation when they considered their expertise as more broadly applicable.

This shows that professional expertise plays a key part in firms’ role negotiation  strategies and influences the value capture opportunities that firms might create in projects. These findings suggest that firms can improve their role negotiation strategies and how they capture value in a project by considering the expertise they have and wish to employ in the project, and by determining whether or not this expertise fits the specific project context and needs of the client.

Strategies to capture value in the project-based interaction with a client

Investigation of architectural firms’ project-based interactions with clients with regard to ‘use value’, ‘exchange value’ (Bowman and Ambrosini, 2000; Vargo et al., 2008) and ‘professional value’ showed that architectural firms tend to prioritize the capture of professional values over exchange value and sometimes even use value. It was found that to attain their professional goals, such as maintaining or enhancing their reputation, work pleasure and continued development, firms spent more time on activities than they were paid for, provided certain activities for free, or refrained from renegotiating the fee, thereby trading off monetary value for professional value. By delivering additional quality, which was of no value to the client, firms traded off the realization of use value for the client for professional value. This shows how architectural firms were willing to sacrifice their own capture of monetary value or the use value for the client when they recognized that their professional goals might possibly become endangered. It also emphasizes the importance of professional value in architectural firms’ value capture.

The trade-offs between different value dimensions demonstrate how the hierarchy in value capture goals plays a crucial part in the value capture strategies of architectural  firms. While enabling firms to capture one dimension of value, it will constrain them in the capture of another value dimension. This suggests that firms may benefit from working towards value capture strategies that are able to generate a better balance between different values in a project.

Strategies to attain firm goals in a project

The understanding of the value capture process of architectural firms was further supplemented by providing insights into the dynamics occurring between a project and the firm. Three kinds of value capture strategies were identified at the intersection between project and firm:

  • Postponing financial revenues in a project (referred to as the postponing strategy)
  • Compensating for loss of financial revenue across projects (referred to as the compensating strategy)
  • Rejecting a project (referred to as the rejecting strategy)

Examination of the strategies on the basis of the interaction of use value, exchange value and professional value revealed that firms adopted three types of value slippage responses in their projects:

  • Taking the risk of financial value slippage
  • Accepting financial value slippage
  • Counteracting professional value slippage

With the postponing and compensating strategies, firms risked or accepted the slippage of financial value in a project. This means that firms engaged in projects that required an initial investment, or even remained unprofitable, and created more use value than they were paid for in these projects. The slippage of financial value that resulted from this decision was often considered beneficial, as it allowed the enhanced attainment of professional goals in the longer term. While firms sometimes considered financial value slippage as potentially beneficial, professional value slippage was always prevented by firms. With the rejecting strategy, firms counteracted the slippage of professional value in projects and avoided creating use value that could not be captured as professional value or that could even harm the firm’s professional resources.

The strategies and associated value slippage responses highlight that value capture is largely influenced by a firm’s willingness to take financial and professional risks in a project. The findings also indicate that firms do not necessarily aim for optimally balanced value capture in each project, but regularly accept or pursue ‘off-balance’ projects to attain higher end goals at the organizational level and over the longer term.

Business model strategizing

The business model strategizing process that architectural firms employ was studied to determine how firms arrive at their project-specific value capture strategies. Observations of 17 strategy meetings at architectural firms demonstrated that firm members developed their value capture strategies around professional values, thereby strengthening organizational identity but constraining innovation in their business models. Although actors jointly considered strategic alternatives in the strategy process, they often feared that these alternatives might be at odds with their professional values and beliefs. This typically triggered them to remain loyal to proven value capture strategies.

These findings reveal how the three aspects of expertise, goals and risks, which influence firm role negotiation and value capture strategies, are strongly related to professional identity, thereby emphasizing the importance of professional identity in the development  of value capture strategies by architectural firms. This suggests that greater awareness of the most salient aspects of professional identity may help firms to reject projects that are fundamentally not aligned with their values and to develop value capture strategies that respect professional values for the projects in which they do engage.

Value capture toolkit

The empirical findings on how firms attempt to capture multiple dimensions of value in projects were translated into a toolkit for value capture in projects. The toolkit was specifically designed to ensure the well-balanced integration of professional identity, expertise, goals and risks in a project. A well-balanced integration facilitates firms in  selecting projects on the basis of a role that is in line with their identity. It also helps firms to capture both financial and professional value on the basis of firm expertise and risks, and thereby attain their organizational goals. The value capture toolkit consists of four main components:

  1. An overview of four generic professional role identities of architectural firms to specify the project and professional context in which one is involved.
  2. A board game with cards to develop comprehensive and balanced value capture strategies for projects by answering questions around eight core aspects involved.
  3. An overview of role identity-specific value capture challenges and recommendations to identify common pitfalls and opportunities for the type of role identity one has in a project.
  4. Example projects for each of the four generic role identities to inspire practitioners and support the generation of well thought through strategies.

The toolkit can be used by architectural firms and other actors to analyse, monitor and improve their value capture strategies in projects. It supports actors to substantiate different strategic decisions in relation to one another in a structured fashion. This helps firms to arrive at more consciously developed and encompassing value capture strategies that can be better managed over the course of a project. The toolkit stimulates joint discussion and deliberation, which may provide firms with productive settings to develop new strategies while safeguarding the professional values and standards that are at stake.

Conclusions and implications

The investigation of architectural firms’ strategies and strategy making for project-based value capture showed that capturing multiple dimensions of value in projects is a highly complex process that is shaped by responses to tensions originating in the different contexts in which the firm is embedded. While the inter-organizational project context may give rise to tensions between a firm’s desired and actual role in a collaboration with other actors, the professional context generates tensions in the balance of different value dimensions within and across projects. The threefold theoretical implications of the research are outlined below.

First, this research extends the existing literature on organizational value capture (Bowman and Ambrosini, 2000; Lepak et al., 2007; Pitelis, 2009), more specifically by project-based firms (Laursen and Svejvig, 2016) by uncovering how dynamics between different values influence the value capture strategies of firms. While the existing literature on organizational value capture has solely focused on the capture and slippage of financial value, this research demonstrates that to study the value capture of firms with multiple strategic goals, value capture and value slippage theories need to be developed around multiple value dimensions.

Second, the research contributes to the literature on the management of architectural firms (Winch and Schneider, 1993) and other project-based, creative professional service firms by providing an integrative understanding of the tensions involved in the value capture of these firms and how these are dealt with. The insights gained underline the importance of developing project or solution-specific business models (Kujala et al., 2010; Wikström et al., 2010) and suggest that research on the management of creative professional service firms may benefit from additional project-specific insights into how firms co-create and capture value on a day-to-day basis.

Third, the research contributes insights into how firm members jointly design business models in a project context and are influenced by the project and professional context in which they are embedded. The research shows that although actors consider innovations in their business models, professional norms and values constrain innovation. The identification of three key aspects – goals, expertise, and risks – that shape project-specific or solution-specific business model designs, from both the perspective of the project and the perspective of the firm, adds new insights to previous studies concerned with the design of business models (Zott and Amit, 2010) and the existing literature on project-specific business models (Kujala et al., 2010; Kujala et al., 2011; Wikström et al., 2010). Thorough consideration and continuous adaptation of the goals, expertise and risks in relation to organizational identity and project conditions help strengthen the power of the business model with respect to attaining intended goals.

For architectural firms and other creative and/or professional service firms, the insights from this research and the toolkit developed will provide new means to develop and adopt more value-oriented and business-minded approaches in their projects. By facilitating the iterative development of project-specific value capture strategies, they allow firms to assess the benefits and risks of potential projects and jointly improve the conditions for value capture in these projects. Insights into the value capture process and trade-offs that practising architects must confront can also help architecture students to become successful professionals and entrepreneurs. Thus, by providing a better understanding of project-based value capture and fostering a desire to improve this process, this research facilitates creative professionals in developing and maintaining sustainable organizations that support the realization of unique, creative visions for advancing our society.


Abbott, A. (1988). The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ahuja, S., Nikolova, N., & Clegg, S. (2017). Paradoxical identity: The changing nature of architectural work and its relation to architects’ identity. Journal of Professions and Organization, 4(1), 2-19.

Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132-169.

Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. In Cummings, L. L. & Staw, B. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 263-295). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Allen, D. (2000). Doing Occupational Demarcation:The “Boundary-Work” of Nurse Managers in a District General Hospital. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 29(3), 326-356.

Alvesson, M., Kärreman, D., & Sullivan, K. (2015). Professional service firms and identity. In Hinings, B., Muzio, D., Broschak, J. & Empson, L. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Professional Service Firms (pp. 1-28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2017). Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. London: SAGE. Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2001). Tacit knowledge: Some suggestions for operationalization. Journal of Management Studies, 38(6), 811-829.

Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2012). Creating value through business model innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(3), 41-49.

Andriopoulos, C. (2003). Six paradoxes in managing creativity: an embracing act. Long Range Planning, 36(4), 375-388.

Anteby, M., Chan, C. K., & DiBenigno, J. (2016). Three Lenses on Occupations and Professions in Organizations: Becoming, Doing, and Relating. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 183-244.

Anthony, C., & Tripsas, M. (2016). Organizational Identity and Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. Apesoa-Varano, E. C. (2013). Interprofessional Conflict and Repair: A Study of Boundary Work in the Hospital. Sociological Perspectives, 56(3), 327-349.

Architects’ Council of Europe. (2015). 13th Economic Trends Survey of the Impact of Economic Downturn. Brussels: Architects’ Council of Europe

Arditi, D., & Davis, L. (1988). Marketing of Construction Services. Journal of Management in Engineering, 4(4), 297-315.

Artto, K., Ahola, T., & Vartiainen, V. (2016). From the front end of projects to the back end of operations: Managing projects for value creation throughout the system lifecycle. International Journal of Project Management, 34(2), 258-270.

Artto, K., & Kujala, J. (2008). Project business as a research field. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1(4), 469-497.

Artto, K. A., & Wikström, K. (2005). What is project business? International Journal of Project Management, 23(5), 343-353.

Arvidsson, N. (2009). Exploring tensions in projectified matrix organisations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25(1), 97-107.

Ashforth, B. (2000). Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective. London: Routledge.

Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325-374.

Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a Day’s Work: Boundaries and Micro Role Transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 472-491.

Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 17(6), 337-342.

Aversa, P., Haefliger, S., Rossi, A., & Baden-Fuller, C. (2015). From business model to business modelling: Modularity and manipulation. In Baden-Fuller, C. & Mangematin, V. (Eds.), Business models and modelling (pp. 151-185). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Azhar, S. (2011). Building Information Modeling (BIM): Trends, Benefits, Risks, and Challenges for the AEC Industry. Leadership and Management in Engineering, 11(3), 241-252.

Baden-Fuller, C., & Mangematin, V. (2013). Business models: A challenging agenda. Strategic Organization, 11(4), 418-427.

Baden-Fuller, C., & Mangematin, V. (2015). Business Models and Modelling Business Models. Advances in Strategic Management, 33, xi-xxii.

Balogun, J., Huff, A. S., & Johnson, P. (2003). Three responses to the methodological challenges of studying strategizing. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 197-224.

Barley, S. R. (1996). Technicians in the Workplace: Ethnographic Evidence for Bringing Work into Organizational Studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 404-441.

Bartunek, J. M. (2007). Academic-Practitioner Collaboration Need not Require Joint or Relevant Research: Toward a Relational Scholarship of Integration. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1323-1333.

Bechky, B. A. (2006). Gaffers, Gofers, and Grips: Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations.

Organization Science, 17(1), 3-21.

Bechky, B. A. (2011). Making Organizational Theory Work: Institutions, Occupations, and Negotiated Orders. Organization Science, 22(5), 1157-1167.

Blau, J. R., & Power, D. W. (1984). Architects and firms: A sociological perspective on architectural practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

BNA, & NLingenieurs. (2013). The New Rules 2011, Legal relationship client – architect, engineer and consultant DNR 2011. Amsterdam:

BNA, & NLingenieurs. (2014). Standaardtaakbeschrijving 2014 DNR-STB 2014. Toelichting. Amsterdam: BNA & ONrI

BNA, & ONRI. (2008). Standaardtaakbeschrijving 2009 DNR-STB 2009. Toelichting en takenoverzicht. Amsterdam: BNA & ONRI

Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bos-de Vos, M., Lieftink, B.M., Wamelink, J.W.F., & Kraaijeveld, J. (2017). Challenges in the business models of creative professional service firms. In: Hay, R. & Samuel, F. (Eds.) Conference Proceedings of the Professional Practices in the Built Environment Conference, 27-28 April 2017, Reading, UK, Value of Architects, University of Reading, 35-43.

Bos-de Vos, M., Wamelink, J. W.F., & Volker, L. (2016). Trade-offs in the value capture of architectural firms: the significance of professional value. Construction Management and Economics, 34(1), 21-34.

Boutinot, A., Ansari, S. S., Belkhouja, M., & Mangematin, V. (2015). Reputational spillovers: evidence from french architecture. Strategic Organization, 13(4), 284-306.

Bowman, C., & Ambrosini, V. (2000). Value creation versus value capture: towards a coherent definition of value in strategy. British Journal of Management, 11(1), 1-15.

Bowman, C., & Swart, J. (2007). Whose human capital? The challenge of value capture when capital is embedded. Journal of Management Studies, 44(4), 488-505.

Brinkman, S., & Kvale, S. (2015). Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Broschak, J. P. (2015). Client relationships in professional service firms. In Empson, L., Muzio, D., Broschak, J. & Hinings, B. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Professional Service Firms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bryde, D., Broquetas, M., & Volm, J. M. (2013). The project benefits of Building Information Modelling (BIM). International Journal of Project Management, 31(7), 971-980.

Bucher, S. V., Chreim, S., Langley, A., & Reay, T. (2016). Contestation about Collaboration: Discursive Boundary Work among Professions. Organization Studies, 37(4), 497-522.

Burkert, M., Ivens, B. S., Henneberg, S., & Schradi, P. (2017). Organizing for value appropriation: Configurations and performance outcomes of price management. Industrial Marketing Management, 61, 194-209.

Burr, K. L., & Jones, C. B. (2010). The Role of the Architect: Changes of the Past, Practices of the Present, and Indications of the Future. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 6(2), 122-138.

Callon, M., Méadel, C., & Rabeharisoa, V. (2002). The economy of qualities. Economy and society, 31(2), 194- 217.

Canavan, D., Scott, P. S., & Mangematin, V. (2013). Creative professional service firms: aligning strategy and talent. Journal of Business Strategy, 34(3), 24-32.

Chang, A., Chih, Y.-Y., Chew, E., & Pisarski, A. (2013). Reconceptualising mega project success in Australian Defence: Recognising the importance of value co-creation. International Journal of Project Management, 31(8), 1139-1153.

Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business Model Innovation: Opportunities and Barriers. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 354-363.

Chreim, S., Langley, A., Comeau-Vallée, M., Huq, J.-L., & Reay, T. (2013). Leadership as boundary work in healthcare teams. Leadership. 9(2), 201-228.

Chreim, S., Williams, B. E., & Hinings, C. R. (2007). Interlevel Influences on the Reconstruction of Professional Role Identity. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1515-1539.

Clark, D. N. (1997). Strategic management tool usage: a comparative study. Strategic Change, 6(7), 417-427.;2-9

Cohen, L., Wilkinson, A., Arnold, J., & Finn, R. (2005). ‘Remember I’m the bloody architect!’: Architects, organizations and discourses of profession. Work, Employment and Society, 19(4), 775-796.

Covaleski, M. A., Dirsmith, M. W., & Rittenberg, L. (2003). Jurisdictional disputes over professional work: the institutionalization of the global knowledge expert. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(4), 323-355.

Coxe, W., Hartung, N. F., Hochberg, H. H., Lewis, B. J., Maister, D. H., Mattox, R. F., & Piven, P. A. (2005). Charting your course. Master strategies for organizing and managing architecture firms.

Cuff, D. (1992). Architecture: The Story of Practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.

DeFillippi, R., Grabher, G., & Jones, C. (2007). Introduction to paradoxes of creativity: managerial and organizational challenges in the cultural economy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(5), 511-521.

DeFillippi, R., & Sydow, J. (2016). Project networks: Choice of governance and paradoxical tensions. Project Management Journal, 47(5), 6-17. Available at:

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research: Sage publications, inc.

Diefenbach, T., & Sillince, J. A. A. (2011). Formal and Informal Hierarchy in Different Types of Organization. Organization Studies, 32(11), 1515-1537. Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521-532.

Duffy, F., & Rabeneck, A. (2013). Professionalism and architects in the 21st century. Building Research & Information, 41(1), 115-122.

Edmondson, A. C., & Mcmanus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1246-1264.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32.

Evetts, J. (2003). The Sociological Analysis of Professionalism:Occupational Change in the Modern World. International sociology, 18(2), 395-415.

Fitzgerald, A., & Teal, G. (2004). Health reform, professional identity and occupational sub-cultures: The changing interprofessional relations between doctors and nurses. Contemporary Nurse, 16(1-2), 71-79.

Floricel, S., Bonneau, C., Aubry, M., & Sergi, V. (2014). Extending project management research: Insights from social theories. International Journal of Project Management, 32(7), 1091-1107.

Foreman, P., & Whetten, D. A. (2002). Members’ identification with multiple-identity organizations. Organization Science, 13(6), 618-635.

Fournier, V. (2002). Boundary work and the (un) making of the professions. In Malin, N. (Ed.), Professionalism, boundaries and the workplace (pp. 67-86). London: Routledge.

Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism, the third logic: on the practice of knowledge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago press.

Gaim, M. (2017). On the emergence and management of paradoxical tensions: The case of architectural firms. European Management Journal.

Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781-795.

Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago, IL & London: University of Chicago Press.

Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15-31.

Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. (2000). Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 63-81.

Gond, J., Leca, B., & Cloutier, C. (2015). An “economies of worth” perspective on strategy as practice: Justification, valuation and critique in the practice of strategy. In Golsorkhi, L. R. D., Seidl, D. & Vaara, E. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice (pp. 200-219). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Goodrick, E., & Reay, T. (2010). Florence Nightingale Endures: Legitimizing a New Professional Role Identity. Journal of Management Studies, 47(1), 55-84. Gray, C., Hogg, R., & Kennedy, C. (2011). Professional boundary work in the face of change to generalist working in community nursing in Scotland. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67(8), 1695-1704.

Greenwood, R., & Empson, L. (2003). The professional partnership: relic or exemplary form of governance? Organization Studies, 24(6), 909-933.

Greenwood, R., Li, S. X., Prakash, R., & Deephouse, D. L. (2005). Reputation, diversification, and organizational explanations of performance in professional service firms. Organization Science, 16(6), 661-673.

Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. (2002). Theorizing Change: The Role of Professional Associations in the Transformation of Institutionalized Fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 58-80.

Grönroos, C. (2008). Service logic revisited: who creates value? And who co-creates? European Business Review, 20(4), 298-314.

Grönroos, C., & Ravald, A. (2011). Service as business logic: implications for value creation and marketing. Journal of Service Management, 22(1), 5-22. Grönroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-creation. Journal of the Academy of marketing Science, 41(2), 133-150. Hart, S. L., & Quinn, R. E. (1993). Roles executives play: CEOs, behavioral complexity, and firm performance.

Human Relations, 46(5), 543-574.

Helgesson, C.-F., & Kjellberg, H. (2013). Introduction: Values and Valuations in Market Practice. Journal of Cultural Economy, 6(4), 361-369.

Hernes, T. (2004). Studying Composite Boundaries: A Framework of Analysis. Human Relations, 57(1), 9-29.

Hinings, B., Muzio, D., Broschak, J., & Empson, L. (2015). Researching Professional Service Firms. In Hinings, B., Muzio, D., Broschak, J. & Empson, L. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Professional Service Firms (pp. 1-28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hitt, M. A., Biermant, L., Shimizu, K., & Kochhar, R. (2001). Direct and Moderating Effects of Human Capital on Strategy and Performance in Professional Service Firms: A Resource-Based Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 13-28.

Hobday, M. (2000). The project-based organisation: an ideal form for managing complex products and systems? Research Policy, 29(7), 871-893.

Hughes, W., & Hughes, C. (2013). Professionalism and professional institutions in times of change. Building Research & Information, 41(1), 28-38.

Hutter, M. (2011). Infinite surprises: on the stabilization of value in the creative industries. In Beckert, J. & Aspers , P. (Eds.), The Worth of Goods. Valuation and Pricing in the Economy (pp. 201-220). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 764-791. Jamieson, C. (2012). The Future for Architects? London: Building Futures, RIBA, available at

Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J., & Seidl, D. (2007). Strategizing: The challenges of a practice perspective. Human Relations, 60(1), 5-27.

Jarzabkowski, P., & Kaplan, S. (2015). Strategy tools-in-use: A framework for understanding “technologies of rationality” in practice. Strategic Management Journal, 36(4), 537-558.

Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic Organization, 11(3), 245-280.

Jarzabkowski, P., & Spee, A. P. (2009). Strategy-as-practice: A review and future directions for the field. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1), 69-95.

Jia, A. Y., Gao, S. S., & Kvan, T. (2017). Markets, Professions and Firms of the Construction Industry: The Changing Roles of Architects in Response to Vertical Integration. In: Chan, P. W. & Neilson, C. J. (Eds.) Proceeding of the 33rd Annual ARCOM Conference, 4-6 September 2017, Cambridge, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management 481-490.

Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602-611.

Johnson, G., Melin, L., & Whittington, R. (2003). Micro Strategy and Strategizing: Towards an Activity-Based View. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 3-22.

Johnson, P., Balogun, J., & Beech, N. (2010). Researching strategists and their identity in practice: building ‘close-with’relationships. In Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D. & Vaara, E. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice (pp. 243-257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jones, C., Hesterly, W. S., Fladmoe-Lindquist, K., & Borgatti, S. P. (1998). Professional Service Constellations: How Strategies and Capabilities Influence Collaborative Stability and Change. Organization Science, 9(3), 396-410.

Jones, C., & Lichtenstein, B. B. (2008). Temporary inter-organizational projects: How temporal and social embeddedness enhance coordination and manage uncertainty. In Cropper, S., Ebers, M., Huxham, C. & Ring, P. S. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of inter-organizational relations (pp. 231-255). New York: Oxford University Press.

Jones, C., Maoret, M., Massa, F. G., & Svejenova, S. (2012). Rebels with a Cause: Formation, Contestation, and Expansion of the De Novo Category “Modern Architecture,” 1870–1975. Organization Science, 23(6), 1523-1545.

Jones, C., Svejenova, S., Pedersen, J. S., & Townley, B. (2016). Misfits, Mavericks and Mainstreams: Drivers of Innovation in the Creative Industries. Organization Studies, 37(6), 751-768.

Kreiner, G. E., & Murphy, C. (2016). Organizational Identity Work. In M, P., M, S., BE, A. & al., e. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Identity (pp. 276-293). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kujala, S., Artto, K., Aaltonen, P., & Turkulainen, V. (2010). Business models in project-based firms–Towards a typology of solution-specific business models. International Journal of Project Management, 28(2), 96-106.

Kujala, S., Kujala, J., Turkulainen, V., Artto, K., Aaltonen, P., & Wikström, K. (2011). Factors influencing the choice of solution-specific business models. International Journal of Project Management, 29(8), 960-970.

Lahdenperä, P. (2012). Making sense of the multi-party contractual arrangements of project partnering, project alliancing and integrated project delivery. Construction Management and Economics, 30(1), 57-79.

Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 167-195.

Lampel, J., Lant, T., & Shamsie, J. (2000). Balancing act: Learning from organizing practices in cultural industries. Organization Science, 11(3), 263-269.

Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691- 710.

Langley, A. (2007). Process thinking in strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 5(3), 271-282.

Laursen, M., & Svejvig, P. (2016). Taking stock of project value creation: A structured literature review with future directions for research and practice. International Journal of Project Management, 34(4), 736-747.

Lawrence, T. B. (2004). Rituals and Resistance: Membership Dynamics in Professional Fields. Human Relations, 57(2), 115-143.

Lepak, D. P., Smith, K. G., & Taylor, M. S. (2007). Value creation and value capture: a multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 180-194. Lieftink, B.M., & Bos-de Vos, M. (2017). How to claim what is mine? Boundary work of professionals in inter- organizational projects. Paper presented at the SSE/Saïd Business School Conference on Professional Service Firms, Stockholm, Sweden, 9-11 July 2017.

Lieftink, B. M., Smits, A. A. J., & Lauche, K. (2018). Dual dynamics: Project-based institutional work and subfield differences in the Dutch construction industry. International Journal of Project Management.

Løwendahl, B. (2005). Strategic Management of Professional Service Firms (3rd ed.). Køge, Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press.

Løwendahl, B. R., Revang, Ø., & Fosstenløkken, S. M. (2001). Knowledge and Value Creation in Professional Service Firms: A Framework for Analysis. Human Relations, 54(7), 911-931.

Maister, D. H. (2012). Managing the Professional Service Firm. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Makadok, R., & Coff, R. (2002). The Theory of Value and the Value of Theory: Breaking New ground versus reinventing the Wheel. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 10-13.

Manzoni, B., Morris, P., & Smyth, H. (2012). Managing the performing paradox in architectural competitions. In: Smith, S. D. (Ed.) Proceedings of the 28th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2012, Edinburgh, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, 829-839.

Manzoni, B., & Volker, L. (2017). Paradoxes and management approaches of competing for work in creative professional service firms. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 33(1), 23-35.

Marshall, N. (2003). Identity and Difference in Complex Projects: Why Boundaries Still Matter in the “Boundaryless” Organization. In Paulsen, N. & Hernes, T. (Eds.), Managing Boundaries in Organizations: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 55-75). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Martinsuo, M., & Killen, C. P. (2014). Value Management in Project Portfolios: Identifying and Assessing Strategic Value. Project Management Journal, 45(5), 56-70.

Martinsuo, M., Klakegg, O. J., & van Marrewijk, A. (2017). Call for papers: Delivering value in projects and project-based business. International Journal of Project Management, 35(8), 1655-1657.

Martinsuo, M., Korhonen, T., & Laine, T. (2014). Identifying, framing and managing uncertainties in project portfolios. International Journal of Project Management, 32(5), 732-746.

Massa, L., Tucci, C. L., & Afuah, A. (2017). A Critical Assessment of Business Model Research. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 73-104.

Matinheikki, J., Artto, K., Peltokorpi, A., & Rajala, R. (2016). Managing inter-organizational networks for value creation in the front-end of projects. International Journal of Project Management, 34(7), 1226-1241.

McKelvey, B. (2006). Van de Ven and Johnson’s “Engaged Scholarship”: Nice Try, But…. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 822-829.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of the Research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Miterev, M., Turner, J. R., & Mancini, M. (2017). The organization design perspective on the project-based organization: a structured review. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 10(3), 527-549.

Mizik, N., & Jacobson, R. (2003). Trading Off Between Value Creation and Value Appropriation: The Financial Implications of Shifts in Strategic Emphasis. Journal of marketing, 67(1), 63-76.

Mol, J. M., Wijnberg, N. M., & Carroll, C. (2005). Value Chain Envy: Explaining New Entry and Vertical Integration in Popular Music. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 251-276.

Montgomery, K., & Oliver, A. L. (2007). A Fresh Look at How Professions Take Shape: Dual- directed Networking Dynamics and Social Boundaries. Organization Studies, 28(5), 661-687.

Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., & Allen, J. (2005). The entrepreneur’s business model: toward a unified perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 726-735.

Mulder, I., & Stappers, P. J. (2009). Co-creating in practice: Results and challenges. In: 22-24 June 2009, Leiden, the Netherlands, 1-8.

Mumford, E. P. (2002). The CIAM Discourse on Urbanism, 1928-1960. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Mutka, S., & Aaltonen, P. (2013). The impact of a delivery project’s business model in a project-based firm. International Journal of Project Management, 31(2), 166-176.

Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1391-1418.

Noordegraaf, M. (2011). Risky Business: How Professionals and Professional Fields (Must) Deal with Organizational Issues. Organization Studies, 32(10), 1349-1371.

Noordegraaf, M. (2015). Hybrid professionalism and beyond: (New) Forms of public professionalism in changing organizational and societal contexts. Journal of Professions and Organization, 2(2), 187-206.

Oliver, D. (2015). Identity work as a strategic practice. In Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D. & Vaara, E. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press (pp. 334-347). Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business Model Generation: a Handbook for Visionaries, Game changers, and Challengers. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Palo, T., & Tähtinen, J. (2013). Networked business model development for emerging technology-based services. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(5), 773-782.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41-50.

Patru, G. D. (2017). Inside the black box. Unpacking inter-organizational collaboration processes through a boundary spanning lens. (Doctoral Dissertation), Radboud University. Retrieved from

Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative Research: Wiley Online Library.

Paulsen, N., & Hernes, T. (2003). Managing Boundaries in Organizations. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Phillips, N., & Lawrence, T. B. (2012). The turn to work in organization and management theory: Some implications for strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 10(3), 223-230.

Pinnington, A., & Morris, T. (2002). Transforming the architect: Ownership form and archetype change.

Organization Studies, 23(2), 189-210.

Pinto, J. K., Rouhiainen, P., & Trailer, J. W. (1998). Customer-based project success: exploring a key to gaining competitive advantage in project organizations. Project Management, 4(1), 6-12.

Pitelis, C. N. (2009). The Co-Evolution of Organizational Value Capture, Value Creation and Sustainable Advantage. Organization Studies, 30(10), 1115-1139.

Pitelis, C. N., & Teece, D. J. (2009). The (new) nature and essence of the firm. European Management Review, 6(1), 5-15.

Plé, L., & Cáceres, R. C. (2010). Not always co-creation: introducing interactional co-destruction of value in service-dominant logic. Journal of Services Marketing, 24(6), 430-437.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.

Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2015). Qualitative Research: Bridging the Conceptual, Theoretical, and Methodological. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Reay, T., Golden-Biddle, K., & Germann, K. (2006). Legitimizing a New Role: Small Wins and Microprocesses of Change. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 977-998.

Reay, T., Goodrick, E., Waldorff, S. B., & Casebeer, A. (2017). Getting Leopards to Change their Spots: Co-creating a New Professional Role Identity. Academy of Management Journal, 60(3), 1043-1070.

Reihlen, M., & Werr, A. (2012). Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship in Professional Services.

Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Reihlen, M., & Werr, A. (2015). Entrepreneurship and professional service firms. In Hinings, B., Muzio, D., Broschak, J. & Empson, L. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Professional Service Firms (pp. 1-31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rumble, R., & Mangematin, V. (2015). Business model implementation: The antecedents of multi-sidedness. In Baden-Fuller, C. & Mangematin, V. (Eds.), Business Models and Modelling (pp. 97-131). Bingley, UK: Emerald Press.

Sabatier, V., Mangematin, V., & Rousselle, T. (2010). From recipe to dinner: business model portfolios in the European biopharmaceutical industry. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 431-447.

Saks, M. (2015). Inequalities, marginality and the professions. Current Sociology, 63(6), 850-868.

Samset, K., & Volden, G. H. (2016). Front-end definition of projects: Ten paradoxes and some reflections regarding project management and project governance. International Journal of Project Management, 34(2), 297-313.

Schoorl, F. (2011). Toekomsten - scenario’s voor architectenbureaus en architectenbranche (Futures – Scenarios for Architectural Firms and the Architect Profession). Amsterdam: BNA, available at

Schultz, M., & Hatch, M. J. (2005). Building theory from practice. Strategic Organization, 3(3), 337-348.

Shafer, S. M., Smith, H. J., & Linder, J. C. (2005). The power of business models. Business Horizons, 48(3), 199- 207.

Shenhar, A. J. (2004). Strategic Project Leadership® Toward a strategic approach to project management. R&D Management, 34(5), 569-578.

Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., & Maltz, A. C. (2001). Project Success: A Multidimensional Strategic Concept. Long Range Planning, 34(6), 699-725.

Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007). Managing Firm Resources in Dynamic Environments to Create Value: Looking Inside the Black Box. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 273-292.

Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Gilbert, B. A. (2011). Resource orchestration to create competitive advantage breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1390-1412.

Sleeswijk Visser, F., Stappers, P. J., Van der Lugt, R., & Sanders, E. B. (2005). Contextmapping: experiences from practice. CoDesign, 1(2), 119-149.

Smith, W. K., Binns, A., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Complex business models: Managing strategic paradoxes simultaneously. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 448-461.

Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403. Smyth, H., Lecoeuvre, L., & Vaesken, P. (2017). Co-creation of value and the project context: Towards application on the case of Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station. International Journal of Project Management.

Somaya, D., & Mawdsley, J. (2015). Strategy and Strategic Alignment in Professional Service Firms. In Hinings, B., Muzio, D., Broschak, J. & Empson, L. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Professional Service Firms

(pp. 1-31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stjerne, I. S., & Svejenova, S. (2016). Connecting Temporary and Permanent Organizing: Tensions and Boundary Work in Sequential Film Projects. Organization Studies, 37(12), 1771-1792.

Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 284-297.

Styhre, A., & Gluch, P. (2009). Creativity and Its Discontents: Professional Ideology and Creativity in Architect Work. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18(3), 224-233.

Suchman, L. (1993). Working relations of technology production and use. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2(1), 21-39.

Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical Strategies of Legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 35-67.

Svejenova, S., Planellas, M., & Vives, L. (2010). An Individual Business Model in the Making: a Chef’s Quest for Creative Freedom. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 408-430.

Sveningsson, S., & Alvesson, M. (2003). Managing managerial identities: Organizational fragmentation, discourse and identity struggle. Human Relations, 56(10), 1163-1193.

Swart, J., Hansen, N. K., & Kinnie, N. (2015). Strategic Human Resource Management and performance management in professional service firms. In Empson, L., Muzio, D., Broschak, J. & Hinings, B. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Professional Service Firms (pp. 1-34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sydow, J., & Braun, T. (2018). Projects as temporary organizations: An agenda for further theorizing the interorganizational dimension. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 4-11.

Tam, J. L. (2004). Customer satisfaction, service quality and perceived value: an integrative model. Journal of Marketing Management, 20(7-8), 897-917.

Teece, D. J. (2010). Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 172- 194.

Thompson, J. D., & MacMillan, I. C. (2010). Business models: Creating new markets and societal wealth. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 291-307.

Townley, B., & Beech, N. (2010). Managing creativity. Exploring theparadox.

Tripsas, M. (2009). Technology, Identity, and Inertia Through the Lens of “The Digital Photography Company”. Organization Science, 20(2), 441-460.

Turner, J. R., & Keegan, A. (2000). The management of operations in the project-based organisation. Journal of Change Management, 1(2), 131-148.

Vaara, E., & Whittington, R. (2012). Strategy-as-practice: taking social practices seriously. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 285-336.

Van Bochove, M., Tonkens, E., Verplanke, L., & Roggeveen, S. (2016). Reconstructing the professional domain: Boundary work of professionals and volunteers in the context of social service reform. Current Sociology, 1-20.

Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Van Doorn, A. (2014). BNA dienstenkaarten 2014. Nieuwe rollen en verdienmodellen voor architectenbureaus (BNA servicemap. 2014. New roles and revenue models for architectural firms). Amsterdam: BNA, available at

Van Maanen, J. (1979). Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: A preface. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 520-526.

Van Marrewijk, A., Ybema, S., Smits, K., Clegg, S., & Pitsis, T. (2016). Clash of the Titans: Temporal Organizing and Collaborative Dynamics in the Panama Canal Megaproject. Organization Studies, 37(12), 1745-1769.

Vargo, S. L. (2013). Service-dominant logic : prologue and prospects. Die Betriebswirtschaft, 73(2), 91-93.

Vargo, S. L., & Akaka, M. A. (2009). Service-Dominant Logic as a Foundation for Service Science: Clarifications. Service Science, 1(1), 32-41.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1-17.

Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P., & Akaka, M. A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26(3), 145-152.

Vaughan, D. (1992). Theory elaboration: The heuristics of case analysis. In Ragin, C. C. & Becker, H. S. (Eds.), What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry (pp. 173-202). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Vogels, R. (2015). BNA Benchmark 2015, resultaten boekjaar 2014 (BNA Benchmark 2015, results financial year 2014). Zoetermeer: Panteia

Vogels, r. (2016). BNA Benchmark 2016, resultaten boekjaar 2015 (BNA Benchmark 2016, results financial year 2015). Zoetermeer: Panteia

Volker, L. (2012). Procuring architectural services: sensemaking in a legal context. Construction Management and Economics, 30(9), 749-759.

Von Nordenflycht, A. (2010). What Is a Professional Service Firm? Toward a Theory and Taxonomy of Knowledge-Intensive Firms. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 155-174.

Vough, H. (2012). Not all identifications are created equal: Exploring employee accounts for workgroup, organizational, and professional identification. Organization Science, 23(3), 778-800.

Vough, H. C., Cardador, M. T., Bednar, J. S., Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. (2013). What Clients Don’t Get about My Profession: A Model of Perceived Role-Based Image Discrepancies. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 1050-1080.

Wallenburg, I., Hopmans, C. J., Buljac-Samardzic, M., den Hoed, P. T., & Ijzermans, J. N. M. (2016). Repairing reforms and transforming professional practices: a mixed-methods analysis of surgical training reform. Journal of Professions and Organization, 3(1), 86-102.

Whitley, R. (2006). Project-based firms: new organizational form or variations on a theme? Industrial and Corporate Change, 15(1), 77-99.

Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the Practice Turn in Strategy Research. Organization Studies, 27(5), 613- 634.

Whyte, J. (2011). Managing digital coordination of design: emerging hybrid practices in an institutionalized project setting. Engineering Project Organization Journal, 1(3), 159-168.

Wieland, H., Hartmann, N. N., & Vargo, S. L. (2017). Business models as service strategy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(6), 925-943.

Wikström, E. (2008). Boundary work as inner and outer dialogue: dieticians in Sweden. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 3(1), 59-77.

Wikström, K., Artto, K., Kujala, J., & Söderlund, J. (2010). Business models in project business. International Journal of Project Management, 28(8), 832-841.

Winch, G., & Schneider, E. (1993). The strategic management of architectural practice. Construction Management and Economics, 11(6), 467-473.

Winter, M., Andersen, E. S., Elvin, R., & Levene, R. (2006). Focusing on business projects as an area for future research: An exploratory discussion of four different perspectives. International Journal of Project Management, 24(8), 699-709.

Winter, M., & Szczepanek, T. (2008). Projects and programmes as value creation processes: A new perspective and some practical implications. International Journal of Project Management, 26(1), 95-103.

Worthington, J. (2000). The changing context of professional practice. In Nicol, D. & Pilling, S. (Eds.), Changing Architectural Education: Towards a New Profession. London: E&FN Spon.

Zietsma, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2010). Institutional Work in the Transformation of an Organizational Field: The Interplay of Boundary Work and Practice Work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(2), 189-221.

Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2007). Business Model Design and the Performance of Entrepreneurial Firms. Organization Science, 18(2), 181-199.

Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business Model Design: An Activity System Perspective. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 216-226.

Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2013). The business model: A theoretically anchored robust construct for strategic analysis. Strategic Organization, 11(4), 403-411.

Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: recent developments and future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019-1042.






Book (Full version)