Call for Papers: Beyond the final chapter: unravelling project closure through termination practices and long-term outcomes

What the paper says

Projects are intrinsic to our lives, shaping daily activities (Lundin et al., 2015). Huemann (2022) notes that projects are typically future-oriented, solution-focused and driven by a sense of urgency, often due to their temporary nature and predetermined time limits – what Lundin and Söderholm (1995, p. 449) refer to as a “built-in termination mechanism.” In project studies, closure is traditionally defined as “the process that provides for acceptance of all activities consistent with closing out the project” (Pinto, 2022, p. 519), requiring the release of a project's resources and the reassignment of project team members to other duties (Pinto and Prescott, 1990). Project closure is typically divided into two categories (Spirer, 1984; Tadisina, 1986).Despite its significance, research on project termination – both planned and unplanned – is scarce. An organization's efforts to manage uncertainty are its ability to pursue multiple projects, terminate poorly performing projects quickly, redeploy resources to those projects that show promise and learn from failure (McGrath, 1999). While the speed of closure is dependent on the type of project and context-specific, research often overlooks the termination processes and their consequences at the individual and organization levels (Shepherd et al., 2013; Cleland and Ireland, 2006; Pinto, 2022). On the one hand, planned termination is a defining characteristic of projects but arguably the most important and least well executed of the activities associated with projects (Crawford, 2018). On the other hand, unplanned termination is not uncommon and frequently perceived negatively, as it is associated with failure and seen as a waste of resources – particularly when policy and decision-makers select ill-suited projects or launch initiatives that fail to exploit synergies (Balachandra et al., 1996; Kumar et al., 1996; Calantone et al., 2003; Cooper, 2008; Keil and Mähring, 2010; Flyvbjerg, 2014; Ika et al., 2022; Locatelli et al., 2023a, b).Studies on planned termination are varied and span across industries and sectors. Research topics range from the end-of-life cycle or decommissioning of projects such as nuclear power plants, bridges, dams or oil rigs (Invernizzi et al., 2020) to termination decisions from a managerial perspective (Laulié et al., 2020). Furthermore, planned termination has been identified in past studies as a vital activity to structure project portfolios strategically (Blau et al., 2004; Seider, 2006; Unger et al., 2012). Research on unplanned termination has received less attention, with a recent focus on infrastructure projects. Such studies indicate that projects are abandoned for a myriad of reasons (Juarez Cornelio et al., 2023), including financial distress, environmental concerns, regulatory hurdles, force majeure and political polarization (Juarez Cornelio et al., 2021). Other studies have focused on identifying determinants of decision speed in product elimination decision processes (Argouslidis et al., 2015) or even premature terminations in therapeutic processes (Koenigsberg, 2024), to mention a few. Yet, the motivations and processes behind project termination – whether planned or unplanned – remain poorly investigated.As projects and programs increasingly serve as strategic instruments to fulfill long-term organizational and governmental ambitions, there is a growing need to re-evaluate conventional project management paradigms. Traditionally, project management has emphasized the importance of defined stages, particularly the closure phase, as the point of formal completion (PMI, 2021). However, such a bounded view often overlooks the enduring temporal effects and broader consequences that projects may generate after their official termination (Flyvbjerg and Stewart, 2012; Locatelli et al., 2023a, b), prompting a more fundamental question: When does a project really end?The traditional assumption that a project concludes with deliverables handed over and final reports filed mirrors the well-understood and narrow economic project life cycle conceptualization of projects, yet fails to account for their long-term impacts, ripple effects and sometimes unintended outcomes that continue to unfold well into the post-implementation phase. Moreover, the challenge is exacerbated by the current debate of the nature of projects themselves, with alternative perspectives viewing projects in some cases as “voyages of discovery” (Kreiner, 2020) and in others as “leaps into a planned future” (Flyvbjerg and Gardner, 2023). In effect, as there are differing definitions of what a project is intended to do, it is perhaps not surprising that issues like a project's legacy or, indeed, a reasonably objective perspective on how successful it was continue to elude scholars and practitioners alike.This challenge is particularly relevant considering that the growing interest in benefits realization (Zwikael and Huemann, 2023), value creation and distribution (Gil and Fu, 2022) and sustainability for the future (Huemann and Silvius, 2017) are indicative of the way in which businesses and governments are increasingly motivated to rethink their purpose in terms of long-term economic, social and environmental impact. However, such impacts, intended to contribute positively to organizations and society – are often emphasized at the front end of project proposals but rarely assessed long after project completion. As a result, the long-term promises often fade, and insufficient knowledge is gained about the true legacy of these projects, including who ultimately benefits and who loses out (Di Maddaloni et al., 2025).With this special issue, we aim to advance the understanding of project closure and termination as a process, requiring in-depth exploration of its underlying causes, evaluation of decision-making mechanisms and analysis of the complexities involved. Furthermore, it is our goal to understand the “effects” of project termination and investigate how such projects, as vectors of changes, have in a planned or unplanned way impacted society and economies positively or negatively.While project management scholarship has extensively explored initiation, planning and execution, the terminal phases of projects – closure and termination – remain paradoxically underdeveloped despite their critical role in shaping long-term value and legacy (Maaninen-Olsson and Müllern, 2009; Baumgardt, 2017). As such, although the majority of project management research has drawn heavily on the importance of the project front end and execution (e.g. Steffens et al., 2007; Merrow, 2011; Evanschitzky et al., 2012; Barshop, 2016; Denicol et al., 2020; Babaei et al., 2021; Idrees et al., 2023; Schmidt, 2023), the closure stage remains substantially underexplored. This is particularly relevant because of its short- and long-term implications for contractors, project teams, organizations, funding agencies and the wider society, as once the project is terminated, it falls under the responsibility of the project owner and not the project manager (Brown and Jones, 1998; Biyalogorsky et al., 2006; Chronéer and Bergquist, 2012; Loufrani-Fedida and Missonier, 2015; Wen and Qiang, 2019).Assuming projects as crucibles for learning through experience represents another way in which closeout is important. Current knowledge relies heavily on post-project reviews conducted shortly after completion, capturing immediate lessons learned but neglecting the evolving legacy of projects. This gap is striking, given the growing emphasis on benefits realization, value creation and sustainability, all of which demand a longitudinal perspective to assess fully. For instance, in the United States alone, over 50 nuclear reactors have been halted during the construction stage (NYT, 2017), and over the last 30 years, NASA has invested over USD 20 billion on at least 27 uncompleted programs (Cowing, 2012). The California High-Speed Rail near-death spiral of on – off – on again – off again decision processes offers another example of the consequences of failure to establish clear boundaries and expectations for performance. Further research is required to understand the implications and unexpected or unconsidered consequences of such decisions.This special issue calls for research that examines termination practices with long-term outcomes, challenging the assumption that closure is merely an administrative endpoint. Contributions may address themes such as the sustainability of project benefits, the governance of post-project transitions, issues relating to project acceptance or the re-evaluation of “failed” terminations as strategic decisions, as well as novel perspectives of reevaluating early termination decisions in a new light. Indeed, Morris (1994) once cannily observed that the ability to recognize looming failure and cancel an underperforming project is itself a type of success. By advancing this discourse, the issue will inform more holistic project governance, ensuring that temporary endeavours are effectively transitioned and deliver enduring value.Existing literature often treats termination as a procedural afterthought or a binary outcome (success and/or failure) (Van Marrewijk et al., 2024), neglecting its strategic, dynamic and contextual dimensions. This special issue seeks to disrupt this paradigm by reframing termination as.This special issue encourages beyond-post-mortem approaches, such as case studies or systems thinking, to capture termination's evolving consequences and impacts. By challenging the field's implicit bias toward “birth” over “death,” this issue aims to theorize termination as a source of innovation – not just an end stage.Project closure and termination have gained renewed urgency in an era defined by rapid technological shifts, economic volatility and heightened scrutiny of resource allocation. The topicality of this special issue is underscored by global challenges – such as climate change, digital transformation and pandemic recovery – where projects are increasingly terminated or repurposed mid-flight due to changing priorities. Meanwhile, societal demands for accountability and sustainability require organizations to justify not just how projects are executed but also how and why they end.The societal impact of this research is profound. Poorly managed terminations can lead to the waste of public and private resources, erode stakeholder trust and create “white elephants” (Zerjav, 2021). Conversely, strategic closures can unlock value: redirecting funds to higher-impact initiatives, preserving knowledge for future reuse or mitigating unintended consequences (Juarez Cornelio et al., 2023). By examining project closure and termination through multiple lenses, this special issue will assist practitioners and policymakers in making socially responsible decisions based on wider impacts on society and economies (positively or negatively) and place focus on long-term lessons learned rather than on short-term evaluations right after the project is concluded.This call for papers encourages empirical and theoretical papers that consider questions relating to project termination through the lifecycle of projects. We especially welcome novel perspectives and theories that bridge different disciplines and discourses through collaboration with, and learning from, research fields outside project studies, such as political science, public administration, policy studies and evaluation research. Therefore, interdisciplinary submissions are particularly encouraged, with a focus on papers that engage on issues related to project closure in a range of project settings. The level of analysis can range from macro to micro or address the links between different levels, as well as the relationships between stakeholders and/or the focal project organization. All kinds of rigorous methodological choices are welcome, and we particularly encourage authors to consider utilizing underutilized approaches in project management (e.g. ethnographic research) or novel sources of data such as digital social media and other exchanges. As such, we encourage papers with a practical focus, constructing or testing of a model or framework, and other innovative approaches.Potential topics include:Submissions are made using ScholarOne Manuscripts. Registration and access are available at: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijmpbAuthor guidelines must be strictly followed. Please see: https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/journal/ijmpbAuthors should select (from the drop-down menu) the special issue title at the appropriate step in the submission process, i.e. in response to “Please select the issue you are submitting to”.Submitted articles must not have been previously published, nor should they be under consideration for publication anywhere else while under review for this journal.Key deadlines:Authors wishing to submit papers should submit an extended abstract (1,500 words). The submitted document must cover four components of the research.Authors should submit extended abstracts to Dr Rodrigo Juarez (J.r.juarezcornelio@leeds.ac.uk). Please use the exact title of the call and the journal in the subject line of the e-mail. Guest editors will review the proposals and contact authors with their recommendations. If the proposal is accepted, author(s) must submit the full paper before the deadline for submission. Selected authors will be invited to attend a paper development workshop before the submission deadline. While submitting an extended abstract and attending the PDW is highly recommended, it is not a prerequisite for paper submission.Generally, for the SI to be completed, we expect approximately two years. However, once a paper is accepted for publication, it will be made available online before entering the Special Collection.