Heeding recent calls for more studies on the relationship between projects and institutions, this paper reports on a collaborative case study to shed light on the recursive relations of large-scale projects and their institutional fields. Given the industry as the field-level institution, this study explores how two project organizations experienced the industry changes, its influence on the arrangement of large-scale projects, and the management response used to legitimize these arrangements. The qualitative secondary data analysis of two High-Speed rail projects in Spain and The Netherlands is based on semi-structured interviews, observations, and document analysis. This paper provides the institutional fields’ contextual detail and deepens our understanding of temporal institutional complexity that bound large-scale project arrangements. The findings suggest that in both cases the management responses altered across time and evolved depending on the salience of the institutional pressure, through the interplay with 1) regulative, 2) normative, and 3) dynamic cultural-cognitive forces, resulting in cycles of project legitimacy.

This paper discusses the influence of institutions and project context in the arrangement of large-scale projects, by specifically exploring their vertical connection to the industry sector. It explores the idea that institutional management should precede technical management into seeking project legitimacy. Through a comparative case study of High-Speed Rail projects in Spain and the Netherlands, mainly based on secondary data, we investigate the process through which the institutional context determines the decisions for project arrangements. The paper makes two contributions to the field of projects studies. The first is the theoretical application of a neo-institutional lens to shed light on the interrelation between large-scale projects and their environment, by bringing project legitimacy to the forefront. The second is our observation on the endogenous shifting approaches of institutionalization, in the constant struggle to acquire legitimacy. That is, at the first phase prescribed through the institutional environment as dominant, it is moral/normative legitimacy that reflects the positive normative evaluation of the organization and its activities. Whereas, at the second phase, where the technical environment is dominant, pragmatic legitimacy is at function.