Project Management: SciLifeLab PULSE Future Leaders’ Perspective
Future Leaders’ Perspectives share the thoughts of the SciLifeLab PULSE Postdoc cohort on leadership, science communication, and key competencies. Each installment is part of the transferrable skills training program, where postdocs reflect on expert interviews and practical assignments within these topics.
Project Management in Academic Research
by Gulshan Amrahova, Soléne Beauvois, Anna Carbery
Editor: Anna Frejd
Academic research projects are complex and unpredictable. Despite this, project management tools are rarely integrated into scientific projects. As part of a SciLifeLab PULSE training session, we explored the use of Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) by applying it to our own research projects and discussing role in academia. A WBS breaks a project into different workstreams and concrete deliverables, providing a one-page overview of what the project is expected to produce. This exercise revealed both the promise and the limitations of structured project management approaches in a research environment.
1. The challenge of applying structured tools to research
We found that although WBS is easy to understand, it is not always easy to apply in academic research. Unlike other projects with clear goals and timelines, research projects often change as new data comes in. During the exercise, we had to take our own research projects and fit them onto a single-page WBS, identifying the main workstreams and the concrete deliverables within each of them. This seemingly simple task raised surprisingly difficult questions: What exactly counts as a deliverable? How far ahead can we realistically plan? And how should we represent tasks that depend on the outcome of an experiment that has not yet been performed? Breaking a research goal into defined tasks requires assumptions about experiments, timing, and dependencies, which are often uncertain in reality. Many participants found it difficult to define clear tasks when the direction of the project itself might change.
2. Hidden benefit
Despite initial skepticism, many participants reported that creating a WBS was valuable in itself. One of the benefits was the forced clarification of project scope. The exercise encouraged us to ask a deceptively simple question: if we produce everything included in this WBS, and only this, will the project actually be complete? Thinking about our projects in this way made us reconsider whether all essential components were represented and where the boundaries of the project really lay. It also helped people think about which tasks could be done simultaneously instead of one after another.
Additionally, participants found that by creating a WBS, the chances of inadvertently straying away from the defined project scope can be reduced. A live document that defines project goals can feel like yet another task that requires time and attention, however it can help keep researchers on-track and evaluate progress and milestones more effectively, thus promoting a more efficient project progression in the end.
3. Flexibility of project management in academia
Another point in our discussions was the gap between academia and formal project management practices. We discussed that tools like WBS may not initially seem to fit well with research, since research is creative and not always predictable. However, our discussions also highlighted that this unpredictability may itself be a reason to use such tools: having a structured overview of the project can help identify which parts may be affected when results or priorities change. Instead of using these tools as fixed plans, they could therefore be adapted for research purposes. For example, a WBS does not need to include very detailed plans, it can focus on major goals and key steps, and it can be updated regularly as the project evolves. Each WBS can also vary based on the type of team involved: some researchers work in small groups or even alone, while others work in large collaborative environments in which tasks must be shared amongst the team. In these larger teams, the WBS can have even greater value and promote a shared understanding of the project throughout the lab, from the PI to the intern.
Conclusion
We identified a range of challenges in applying structured project management tools in our academic research, however overall it was agreed that there is a high value in defining the scope of the project in a live, interactive way, as the project develops. We found that if time could be dedicated to maintaining a high-quality and updated WBS, it would facilitate forward planning, collaboration and evaluation of real progress.
This perspective was developed as part of the SciLifeLab PULSE Transferable Skills Training programme, 2026. Co-funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Executive Agency.
