When we talk about project management science, it is often anything but. What do we do know as science though? Do we have a solid base to go from? Some facts, stone cold, preferably?
We know that self-organization exists. Proven in biology, physics and chemistry. In economics, largely clouded by politics. We can agree that most project managers go into their field out of self-interest. Said self-interest can be spread over the whole of Maslow’s pyramid, from basic survival to self-actualization.
Thus, from a project manager’s perspective, a successful project is one that pays target compensation and serves the PM’s career goals ( hence the absence of whistle-blowers at Boeing, as an example ).
Since most data on “successful” projects are submitted to researchers by said PMs, inbuilt bias is to be expected. But is it anticipated?
This delightful paper by Koskela and Howell is one of the few that calls out the bullshit in project management. Just look at that title! The underlying theory of project management is obsolete
Click to access 2002_The_underlying_theory_of_project_management_is_obsolete.pdf
Koskela and Howell deduce that activities and tasks are the unit of analysis in the core processes of project management. The atoms, so to speak, of project management are actions and assignment of actions ( to others ).
They further outline that the grand illusion clouding project thought is based on the outdated transformational approach that sees operations as execution of orders by the executors as issued by the planning department.
Thus we come to the core conflict between power-hungry managers and algorithm-prone software developers.
The business types worship at the altar of wishful thinking – if only the unwashed executors would sip from the wisdom of the inspiring, empowering manager, everything would go according to plan! Except the plan always changes.
Hence the total domination of lean in manufacturing and agile in software. Because the manager cannot explain what they want. Or need. So the only solution is produce as little as needed, and release software as often as you can so as to get market feedback.
And get a chance to communicate with developers through iteration.
Koskela & Howell: “Project management seems to be based on three theories of management: management–as planning, the dispatching model and the thermostat model”.
Know anything that actually works on the thermostat model? Even the thermostat in my house has failed to do its task for me, on may occasions!
And finally, oh thank You mighty Koskela & Howell: ” ..by means of the queueing theory, various insights, which have been used as heuristics in the framework of JIT, can be mathematically proven. The major difference between the transformation view and the flow view is that the latter includes time as one attribute of production. Because time is affected by the uncertainty in the production process, as well as interdependencies between tasks, the focus is directed towards uncertainty and linkages, which are not acknowledged in the transformation view.”
Time, uncertainty, interdependence ( most importantly, unknown and uncertain interdependence).
Now mind You, there are some peer-cited papers that dare to ask whether Project Management as They Teach It has any scientific backing:
“Project success as a topic in project management journals” by Ika Lavagnon and “Rethinking Project Management: Researching the actuality of projects” by Cicmil et al.
Unfortunately, the abstracts of said articles are heavy on words such as “ontological, epistemological and methodological”. Shall we translate? They estimate that methods of defining reality and perception of reality of project management are flawed. Good start. Too bad Lavagnon and Cicmil are light on math.
And the math that does work takes us back to the second law of thermodynamics. We gots entropy. We gots self-organizing against said entropy. We want to have a method that lets us get closer to where we want to go. We accept that we adjust where we want to go as we go there. The method supports us on the journey.
Now to have someone that pays us on that adventure, we deliver customer value.
Koskela & Howell: “The utilization of the transformation model only leads not only to a passive neglect of principles of the flow and value generation view but to an active violation of these principles.”
If You hope that proper planning and direction will deliver valuable projects, you will not only fail to deliver customer value, but blow budget and deadline as well, while failing to do so.
There are more pearls in Koskela & Howell’s paper, so be sure to check it out. I’m going to continue with my search for the atomic periodic table of project management.
What is the minimal viable project methodology that allows for a successful project? And what is the minimal viable definition of value to customer? The adventure continues.
Autonomous 