If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

In Koskela's and Howell's (K&H) paper The Underlying Theory of Project Management is Obsolete they describe thermostatic control is the principal espoused (or inferred) theory of control on projects. Examples:

Thermostatic control locks us into a naive plan…uninformed by the world that has unfolded.

• Cool above 72° and heat below 68°.
• Returning from the South Pole navigating between sets of markers.

Thermostatic control is based on some decision/choice of what is right, or best, and then invokes corrective action when conditions vary from that stated norm.

What's wrong with this theory? You just can't set it and forget it. Unlike temperature or path, there is no one correct path on the project. The path to completion shifts throughout the project. Sure, we have a good idea of what must be done to finish, but the sequence can change and some of the tasks will fall off while other required actions will be discovered. Thermostatic control at best locks us into a naive plan…uninformed by the world that has unfolded.

Execution and control combine as performers rely on their intuition and experience.

The good news is we find the theory-in-use doesn't conform to the espoused theory. In response to out-of-date plans and execution that fails to consider the readiness of performers, controlling activities function as negotiation between the directors and the performers. Referring to this breakdown of control, people disparage the team by saying they are out of control rather than acknowledging they are likely better off than operating to an obsolete plan.

Where is this headed? The six σ advocates might suggest we must identify the variables and bring them under control (as if we can). But perhaps the machine metaphor has served its useful life; project control is more like navigating a boat. The crew with their hands on the wheel and the lines rely on visceral signals — a fluttering in the sheet, tension in the line, a slight list to starboard — to make their adjustments. Execution and control combine as performers rely on their intuition and experience. The destination is reached even though the boat may never be on course.