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

Lauri Koskela and Greg Howell (K&H) argue successfully that current theory is obsolete in their paper The Underlying Theory of Project Management is Obsolete. However the authors may be limited in producing a new theory by exactly the same background paradigm that makes current theory obsolete. K&H seemingly accept the machine metaphor as appropriate for projects. Machines can be perfected; machines can by optimized; machines persist in spite of changes to the environment.

The machine metaphor conceals the nature of a project.

In accepting the metaphor they make three mistakes.

1. They accept "project management is a special instance of production" discussing inadequacies of theory in the production terms of "flow" and "value generation".
2. They continue to see planning, execution, and control as separate processes as proposed in their Exhibit 2. Ingredients for a new theoretical foundation of project management.
3. Their "Discussion" (section) misses the presence of people and all that is entailed by having the everyday influence of learning, innovation, relationships, and complex ever-changing behaviors on a project.

The machine metaphor conceals the nature of a project. Current theory is activity-centric as are machines. The usual practices of optimizing machines is by understanding it by component..breaking it down into smaller and smaller elements. This is the same practice employed in producing project work break-down structures. We've learned enough about reducing the waste of the materiel processes. We need to put our attention on a more significant waste…the under-employment of people on projects. We need practices that are systems-oriented and people-centric to produce project organizations that can respond to and enable learning, innovation, relationships, and effective action.

Where can we look for guidance? I am encouraged by the work in other fields (not projects or production) on autonomic systems, complex adaptive systems, and biomimicry. I also see the relevance of living systems thinking (Margaret Wheatley, A Simpler Way and Turning to One Another), community (Derek M. Powazek, Design for Community), and sustainability (William McDonough and Michael Braungart, Cradle to Cradle). I doubt current operations theory will provide a unifying theory for projects. Instead, I suspect we will see a convergence of thinking that will lead to new theory.

Consider this my leaping off point. Where this will go who knows!