Project Management: A New Definition or a 20 Year-Old Definition?

August 18th, 2003 by Hal

Project Management: A New Definition, by Mark Mullaly, appearing in Gantthead, July 23, 2003.

Let's start with the definition Mullaly offered:

The exercise of responsibility and decision-making about a project, the authority to execute within the boundaries of the project, and the accountability to deliver the results of a project in the context of agreed-upon customer expectations, commitments and constraints.

Mullay goes on to say,

(M)any with project management responsibility do not in fact realize that they are project managers…and many who believe themselves to be project managers may in fact not be fully exercising the role.

We should not be held accountable for results if we do not have the responsibility to make decisions about a project or the authority to attain results.

Is this new? and helpful? Hasn't this been said by every management expert on the face of the earth? Is it new to say this to project managers? I don't think so. Nor do I think the definition offers much guidance on how to carry out ones role.

How about we try on something all together different. Fernando Flores offered a distinctive notion of management in his PhD dissertation Communication and Management in the Office of the Future, Univ. of California Berkeley, 1982.

Management is that process of openness, listening, and eliciting commitments, which includes a concern for the articulation and activation of the network of commitments, primarily produced through promises and requests, allowing for the autonomy of the productive units.

While Flores was writing about the office of the future he foresaw that a principle activity was the managing of projects. That notion of management offered in 1982 fits the current day situation of projects. Flores pinpoints three issues in his definition that we continue to struggle against.

Managing continues in the illusion that there are optima to be discovered. We labor under making the best decision — certainty — versus making good decisions — clarity. The pursuit of certainty over clarity bogs down the project. Further, we act like those furthest from the action — the smart ones — are best able to decide. This is in stark contrast to Flores' notion of managing as openness, listening, and eliciting commitments.
What is our continuing preoccupation for being in charge? It's not that someone isn't needed to make big commitments for the organization and the team. The problem is mistaking that responsibility for making so many other choices and decisions that one someone is not in the position to make. Flores describes the role as providing systems and practices for others to take charge (articulating and activating the network of commitments).
We fail to acknowledge and respect the autonomy of the productive units — other human beings. In the project setting, as in all life today, workers are not the slaves to some master. 20 years after Flores called attention to our autonomy, we continue to act like this: managers decide, others do. Not only have people rejected that, they have access to the always-on ever-connected Internet which provides ready alternatives for anyone with the slightest itch to get out from under.

I could go on. If I did, then I'd argue that the fascination with process is a bureaucrat's approach that will only bring down the level of performance on projects. I'd go on to mention that we continue to plan our projects to determine an outcome rather than embrace the uncertainty of our world. And I'd finish by attacking our belief that we know our situations rather than acting with the humility of our ever-blindness. But I don't need to do that here. Greg Howell and I did that in our IGLC-11 paper, Linguistic Action: Contributing to the Theory Of Lean Construction.

No, I don't need to go on. You see I agree with the Gantthead article. We do need a different definition of project management, just not the (new) one offered. I'll take a 20 year-old one.

Shift Attention from Expected to Target Costs

Combining Target and Kaizen Costing

Management-as-Determining?

Planning is Practice for Planner-Doers

Project Portfolio Management

This entry was posted on Monday, August 18th, 2003 at 10:33 pm and is tagged: PM practice. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. Convert this post to a PDF document.

Social Bookmarking

5 Responses to “Project Management: A New Definition or a 20 Year-Old Definition?”

Gary Kuhn Says:
August 19th, 2003 at 6:46 pm
Really enjoyed this one Hal. It is as you have said. It’s all about Leadership. It doesn’t take a Leader to tell people what to do. In fact, the usual outcome (for those Project Managers perceived as bullies) is ‘malicious obedience.’ When those under the ‘rule’ of the almighty PM do exactly what they are told to do, no more and no less. The usual result - disgruntled zombie-like workers, unsatisfied Customer and richer lawyers.
Claude Emond Says:
August 19th, 2003 at 8:31 pm
I too agree with you Hal. (and still do, even when I do not have the time to comment much nowadays)

Mullaly’s definition is nothing new under the sun. It is the same old �command-and-control� discourse that has nothing to do with the real nature of the project manager’s work (leading, guiding, coaching and influencing WITHOUT formal power/authority); those folks ask for authority because they just do not have the proper leadership abilities to engage in linguistic action. It’s a pity but Gantthead, their staff of writers and the like just perpetuate the same old paradigm and a lot a people still go there for advice and �new� recipes from old cookbooks that just won’t help anybody anymore. A lot of monologue there and not much linguistic action, indeed !!

Claude
David Schmaltz Says:
August 20th, 2003 at 1:55 am
Hal:

Thanks for this posting. Those who choose to complain about their lack of authority don’t understand where a project manager’s authority comes from. Can’t be bestowed. Besides, the most difficult dilemmas every project manager faces cannot be meaningfully addressed with authority. Can’t force understanding. Can’t demand coherence.

Seems to me that the effective project managers I’ve known could care less about any theory of management. They learn what works and replicate that. This often means working in ways that are considered at least orthogonal to the ones promoted and embraced by their sponsoring organization. Their operational counterparts often tolerate these infractions, quietly hoping that they won’t be expected to play out on the high steel with so much open space between them and the ground.

Those that complain about the lack of a safety net should probably stay on the ground.
Mike O'Callaghan Says:
September 3rd, 2003 at 11:45 am
Hi Hal

I agree with your comments, but I do need to qualify. My experience comes from trying to ‘manage’ 20 project managers. What we strice for is ‘Clarity of Purpose’, ‘Common Focus’ and ‘Commitment to Delivery’. This aligns with your comments. A good project manager does this.

A poor project manager struggles. For such an unfortunate, following the bureaucratic processes aligned to the above 3 goals will improve chances of success.

Mike

Mike
David Green Says:
August 8th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
Thanks Hal. I work in an organisation where the ‘9 managments’ of the PMBoK attract obeisance. All tosh, of course.
Managing projects is a special case of managing: providing the organisational/relational context where people can act purposefully to achieve an agreed objective. This entails a system of social relationships be developed (expressed in conversations to produce commitments); and a joint approach to identifying options to attain the objective be created. The PM, if there is a particular role, is the one to mentor the team through identifying and selecting options that will move it towards its objective, in my view. Perhaps the PM is the designer and coach of a purposeful social system working in a defined context. Very general, I know. But perhaps that’s what PM is.

Comment On This

If you haven't left a comment here before, you will need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.