Comments on: What Is Project Management?

By: Paul Ventisei

Paul Ventisei — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 09:18:23 +0000

David,

Your article is well written and, as others have said, a nice summary. Reading between the lines your main premise seems to be this: ” we project managers should stop worrying about theoretical, and ever more refined, naming conventions which try to describe what we do and get back to basics – its not rocket science”.

Your article certainly has a well worded mission statement for the project manager on what we do. Unfortunately it offers no way to answer the crucial question how should we do it and how should we improve upon the ways we do it. To comment on “how” rather than “what” we need to go to the next level down and that will require some further categorisation of your 3 point summary and inevitably lead to “managements”. I fully endorse the point that what we choose to call an area of work or expertise is far less important than finding ways to get that job done more effectively but we could not have a debate on how to do something unless we first name and define it (at least in terms of setting the scope for discussion).

So I would say that catagorising, naming and defining areas of expertise facillitates debates and exchanges of techniques and tools in that area. I think this is useful and adds value to our profession. What adds little value is endless discussion and debate about what the precise names for areas should be. I would take issue with many of the PMI and APM naming conventions but I am willing to adopt them as a vocabulary for getting to the good stuff which helps me answer the question “what is the best way to achieve…”.

Thanks for the post.

By: Diana Hutchinson

Diana Hutchinson — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:18:41 +0000

David — I enjoyed your article. I agree that it is important for us to step back from time to time and think about what are we really trying to accomplish. Your “three things” that project management is about is a nice summary.
I agree that we should keep the focus on the outcomes, not on the project management process itself. That said, some of the tools give us a method to brainstorm or organize ourselves to define the outcome, facilitate the activity, and prevent harm to the outcome.
Thanks for sharing!

By: Phil Rutherford

Phil Rutherford — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:46:24 +0000

David – Your comments are in my experience and research absolutely spot on, with a slight area of difference. I agree that the practice of project management and the function of a project manager are two different things, although the concept (but not the practice) of both is very linear and mechanistic. But my research has found that successful project managers (by any definition) are those whose capability is not in adopting methodologies and accepted theoris but of applying whichever methodology is appropriate at any given time and then harnessing constant transformation (change that is also changed by its own appearance) within the project environment in order to pattern his/her behaviour, and that of others, towards emergent outcomes. In simple terms, the effective project managers are those who can use whatever tools they’ve got to constantly move the project forward towards whatever outcome emerges, whether it be the objective that was evident at the start or one that became moulded and shaped by the application of these tools (thinking here of IT projects) and/or feedback from own experience, that of team, and changing needs of clients.

Go back to any time before PMBOKs and competency standards and you’ll find that the most successful project managers were applying an approach that was actually more like the theories of Baldwin and Lamarkian than Fayol and Taylor. Our problem is that throughout the 90s we’ve tried to convince them that we can capture their free will and innovativeness in a single model that others can use.

Phil Rutherford
Assessment and Certifications Manager
AIPM

By: Amy Schwab

Amy Schwab — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:46:45 +0000

David -
Nice article. I especially like the shifts from management to facilitation — how to use one’s self within the cultures, relationships, and outcome expectations to encourage the outcomes to be realized; and from stakeholder to community (whoever can effect and can be effected by the project).

I also like how you self reflect on your own patterns of practice in architectural projects. Fundamental to developing a personal practice — call it facilitative or managerial — is understanding one’s own patterns. The trap that looms, and that many have fallen into, is to project one’s own patterns as THE right way for others to approach the work. It may indeed just be the right way for you! Or at least the most usual way for you.

I look forward to your further writings.

By: Greg Howell

Greg Howell — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 11:58:36 +0000

David – Thanks for this. Max Wideman was the one who first pointed me to Fayol – perhaps 6 years ago in a discussion about project management. I was beginning to explore Flores’ work. Max said he thought it interesting but that it contradicted Fayol. 30 seconds later on google and there it was – the seed corn of project current project management. Your note connects back to that discussion and brings a new insight to where PM going astray. Regards, GAH

By: David Green

David Green — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 11:51:24 +0000

Having seen my post, kindly care of Hal, I thought I should enlarge on a couple of points.
A]
I think of my terms ‘community of intention’ and ‘community of interest’. I’ll discuss these more fully in a separate offering to Hal, but I use the term ‘community’ because my observations about project ‘do-ers’ and ‘do-ees’ (those who have projects done to them) are that they are, as groups, like communities.
1. there is a degree of shared objectives;
2. some people align themselves with a large proportion of the ’shared’ objectives, others align themselves with but a few;
3. there are community thought leaders and followers; doers and thinkers, to varying degrees: the PM is perhaps the main thought leader, or should create the safe ground for true thought leaders to do and communicate their thinking;
3. the group is in continual flux, relates in socio-emotional terms, gains some identity and practical sustainance from the community and trades ’social power’ with other.
The added complexity in projects is that the two communities that I think are there for discussion overlap. The ‘community of intention’ (the project team, but broadly defined) has member who are in the ‘community of interest’ or the customers, affected parties, customers, etc.
B]
I think that my 7 project factors align with the three basic functions of the PM thus:
1. service delivery = what the project is to achieve;
2. affordability, sustainability and governance roughly align with ‘getting the project done;
3. risk, change (to the stakeholder world) and stakeholder factors roughly align with those matters the PM must manage to prevent frustrating no. 1 or diabling no. 2.