I
've been looking lately at the PMBoK®. In our work here in the New South Wales Department of Commerce we have a model of projects according to 7 parameters and I'm getting
someone to 'map' the PMBoK 9 areas of knowledge to our 7 'key success factors'.
Project management models neglect the fact that projects are humanistic endeavors: done by and for people, and thus are constrained primarily socially.
Our 7 are: service delivery (being that we're in public administration), affordability, sustainability, governance, risk, change (the change the project will bring about) and stakeholders (related to 'change').
I've taken a look at other models of project management recently and am coming to the conclusion that the (mechanistic) models are generally flawed because they concentrate not on the project, but on 'project management' as though this activity of bringing projects to fruition has an independent importance. They also neglect the fact, in my view, that projects are humanistic endeavors: done by and for people, and thus are constrained primarily socially.
I looked at Max Wideman's website where he summarises the state of project management in the 90s writing about how its expanded since the 70s:
"… Conceivably (project management) could still be expanded further by such potential additions as stakeholder management, cash flow management, data management, document storage and retrieval management, management of cultural differences, and even vocabulary management … With a little imagination, and research reading, one could add several more, such as critical chain buffer management,[27] customer relations management, issues management, public relations management, and even knowledge management[28] itself — the list seems almost endless."
Not only is this an example of thinking that seems to be more Fayol than Flores (or even more Fayol than Ford!), but it misses the point of what PM is. It's surprising that PM in traditional thinking gets hooked up on the secondary game, and simply seems to take to itself more and more descriptors which are about the project manager more than the project.
[As I write this I also am calling to mind what Mintzberg writes about management proper. Management as I understand his analysis is about facilitating productive relationships. That entails a heap of 'managements' of course (of finance, people, stakeholders, change, training, meetings, etc) but that's the fundamental organisational responsibility of a manager. refer, e.g. Mintzberg, H, The Manager's Job: Folklore and Fact, HBR March-April 1990 p163ff]
You could go on forever saying that project management includes [something] management, but that would achieve nothing more than statements of the bleedin' obvious and not be of any great help.
It helps me to think of project management as being about three things:
- defining the outcome that is to be achieved (finished product, organisational change, etc by a certain time for a certain cost: quality of performance is implied in the basic requirement),
- facilitating activity to effect the outcome (getting the right people, resources and knowledge to work in an effective co-operative sequence), and
- taking steps to avoid or prevent harms to the outcome (ie risk, change and stakeholder management, and developing metrics to forewarn of potential problems to allow corrective action to be taken).
It goes almost without saying that the project manager role is to achieve the identified outcome with the minimum expenditure of resources and within the minimum time possible. Any trade-offs which have to be managed must be done so to maximise the 'outcome position' agreed by the 'community of intention' (the project team and its stakeholders) for the benefit of the 'community of interest' (the project recipients, users or customers).
It is merely trivial to say that this entails 'time management', 'communication management', 'issues management' or any other particular 'management', because the project manager is looked upon to do what ever is required to effect the outcome, administering and managing the project as appropriate; and that's the main demand upon the project manager. The project management models are strong on the administration and management minutiae, I think, without providing a theoretical or practical core value for project management.
Project management is facilitation of communities of productive intent to achieve desired outcomes.
As a corroborating illustration, a production manager in a factory doesn't define his/her role as a whole bunch of 'managements' to effect production, but as doing that which is necessary to effect production. Project management can be seen, I think, as production management where the purpose is one product which is somewhat individually characterised with respect to the relationships it affords with its 'community of interest' (those who will be affected by the project) and those it requires of its 'community of intention' (that is those doing the project, those who are its 'owners' and those who are its 'customers'). To be less abstract, compare a building to a toaster, or a public policy innovation to buying photocopier paper.
Like general management, project management is facilitation of communities of productive intent to achieve desired outcomes. With 'projects' noted as being more customised than routinised, relying on a temporary community for their realisation rather than an established or semi-permanent one.
But on the other hand, most projects have similarity with other projects. When I worked as an architect (registered), I did every project more or less the same: talked to the client, analysed needs, produced a 'brief', did a design, documented it, got approvals, estimated it, called tenders, and administered the contract. It was more like production management with the 'box' we produced changed to meet customer needs. The production system itself was almost identical each time.
LPSThe Last Planner System® is a lean approach to planning and delivering projects. It is based on a hierarchy of planning: should, can, will, and did. LPS is not a computer system. It is a set of protocols corresponding with the four above items: pull planning, look-ahead planning, task planning, and daily coordination.
The Last Planner System is a registered trademark of the Lean Construction Institute.
Last Planner SystemThe Last Planner System® is a lean approach to planning and delivering projects. It is based on a hierarchy of planning: should, can, will, and did. LPS is not a computer system. It is a set of protocols corresponding with the four above items: pull planning, look-ahead planning, task planning, and daily coordination.
The Last Planner System is a registered trademark of the Lean Construction Institute.