Theory Of
Project Management
The Theory of
Project Management consists primarily from concepts and causal
relationships that relate these concepts (Whetten1989). It is
possible to broadly characterize a target theory of
production/operations management (Koskela 2000). This
characterization applies also for project management, being a
special type of production/operations management.
A Theory of
Project Management should be prescriptive: it should reveal how
action contributes to the goals set to it. On the most general
level, there are three possible actions: design of the systems
employed in designing and making; control of those systems in order
to realize the production intended; improvement of those systems.
Project management, and indeed all production, has three kinds of
goal.
Firstly, the
goal of getting intended products produced in general. Secondly,
there are internal goals, such as cost minimization and level of
utilization. Thirdly, there are external goals related to the needs
of the customer, like quality, dependability and flexibility. An
explicit theory of project management would serve various functions.
In prior research, the following roles of a theory have been
pinpointed (Koskela 2000):
- A Theory of
Project Management provides an explanation of observed behavior,
and contributes thus to understanding. A theory provides a
prediction of future behavior.
- On the basis
of the theory, tools for analyzing, designing and controlling can
be built.
- A Theory of
Project Management, when shared, provides a common language or
framework, through which the co-operation of people in collective
undertakings, like project, firm, etc., is facilitated and
enabled.
- A Theory of
Project Management gives direction in pinpointing the sources of
further progress.
- When
explicit, testing the validity of the theory in practice leads to
learning.
- Innovative
practices can be transferred to other settings by first
abstracting a theory from that practice and then applying it in
target conditions.
- A Theory of
Project Management can be seen as a condensed piece of knowledge:
it empowers novices to do the things that formerly only experts
could do. It is thus instrumental in
teaching.
What is the
underlying Theory of Project Management? In prior literature, it is
generally seen that there is no explicit theory of project
management. However, it is possible to find statements from the
PMBOK Guide or the work of leading scholars on project management
that approximate the definition of a theory or from which a theory
can be deduced. Based on such core statements, we proceed in two
steps.
First, we
crystallize the prescriptions (for action) and explicit principles
of project management regarding a specific aspect or part of the
project management process. Secondly, we compare this
crystallization to the principles and prescriptions of candidate
theories and identify a corresponding theory. The PMBOK Guide states
that projects are composed of two kinds of processes: project
management processes and product-oriented processes (which specify
and create the project product). Project management processes are
further divided into initiating, planning, execution, controlling
and closing processes.
The Four Stages
Theory of Project Management: Most everyone who writes about,
teaches, or explains project management says that projects have four
stages:
- Startup
- Planning
- Execution (or
Doing)
- Close Down
At first glance
this seems reasonable. Projects start and they end so you must have
a "Startup" and a "Close Down". It also makes sense you would want
to "Plan" something before you "Do" it. But are these really stages
of a project. Do you really complete most of Startup before you Plan
anything? Do you really Plan everything before you do anything? Do
you really want to delay Close Down activities until after the
execution activities are completed?
If you try to
be good project managers and organize your actions into these four
stages you run into all sorts of difficulties. For example, out of
the thousands of project managers, you rarely found two who could
agree on the difference between Startup and Planning. Most thought
that there is a tremendous amount of overlap, that Startup is really
preliminary Planning with some Doing thrown in. They agreed that
almost everything that they would categorize as a Startup activity
could also be part of one of the other stages.
Another problem
is the separation between Planning and Doing. It collecting
requirements planning or doing? Is building consensus planning or
doing? Is a feasibility test planning or doing?
Here is another
subtle, but very real problem. Project Managers who think in terms
of these stages, that Planning comes before Doing, have a mental
obstacle to get around when they are busy doing and discover that
the plan needs to be changed. They talk about "having to backup into
Planning before they can go forwards on the project". They ask "how
can we take the time to backup when we are trying to meet our
deadlines?" They lose track of the truth that adjusting the plan
when necessary is moving forward.
Similar
problems occur regarding Close-Down. An exit survey is a useful tool
to get feedback on team effectiveness from people when they are most
likely to be candid. In the Four Stages Theory the exit survey is
categorized as a Close-Down activity on the assumption that people
leave the project at the end. In real life people can leave a
project at any time. Project Managers who wait until Close-Down for
exit surveys will miss valuable information that could help them
now.
Many more examples could be offered of
how the Four Stages Theory either fails to provide the guidance that
project managers need or, worse, misleads.