The changing paradigms of project management
Introduction
Over the last few decades a great deal has been written about the hard and soft paradigms, two broad tendencies for thought which have had a strong influence on the development of a variety of practical and academic disciplines. Previous authors [e.g. [2], [8]] have stated that the development of Project Management (PM) has been strongly influenced by the hard paradigm. However, there has be little in depth examination of the veracity of these claims in the PM literature.
Others claim that the field of PM currently lacks a coherent underlying theoretical basis [e.g. [17], [50]], that additional theoretical development is needed, and that the general “… conceptual framework is inadequate to the job it should be addressing” [49, p. 31]. Theory in PM is predominantly implicit. Development of an explicit theoretical basis for PM has been heralded as one of the most crucial issues in the development of the profession [11, p. 293]. It has been suggested “… that a paradigm change, long overdue, has to be realized” [11, p. 298].
The purpose of this paper is to explore whether claims regarding the hard paradigmatic basis of PM can be substantiated based on evidence in the PM literature, and to examine how the hard and soft paradigms have influenced, and are continuing to influence, the field. It is also argued that the field of PM may actually be in the process, not of a paradigm change, but an expansion of paradigms that are acceptable and applied within the field.
This paper contributes to development of an explicit understanding of the theoretical basis of PM. Models of the role of the hard and soft paradigms in the field are presented, and some ways in which this paradigm expansion could be further progressed are suggested.
Section snippets
The hard and soft paradigms
The term paradigm came into popular usage with Kuhn’s (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions [3] and can generally be taken as referring to the commonly shared set of assumptions, values and concepts within a community, which constitutes a way of viewing reality. Individuals within the community may embody these assumptions in different ways, and so paradigm is used in this context to refer to a general tendency for thought.
The terms hard and soft are often inconsistently and
Methodology
Previous authors have suggested that through analysis of the work of leading scholars and documentation, it is possible to deduce the theories on which PM is based [11, p. 294]. A similar approach is taken here, with conclusions on the paradigmatic basis of PM being based on a critical reading of the literature.
As a paradigm is a broad tendency in the way the world is perceived by a group, and as individuals within the group may embody these tendencies in different ways, it has been necessary
Philosophical basis of PM
Examination of the literature reveals that PM has developed as an essentially purposeful, functionalist activity, aligning with the hard paradigm in terms of tendencies towards positivist and realist philosophies, an emphasis on objectivity, and a focus on reductionist techniques and control.
PM effort is coordinated to reach a particular goal or perform some specific function. The field demonstrates “… a means-end paradigm with a strong emphasis on discipline, goal seeking and end-item
Organisations and project organisation
The PM literature tends to adopt a perspective on organisation which is mechanistic, focusing on the structure of organisation and its centralised control. The PM perspective often assumes that there is a strong causal connection between the actions of management and organisational outcomes, and that orders are fully understood and executed according to plan [11, p. 6]. There are many different metaphors through which organisations can be described [34]. However, projects and organisations are
A hard perspective on people and participation
Projects are managed by people often in highly stressful situations, significantly unlike those experienced in general management situations. Given this, it would be reasonable to expect that many PM specific approaches to Human Resource Management (HRM) would have been developed. “Astonishingly, this does not seem to be the case: a review of the literature reveals that the application of HRM practices in PM is in fact rather elementary” [38, p. 86]. Instead, the PMBOK® Guide [10, p. 107]
The definition and stability of goals
At a practical level, PM tends to adopt a problem solving, rather than a problem structuring, approach to projects. Further structuring of the situation tends to be assumed to be unnecessary or outside the scope of PM. The PM literature tends to assume the existence of a pre-existing business plan, with clearly defined goals and constraints [29, p. 42], clear customer requirements, and goals that can be decomposed [11, p. 296]. The literature recommends that where uncertainty exists, it should
A hard interpretation of PM tools and techniques
A strong emphasis on the hard paradigm can also be seen in how the tools and techniques commonly associated with PM have developed. PM tools and techniques are predominantly quantitative. For instance, Söderlund [14, p. 21] identifies “… that ‘traditional’ project management research is classifiable either as one of ‘optimization’ or as ‘critical success factor’ research …” where the former primarily involves reductionist breakdown techniques, and the latter favors quantitative analysis of
The influence of other fields
In the field of Systems Thinking there are distinct traditions referred to as hard and soft systems thinking [8]. Of these two traditions, PM research has been biased towards “… the hard systems approach, and it has heavily emphasised quantitative techniques in project planning, scheduling and control” [1, p. 115]. PM has been influenced by systems methodologies such as Systems Analysis, Systems Engineering [1], [36] and Cybernetics [42, p. 33], methodologies which explicitly draw upon the hard
Theoretical disquiet and undercurrents of the soft paradigm
The paradigmatic basis of traditional of PM is “… becoming increasingly questioned in practice in terms of its underlying theories and principles and its breadth and nature of application” [47, p. 207]. A positivist philosophical basis has been found not to have increased levels of control and predictability [18, p. 90]. Instead, a focus on control has been found to restrict PM “… to managing relatively simple projects in relatively stable environments” [31, p. 6]. Similarly, reductionist
A soft perspective on people and participation
At a practical level, some of the assumptions which underpinned traditional understandings of the role of the project manager are being re-evaluated. For instance, traditionally project managers assume the role of expert instead of facilitator, expecting people to follow orders rather than encouraging participation. However, a growing body of research is suggesting that this approach is not appropriate to all situations, with some authors [e.g. 39, p. 500] linking low levels of participation to
Reinterpreting goal definition
In some contexts project goals are neither adequately defined at the start of the project nor stable throughout the life of the project. Application areas such as cultural organisational change projects generally have to rely on goals which are only abstractly defined [28, p. 53]. In many cases, project goals have the habit of changing, even “… after the requirements have apparently been finalised” [68, p. 8]. However, problem solving approaches based in the hard paradigm do not generally
Rethinking project planning and control
Implicit in the hard paradigm is the assumption that a more detailed plan allows for tighter control, and is therefore better. However, a preoccupation with planning has been linked to project failure [37, p. 243]. Highly detailed or rigid plans have been identified as limiting freedom to make decisions [39, p. 499] and encouraging an attitude where low level products become ends in themselves, instead of contributing to a greater goal [28, p. 154]. Traditional PM planning approaches tend to be
Continuous definition and evaluation
An “… emerging discomfort with notions of control through pre-determined outcomes …” has been found in the PM literature [20, p. 2]. An alternative perspective to the traditional one is that change and the inherent uncertainty of some projects must be embraced, “… rather than linearised and ignored …” [74, p. 3]. Indeed, in response to regular change, many project teams spend more time defining and redefining their projects than on controlling or planning them [33, p. 378]. Definition and
Rethinking PM tools and techniques
Tools and techniques are appearing which may be more appropriate for planning in complex, dynamic or uncertain environments, such as milestone planning. For instance, in situations where only broad goals may be scheduled and defined, milestone planning can still be used effectively [30], providing the benefit of demonstrating precedence without the need for detailed plans [66].
However, there are few PM specific tools and techniques which emphasise problem structuring. If project managers are to
Conclusions
The theoretical basis of PM is predominantly implicit, and discussion of the theoretical basis of PM is rare. If the field is to progress, explicit understanding of the theoretical basis of PM is necessary, as it provides the opportunity to understand the assumptions which underpin practice, to question their appropriateness, and then consciously choose an alternative, when it is appropriate to do so.
Examination of the literature shows many examples to indicate that traditional PM is deeply
Acknowledgement
This is an extended version of a paper that won the PM Days Student Paper Award, 2005, Vienna, Austria.
References (84)
Systems thinking and project management – time to reunite
Int J Proj Manage
(1993)- et al.
Hard and soft projects: a framework for analysis
Int J Proj Manage
(2004) Building theories of project management: past research, questions for the future
Int J Proj Manage
(2004)On the broadening scope of the research on projects: a review and a model for analysis
Int J Proj Manage
(2004)- et al.
Current practice in project management – an empirical study
Int J Proj Manage
(2002) - et al.
Research into revising the APM project management body of knowledge
Int J Proj Manage
(2000) Critical failure factors in information system projects
Int J Proj Manage
(2002)- et al.
Human resource management practices in project management
Int J Proj Manage
(1992) - et al.
Project sponsors under new public management: lessons from the frontline
Int J Proj Manage
(2003) Empowerment vs. risk management?
Int J Proj Manage
(1997)
International Journal of Project Management: a review of the first ten years
Int J Proj Manage
Managing soft change projects in the public sector
Int J Proj Manage
Implementing strategic change through projects
Int J Proj Manage
The role of configuration management in the development and management of information systems/technology (IS/IT) projects
Int J Proj Manage
The need for new paradigms for complex projects
Int J Proj Manage
PMI Europe 2001 – editorial
Int J Proj Manage
Management of risks, uncertainties and opportunities on projects: time for a fundamental shift
Int J Proj Manage
Hard problems in a soft world
Int J Proj Manage
The role of project management in a fast response organization
J Eng Technol Manage
Warning: activity planning is hazardous to your project’s health!
Int J Proj Manage
Project definition: the soft-systems approach
Int J Proj Manage
Developing a soft value management model
Int J Proj Manage
Multimethodology: towards a framework for mixing methodologies
Omega-Int J Manage Sci
Soft systems: a fresh perspective for project management
Civil Eng – Proc ICE
The structure of scientific revolutions
How the name date (Harvard) reference style in papers shows an underlying interpretivist paradigm whilst numeric references show a functional paradigm?
Systemist
Charting standpoints in qualitative research
Business research methods
Systems approaches to management
Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology, and practice
On the development of project management research: schools of thought and critique
Int Proj Manage J
Measures that matter: how to fine-tune your performance measures?
J Qual Participat
Systems analysis and project management
Critical success factors across the project life cycle
Proj Manage J
ONE objective for a successful project!
J Aust Inst Proj Manage
What it takes to be a good project manager?
Proj Manage J
Cited by (212)
Will the past guide us? Towards more reflective research on projects
2023, International Journal of Project ManagementThe project manager as chameleon? Changing project manager roles with technological uncertainty
2023, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management - JET-MThe past will guide us: What the future could bring according to the last 40 years of IJPM?
2023, International Journal of Project ManagementThe main project complexity factors and their interdependencies in defence projects
2022, Project Leadership and SocietyAligning stakeholders perceptions of project performance: The contribution of Business Realisation Management
2022, International Journal of Project ManagementInfluence of the project managers' expertise and experience in the success of projects: the moderating effect of emotional intelligence
2024, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business