The changing paradigms of project management

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.08.002Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper examines the academic literature on Project Management in relation to the hard and soft paradigms, two broad tendencies for thought and action that have had considerable impact on the development of a variety of comparable fields. A critical reading of the literature confirms strong links between the hard paradigm and Project Management. However, it is also demonstrated that undercurrents exist in the literature, which suggest a growing acceptance of the soft paradigm. Models of the field are presented through which the influence of these paradigms on the field can be understood, and a way is suggested in which further developments in the use of the soft paradigm in Project Management could be progressed.

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)

  • M. Betts et al.

    International Journal of Project Management: a review of the first ten years

    Int J Proj Manage

    (1995)
  • L. Crawford et al.

    Managing soft change projects in the public sector

    Int J Proj Manage

    (2003)
  • W. McElroy

    Implementing strategic change through projects

    Int J Proj Manage

    (1996)
  • J. Wateridge

    The role of configuration management in the development and management of information systems/technology (IS/IT) projects

    Int J Proj Manage

    (1999)
  • T. Williams

    The need for new paradigms for complex projects

    Int J Proj Manage

    (1999)
  • T. Williams et al.

    PMI Europe 2001 – editorial

    Int J Proj Manage

    (2002)
  • A. Jaafari

    Management of risks, uncertainties and opportunities on projects: time for a fundamental shift

    Int J Proj Manage

    (2001)
  • D. Daniel

    Hard problems in a soft world

    Int J Proj Manage

    (1990)
  • M.K. Starr

    The role of project management in a fast response organization

    J Eng Technol Manage

    (1990)
  • E. Andersen

    Warning: activity planning is hazardous to your project’s health!

    Int J Proj Manage

    (1996)
  • R.A. Neal

    Project definition: the soft-systems approach

    Int J Proj Manage

    (1995)
  • A. Liu et al.

    Developing a soft value management model

    Int J Proj Manage

    (2002)
  • J. Mingers et al.

    Multimethodology: towards a framework for mixing methodologies

    Omega-Int J Manage Sci

    (1997)
  • M. Winter et al.

    Soft systems: a fresh perspective for project management

    Civil Eng – Proc ICE

    (2003)
  • T. Kuhn

    The structure of scientific revolutions

    (1962)
  • P. Oakley

    How the name date (Harvard) reference style in papers shows an underlying interpretivist paradigm whilst numeric references show a functional paradigm?

    Systemist

    (2003)
  • J. Higgs

    Charting standpoints in qualitative research

  • G.W. Ticehurst et al.

    Business research methods

    (2000)
  • M.C. Jackson

    Systems approaches to management

    (2000)
  • G. Midgley

    Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology, and practice

    (2000)
  • PMI. A guide to the project management body of knowledge, 2nd ed. (PMBOK® Guide). PA, USA: Project Management...
  • Koskela L, Howell G. The underlying theory of project management is obsolete. In: Proceedings of PMI research...
  • J. Söderlund

    On the development of project management research: schools of thought and critique

    Int Proj Manage J

    (2002)
  • S.J. Leandri

    Measures that matter: how to fine-tune your performance measures?

    J Qual Participat

    (2001)
  • D. Cleland et al.

    Systems analysis and project management

    (1968)
  • Cooke-Davies T. Towards improved project management practice. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Leeds Metropolitan University;...
  • Nissen ME, Snider KF. Lessons learned to guide project management theory and research: pragmatism and knowledge flow....
  • Bredillet C. Beyond the positivist mirror: towards a project management ‘Gnosis’. In: IRNOP VI conference, Turku,...
  • Remington K, Crawford L. Illusions of control: philosophical foundations for project management. In: IRNOP VI...
  • J.K. Pinto et al.

    Critical success factors across the project life cycle

    Proj Manage J

    (1988)
  • I. Blockmar

    ONE objective for a successful project!

    J Aust Inst Proj Manage

    (2004)
  • B. Posner

    What it takes to be a good project manager?

    Proj Manage J

    (1987)
  • Cited by (212)

    • Will the past guide us? Towards more reflective research on projects

      2023, International Journal of Project Management
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text