Project Management - Art as well as Science

Follow the link below for a paper by John Gunson and Jean-Paul de Blasis on evolution of Project Management from early 1990s to date (what follows is the introduction piece from the paper):

http://hec.info.unige.ch/recherches_publications/cahiers/2003/2003.02.pdf

At the beginning of the 1990s ERP Implementation Projects followed a classic approach to Project Management. Once Top Management had decided on the ERP solution to be implemented, usually with an Editor such as SAP (the leader), ORACLE Applications, J D EDWARDS, PEOPLESOFT or BAAN, then a Project Manager was designated. Often this was the I.T. Manager who needed to assume the Project Manager role as well.

Helped by the Editor, the Project Manager itemized in detail the tasks to be carried out, attached resources to these tasks and fit the time-scales and budget as per Top Management guidelines/directives. Tools were available to help this process - for example Microsoft Project. This allowed the preparation of a Gantt Chart, and use of Critical Path and techniques to monitor Project progress.

As the decade progressed there was a natural evolution. The tools became more sophisticated allowing for what if scenarios, and Project slippage could be automatically evaluated if a task or set of tasks took longer. There was a tendency for Editors to set up strategic partners: Integrators, who worked with their customers to achieve implementation.

But the approach remained scientific, and a drawback was that slippage (delays, costs, deliverables) tended to be identified but after the fact. Actually ERPs proved more difficult to implement than anticipated with escalating delays and cost overruns. The Project Manager was looking in the rearview mirror and constantly correcting. What was needed was a proactive approach which allowed the Project Manager to anticipate problems and if possible avoid them or at least plan for them and have contingencies.

At the same time that the classic Project Management approach was being seen as incomplete, experience was showing another interesting characteristic: that the failure factors difficult to correct were often human related rather than technical.

In other words, it was not simply a matter of ticking off tasks done. There were ‘feelings’ involved which could lead to latent or evident resistance to change.

From the literature: Ann Miller says in an article with the organizational change theme ‘Some plan and lead change, others manage it, still others accommodate change, and many simply try to cope with it” (MILLER, 2001).

In an article also on the theme of organizational change, Pettigrew, Woodman and Cameron throw down the gauntlet for future research by suggesting that Management scholars are curiously incurious about why and how certain organizations consistently outperform their competitors. They note also that the link between change capacity and action to organizational performance is not clearly sought in empirical studies. (PETTIGREW, WOODMAN, CAMERON, 2001)

Read more by clicking the above link!