Beyond the positivist mirror
Foreword: In this paper I call upon a praxiological approach. Praxeology (early alteration of praxiology) is the study of human action and conduct. The name praxeology/praxiologyakes is root in praxis, Medieval Latin, from Greek, doing, action, from prassein to do, practice (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).
Having been involved in project management education, research and practice for the last twenty years, I have constantly tried to improve and to provide a better understanding/knowledge of the field and related practice, and as a consequence widen and deepen the competencies of the people I was working with (and my own competencies as well!), assuming that better project management lead to more efficient and effective use of resources, development of people and at the end to a better world.
For some time I have perceived a need to clarify the foundations of the discipline of project management, or at least elucidate what these foundations could be. An immodest task, one might say! But not a neutral one! I am constantly surprised by the way the world (i.e., organizations, universities, students and professional bodies) sees project management: as a set of methods, techniques, tools, interacting with others fields – general management, engineering, construction, information systems, etc. – bringing some effective ways of dealing with various sets of problems – from launching a new satellite to product development through to organizational change.
But the problem is that most of the tools, techniques, and methods involve a conceptual approach, based on a specific paradigm, which is mostly, in project management, a positivist one. We need to question whether this is the appropriate paradigm for the kind of project management, which is claimed to be able to deal with complex problems that do not have clear or straightforward solutions. The apparent lack of foundations, leading, perhaps, to theoretical error, underpinning the application of techniques and tools, the lack of a clear epistemological position in most of the research to date, the lack of a clear paradigm in most of the literature, seems, from my perspective, to be a real barrier to effective understanding and communication of the true nature of project management, leading to nonsense, to a dynamic a fad, where hype, advocacy of his own practice is the rule, reinforced by a lack of critical thinking by the practitioners, who complacently accept seemingly reasonable answers, even if they lead to major failures (15% of ERP projects have been considered to be successful in USA in 1999, for a total of 250 Billions of US$ spent according to an APICS survey – CPIM journal n° 46 – 17/07/2000.) It is often convenient, and lucrative to reinforce accepted belief systems built on many centuries of thinking based on the positivist paradigm. Positivism has led in some cases to over-simplification – one problem equals one solution – and in many cases has obviated against recognition of the complexity and of the relativity of the world. The place of project management within most universities and as a research field shows that it is not yet considered as a discrete discipline. At most universities it is treated as a sub-discipline in construction, engineering, IT or business faculties. At the same time it is claimed to be a trans-functional discipline. This situation is itself contributing to a reinforcement of the positivist paradigm that pervades teaching, research, and practice of the discipline.
My argument rests on the observation that project management needs to be a complex discipline because it aims to deal with complex reality. In mathematics, since Ashby (1958) and the law of requisite variety (although the Principle of Asymmetric Transitions could lead to further complementary developments), it is well known that to control a complex system with n dimensions, you need an n+1 dimensional system. Paradoxically, project management needs at the same time to be simple, as far as its principles are concerned: like white light is transformed into multiple colors through a prism, project management applications may be seen as coming from some general principles. Project management needs to integrate both quality and quantity; To Be and to Have. Project management is a process of naming, of revelation, of creation. Thus, my purpose is to defend the proposition that project management has a raison d’être in itself, and should be a discrete discipline, is both a discipline and an art; and to contribute to a better understanding of the integrative epistemological position proposed, found in the very nature of project management.
Indeed, project management in action, in praxis – praxiological approach, “The science of human action that strives for universally valid knowledge is the theoretical system whose hitherto best elaborated branch is economics. In all of its branches this science is a priori, not empirical. Like logic and mathematics, it is not derived from experience; it is prior to experience. It is, as it were, the logic of action and deed.” (Von Mises, 1976, Chapter 1 §6) It is the source of creation of value(s) – human and economic – and this justifies the fact that a better understanding of the very nature of project management, beyond the positivist mirror, project management “gnosis,” Esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation, is essential.
Focusing on the role within organizations of the project management discipline to design and implement strategy, and as source of competitive advantage through the development of knowledge and competencies, leads me to question the way the project management field is defined. Indeed this field is the basis for the development of standards, of competencies, and beyond this, a source of value for people, organisations and society. The following insights into some majors issues within the project management field, provides an inventory of the main questions.
Program/project management for dealing with complexity and irreversibility
For the past 40 years, project management has become a well-accepted way to manage organizations. The field of project management has evolved from operational research techniques and tools to a discipline of management (Cleland, 1994; Bredillet, 1999). Many authors emphasize this evolution in the way of managing projects: “This book traces the development of the discipline of project management” writes Morris (1997). Project management becomes the way to implement corporate strategy (Turner, 1993; Frame, 1999 and to manage a company: “…value is added by systematically implementing new projects - projects of all types, across the organization” (Dinsmore, 1999, p. ix). Management of projects, the way to manage projects within the same organization (Morris, 1997), and Management by projects, projects as a way to organize the whole organization (Gareis, 1990; Dinsmore, 1999), are both good examples of that tendency. Projects are a form of organization that positions a company in relation to its environment. As projects are the vectors of the strategy (Grundy, 1998), project management is a way to deal with the characteristics of the whole environment: complexity (Arcade, 1998), change (Voropajev, 1998), globalization, time, competitiveness (Hauc, 1998). Thus, with the help of project management, strategic management becomes really the management of irreversibility (Declerck, R., Debourse, & Declerck, J., 1997), concentrating on the ecosystem's project/organization/context, operation/organization/context and its integrative management (Declerck, R., Debourse, & Navarre, C., 1983).
Competencies, sources of competitive advantage and the creation of Value(s)
Projects, as strategic processes, modify the conditions of the firm in its environment. Through them, resources and competencies are mobilized to create competitive advantage and other sources of value. As resources are easily shared by many organizations, the organization's competencies are the most important relevant driver. Thus, through the organization's processes or projects, past action is actualized as experience; present action reveals and proves competencies; future action generates and tries out new competencies (Lorino & Tarondeau, 1998). Competencies (both individual and organizational) are at the source of competitive advantage and the creation of value (Stata, 1989; de Geus, 1988).
The link with performance
Recent research has been working on the assumption that the more competent the project managers, teams, or organizations (maturity), the more efficiently they will perform, the more effective will be the performance of the projects, and the more successful will be the organization (Crawford, 1998; PMI Project Manager Competency Development Framework, 2002). Such research, and indeed the development of professional certification programs in general, seem to contradict former findings. For example, Pinto and Prescott (1988) concluded that the “personnel factor,” even if designated in theoretical literature as a crucial factor in project efficiency, is a marginal variable for project success at any of the four project life cycle phases considered (for a criticism of their findings, see Belout (1998)). A working paper (Turner, 1998) shows the influence of the project managers’ competencies on value of shares of a company. But performance also comes from the maturity of the organization's ability to deal with projects. And in respect of maturity, learning is especially significant. The Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3™) (PMI, 2003) and other papers (example, Remy, 1997; Saures, 1998; and Fincher & Levin, 1997) explore the relationship between maturity of the organizations and success of projects portfolios, programs and projects.
Knowledge and competence
To develop competencies, knowledge is needed. Two main views of competence development may be considered. One traditional view is that it involves applying a body of knowledge to known situations in order to produce rational solutions to problems (what I call the “have” or “quantitative” perspective). However, in a rapidly changing world and information-based society, practitioners and organizations increasingly need to respond intelligently to unknown situations and go beyond established knowledge to create unique interpretations and outcomes (Schön, 1971; Ackoff, 1974; Toffler, 1980, 1990; Reich, 1991)—what I call the “be” or “quality” perspective. As a result, it is no longer adequate to base professional development just on transmitting existing knowledge and developing a predefined range of competences on the basis: one problem equals one solution. Instead, practitioners need to be able to construct and reconstruct the knowledge they need and continually advance their practice (Schön, 1987, pp. 35-36), thereby leading to a systemic and dynamic development of their competencies (For a review of the link between knowledge, personal and performance-based dimensions of competence see Crawford (1998)). These alternative approaches of going beyond traditional models of production and knowledge use, while recognizing its validity in some areas, are mainly based on reflecting, questioning and creating processes.
Project management: A knowledge field that is not yet (that) clear
First, hypothetically, it might be useful to assume that the project management knowledge field does exist. Consider Audet's (1986) definition “a knowledge field is the space occupied by the whole of the people who claim to produce knowledge in this field, and this space is at the same time a system of relationships between these people. Those persons are competitors to gain the control of the definition of the conditions and the rules of production of knowledge,” with respect to the behavior of professional bodies, authors, and academics. For example, the relationships between established professional bodies (PMI, International Project Management Association (IPMA), etc.) and their way of development (PMI, through A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide); IPMA, through a shared competence baseline (ICB – IPMA Competence Baseline), contextualized according to the nationals’ needs of the national associations; the fact that PMI withdrew from the Global Project Management Forum, a kind of supra-institutional body trying to promote a common basis in term of knowledge; the wish to create global standards;, the fact that PMI is very active in supporting research in such areas as establishing a theory of project management, demonstrating project management value for executive, achievement of corporate strategy through successful projects, to quote a few; the evolution of bodies of knowledge (PMBOK® Guide, APM BOK, etc.), of the themes of papers and books, from techniques to psycho-sociology of temporary groups through knowledge creation and organizational learning, illustrate this. In addition, the field, currently characterised by this abundance of initiatives, development of standards, increasing use of project management methods and techniques, is in pre-paradigmatic phase according to Kuhn (1970). It is actually the place of a revolution, inaugurated by a growing sense, still restricted to a narrow subdivision of the project management community, that the existing positivist paradigm has ceased to function adequately in the exploration of the nature. A second and more profound aspect upon which the significance of the first depends is that the success of revolutions necessitates the partial relinquishment of one set of institutions in favor of another. Is it the sense of the creation, in the U.S.A., of an alternative professional body (American Society for the Advancement of Project Management) to PMI with different rules (in particular, much more flexible about the legal aspects and copyright rules, the aim being to make knowledge produced by the members available and usable by the community in large)? Is it the sense of a PMI initiative, the wish to establish regional headquarters?
Therefore, I argue that many applications of project management are done without questioning the deep nature of projects: What is a project? On which epistemological foundations can we build the project management field? Which hypotheses apply to the field? Why is project management unique? What is the specificity of project environment (project vs. operations) as far as knowledge and learning are concerned? What are the consequences on the development of knowledge and learning in project environment?
Trying to address these questions involves clarifying my epistemological position.
What the hell is project management?
Scrutinizing the concept of project
From one perspective (Leroy, 1994), the concept of project is generally apprehended by listing its intrinsic characteristics. I have selected three definitions, chosen to demonstrate the range of different perspectives in the apprehension of the project concept:
- “a project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product or service” (PMI, PMBOK® Guide, 2000), pointing out the instrumental perspective;
- “an endeavor in which human, material and financial resources are organized in a novel way, to undertake a unique scope of work, of given specification, within constraints of cost and time, so as to achieve beneficial change defined by quantitative and qualitative objectives.” (Turner, 1993), putting forward the cognitive perspective;
- “a project is a whole of actions limited in time and space, inserted in, and in interaction with a politico-socio-economic environment, aimed at and tended towards a goal progressively redefined by the dialectic between the thought (the project plan) and the reality” (Declerck et al, 1983, 1997), illustrating the political perspective.
These different perspectives illustrate the polysemic nature of the concept of project (Boutinet, 1996). This polysemic nature is at the source of two underlying visions that have evolved with the development of project management.
On the one hand, it is interesting to note that the development of project management was accompanied by the constitution of codes of practice and this according to two plans: 1. First, in the plan of the people, from the builders of cathedrals to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 100 rules of “the good” project manager, while passing by the processes of certification of the people, this being connected in the majority of the cases to an “initiation rite” (and rite comes from the Sanskrit rita = order), where theoretical knowledge is not enough, even if essential, but must be accompanied by recognition of the peers and of the practice; 2. Then, in the plan of the processes of management of the trajectory of the projects by the organizations, with the appearance of the standards, either with descriptive or prescriptive feature. The underlying vision is, here, a positivist one: experiences and practices lead to standard and rules, standard and rules lead to theories, which lead to paradigms, and all these, according to certain assumptions, are used as a basis of code of practices, bodies of knowledge.
On the other hand, through projects, man builds reality and as highlighted by authors like Declerck et al (1997), the management of projects by its mode of deployment within the ecosystem project/firm/context implies a systemic vision, “an ‘intelligent’ action, ‘ingenium,’ this mental faculty which makes possible to connect in a fast, suitable and happy way the separate things” as stated by Lemoigne (1995), quoting Giambattista Vico (1708). Thus, the evolution noted in the use of project management and/or management by projects (Giard & Midler, 1993) and its structuring characteristics suggests a constructivist vision (Cognitive Constructivism with Jean Piaget and Social Constructivism with Lev Vygotsky).
Tensions and paradoxes in project management
These two visions appear to be consubstantial with the concept of management of projects underlining the “tensions and paradoxes in project management.” Boutinet (1997) shows that the figure of the project can constitute today a suitable reference in the management of the organizations, as through them it is possible to create and to innovate by using several parameters, which they organize in a paradoxical way. Not being conscious of this often involves us toward a drift of totalitarian or technicist project or toward simplification, the vulgarizing of projects brought back to our daily life. Current organizations in the mobility of our post-industrial culture resort readily to the figure of the project as a model of management: industrial companies, social or educational establishments, services, etc. This recourse seems suitable insofar as we move in complex and fluctuating environments which confront us to create and innovate, while always resorting to a plurality of parameters; to reason in terms of objectives is to be located from the single-dimensional point of view, that which we knew; to reason in terms of projects, it is precisely to take into account this multidimensional thought made of a plurality of components take into account; however those by the force of the things often maintain between them the paradoxical relations. Indeed to speak about paradox is deliberately to fit in a way of thinking uncommon, founded on a non-traditional logic, that of unexpected, fuzzy and uncertainty in particular.
This way of thinking is completely congruent with our time of post-modernity marked by the advent of the post-industrial culture; we have now left the universe of the certainty, the constants, the determinisms and the laws to enter that of fluidities and paradoxes. Doesn't the currently dominant reign of the communication networks represent an emergence, impossible to circumvent, of the plural oppositions, which make us initially have a presentiment of an environment conditioned by the mode of its diversities and its contrasts? The project embodies completely this paradoxical reality since it exists only to disappear as soon as it is carried out! To speak about the non-traditional paradox of logic is to take a stand in opposition to traditional formal logic which has dominated until the end of the industrial age This traditional logic was concerned with coherence and haunted by the principle of non-contradiction; discipline of the mind and controlled sets of steps. This logic can, however, twist the rational one in the direction of rationalizations, artificially giving to reality desired intelligibility. The increasing complexity of our environments means that the opportunities to use this traditional kind of logic are increasingly random; the relevance of the recourse to the paradox today is precisely related to the fact that it constitutes a suitable figure to think through the ‘fuzzy’, uncertain, and even the strangeness of our intentions, that is, the heuristic framework of our projects.
These considerations on the different perspectives embodied in the concept of projects, on the polysemic nature of the concept, and consequentially on the underlying positivist and constructivist visions consubstantial to the concept of management of projects and its paradoxical and non-traditional logic, lead me to present an epistemological position on project management.
An epistemological perspective for project management
After Polanyi (1958), I propose an alternative epistemological perspective both to positivism and constructivism. I have no intention to separate personal judgment from scientific method. I argue that, especially in project management, knowledge creation and production has to integrate both classical scientific aspects and “fuzzy” or symbolic aspects. A “reality” can be explained according to a specific point of view and also can be considered as the symbol of higher order (Guénon, 1986) and a more general reality (example, a two-dimensional form can be seen as the projection on a plan of a n-dimensional figure). I argue that the “demiurgic” characteristic of project management involves seeing this field as an open space, without “having” (Have) but rather with a raison d'être (Be), because of the construction of Real by the projects. It could be considered to be a fundamental explanation of the pre-paradigmatic nature of this field (Kuhn, 1970): the dominant paradigm, source of well established theory(ies) is NOT to find, the deep nature of project management implies this paradox of being built on moving paradigms reflecting the diversity of the creation process by itself.
This field is thus composed of both quantitative aspects (Have), dependent upon the positivist paradigm, where people have few degrees of freedom (operational research in network optimization, cost engineering, statistical methods, bodies of knowledge, application of standards, best practices, code of ethics…all these are seen as the truth), and qualitative aspects (Be), dependent upon the constructivist paradigm where people have many degrees of freedom (organizational design, learning, knowledge management, change management, systemic approaches, contextualisation of the life-cycle, meta-rules, etc.), some of these aspects being linked together: for example the creation and evolution of standards seen from the Theory of Convention (social construct) and their application (positivism). The problem is that, most of the time, people are using methods and tools without any idea of the validity of the underlying assumptions.
Thus, my vision for project management would be one of an integral function: the knowledge field is made up of differential elements, each of them being able to be defined (for example cost control, scheduling, communication, quality, information system, temporary group, etc.). Seen as a whole, it is a transition to the limit, and in mathematics the result of an integral is both quantitatively and qualitatively more than the sum of the parts. In other words, it can be called a system effect: parts A, B and C forming a system S, keeping some of their properties and potential performances, losing some others, but gaining some entirely new performances (Legay, 1996).
From this point of view of the conceptual field of management of projects, it seems to us that there is “inseparability of the knowledge and its representation understood in their distinctable activity, the intentional experience of the knowing subject and the groping construction of the subject representing knowledge, this undoubtedly constituting the strong assumption on which are defined teachable knowledge today, both scientific and ordinary” (Lemoigne, 1995).
So for me, project management as a knowledge field is both an art and a science, in their dialectic AND integrative dimensions (close to the “critical-rationalist” and “interactionist” approach of Popper), and thus according to the two epistemological approaches:
- the positivist epistemology (materialist – quantitative – Have): “the relation of science to art may be summed up in a brief expression: from Science comes Prevision, from Prevision comes action”. (Comte, Positive Philosophy, Chapter II, p 43. 1896)
- the constructivist epistemology (immaterialist – qualitative – Be), with two hypotheses of reference as underlined by Lemoigne (1995):
o 1. The phenomenological hypothesis – the cognitive interaction between the object or the phenomenon to be known and the subject knowing forms at the same time the knowledge of the object (in “organising the world”) and the mode of development of knowledge by the subject (in “the intelligence organizing itself”). This hypothesis associates to the strict design knowledge (the cognizable reality is a phenomenological reality, which the subject experiments) an active conception: the knowledge which the subject builds by its experience organizes simultaneously the method of construction of this knowledge, or his or her intelligence.
o 2. The teleological hypothesis: the intentionality or the finality of the knowing subject, according to its decisive role in the construction of knowledge (phenomenological hypothesis), must be taken into account.
Exhibit 1: The integration of two epistemological approaches
Most of the works on organizational learning, learning organizations, knowledge management, knowledge-creating organizations, etc., are based on a traditional understanding of the nature of knowledge. We could name this understanding the “positivist epistemology” perspective since it treats knowledge as something people, teams, and organizations have. But, this perspective does not reflect the knowing found in individual and team practice, knowing as an “intelligent” action, “ingenium”, as stated by Lemoigne (1995), in calling for a “constructivist epistemology” perspective. The “positivist epistemology” tends to promote explicit over tacit knowledge, and individual knowledge over team or organizational knowledge.
This integrative epistemological approach for project management suggests that organizations will be better understood if explicit, tacit, individual and team/organizational knowledge are treated as four distinct forms of knowledge (each doing work the others cannot), and if knowledge and knowing (intelligent action) are seen as inseparable and mutually enabling. Thus, knowledge may be seen as an input of knowing, and knowing as an aspect of our interaction with the social and physical world, and that the dynamic interaction of knowledge and knowing can generate new knowledge and new ways of knowing.
Methodological issues and considerations
One of the key understandings in project management is that learning and practice are integrated (see above the notion of “ingenium”). To facilitate this praxis (praxiology in action…), a specific meta-method (MAP method) fruit of this permanent quest for the Holy Grail, and built both upon research and experience (science and art) has been developed through time. The underlying paradigm is that there is a co-evolution between the subject/actor/researcher/student and his or her environment. This involves inseparability between the subject and the object in this observation-action process. This observation-action is related to an epistemo-praxiologic cognition through an observational chain (perception of what is true or wrong – epistemological subjectivity), a decision chain (decision made founded or unfounded – pragmatical subjectivity), and an effect chain (action fulfilled feasible or unfeasible – praxiological subjectivity). This epistemo-praxiologic cognition involves both partial subjectivity AND partial objectivity, congruent to our previous alternative epistemological position.
Exhibit 2: MAP Method in action – an overview
Project Management in action: a tentative approach
My purpose here is to introduce and illustrate the specificity of the project environment with respect to praxiological perspective. Most of these developments are the results of research undertaken as part of the CIMAP Research Centre – Groupe ESC Lille, and are grounded on the former works of the founders Declerck et al (1983, 1997).
Projects vs. operations: the nature of projects
Every organization acts according to two fundamentals modes: 1. an operational mode, aiming at the exploitation of competitive advantage and current position on the market and providing profits and renewal or increase of resources and 2. an entrepreneurial mode, or project mode, focusing on the research of new position and new competitive advantage, consuming money and resources. To ensure their sustainability and development, all organizations need to combine both modes. (Declerk in Ansoff, Declerk, & Hayes, 1976)
Thus we have to face two types of activities, and I wish to propose the dichotomy of operations vs. projects. Table 1 emphasizes the main characteristics of these activities. I focus here on these two types, although in reality activities may be a blend of these two pure types.
| Operations | Projects (entrepreneurial activities are assumed here to be managed using the project “form”) |
| Ongoing and repetitive activities, being prone to influence of numerous factors. The factors of influence are mainly internal (endogenous), rather than environmental, and they can be manipulated by the operation manager. The environmental factors explain only a low part of the fluctuation of outputs. the inputs present random variations. It is possible to measure and to estimate the probabilities associated to these variations. The variation of inputs can be made statically stable. Future effects can be predicted with a specified margin of error. Non-usual variations coming from perturbations external to the operation lead to slight penalizing and never to disaster. Operations are reversible processes: perturbations can be detected, the nature of these causes can be identified, and these causes can be eradicated. The reversibility of operations can occur within economically acceptable limits. Operations may interact with the actions of the observer. | Non-repetitive activities (one –shot). Decisions are irreversible. Projects are subjects to multiple influences. The main influences come from environment (exogenous) and may vary considerably. The decision-maker cannot usually handle an important number of variables (exogenous variables). It is very tough to measure the effects or these influences. The project is generally not in statistical stability, and it is not possible to associate probabilities to the effects one tries to measure. A “bad” decision and/or a non-controllable influence of a major event may lead to catastrophic result. |
| To summarize, operations involve: | Projects involve: |
| Planed actions | Creative actions |
| Masked actors | Unmasked actors |
| Process | Praxis |
| Rational | Para-rational |
| Algorithmic | Mosaic |
| Anhistoric | Historic |
| Cooperation |
Confrontation |
| Stable and making one feel secure | Rich, ambiguous, instable |
Table 1: Operations vs. Projects
It is now appropriate to look at the way an organization is linked to its environment. We can define strategy as a function of linkage between an organization and its environment (Ansoff, 1975). If we consider the operational mode, the problem is to optimize performance of the function that is the strategy of penetration of the organization regarding its environment and to optimize the internal performance. On the other hand, in the entrepreneurial mode, the problem is to look at opportunities of expansion and/or diversification and/or reconfiguration, choosing, among a set of possible strategies, the most effective function, and select, among a set of possible organizational structures, the most efficient.
The problems in each case are thus quantitatively and qualitatively very different. Let us formalize the problems:
- For operational activities: Given a strategic function f() and an organizational function g(), maximize the function of linkage Cx, under given constraints B = {b1,…, bn}
- For entrepreneurial activities: Given an open set F() = {f1(),…, fk(),…} of possible strategic functions, and an other open set G() = {g1(),…, gj(),…} of possible organizational functions, do whatever is best to achieve the objectives, choosing one strategic function f() and one organizational function g(), under an open set of constraints B = {b1,…, bk,…} usually ill-structured and evolving. F() and G() are open as they include not only what is known but potentially what is unknown at date. The problem is more complex because of the uncertainty (different from probabilizable risk in a statistically stable environment) of the coupled project/environment regarding for instance, supply, demand and technology, and of the instability of the coupled project/environment regarding the dynamic of the linkages associating them.
Exhibit 3: Two modes of linkage (operational and project/entrepreneurial) between an organization and its environment
The problem of integration between the two modes and from one mode to another is raised. This problem is characterized by the allocation of resources between operations (generating profits and stable) and projects (risks and uncertainties), the risk of deterioration of existing activities by new activities, the new activities’ organizational structure and modification of ongoing activities’ organizational structure.
Two different but complementary perspectives can be considered: a synchronic perspective (on a short given period of time), during which the manager has to deal with the coexistence of operations and projects, and during which these two kinds of activities are not significantly changing; a diachronic perspective during which entrepreneurial activities are gradually or dramatically changing and interact with operational activities in a process of mutual modification.
From this we can draw two fundamentals assumptions: for return and profitability reasons (performance), it is necessary that a project turn into an operation; the managerial and behavioral mode of managers must change according the type of activities. Very often, the transformation of a project into an operation involves a discontinuity (e.g., change from a project manager into a manager) and goes with evolution of some characteristics (Exhibit 4).
Exhibit 4: Integrative transformation process: evolution from entrepreneurial to operational mode
To generalize very simply and almost metaphorically, the management of a portfolio of projects and operations will involve over a short period of time that the sum of cash-flows generated by operations and projects is positive; over a long period of time, the sum of the cash-flows (actually discounted sum or integration) being maximized (optimization perspective) or superior to a certain threshold (minimum satisfaction behavior).
Of course, strategic management is much more than just the sum of operational and entrepreneurial management: here, more then elsewhere, the whole is superior to the sum of the parts.
Linking and organization and its environment: ecosystem project/organization/context
An ecosystem is defined as “the complex of a community of organisms and its environment (biotope) functioning as an ecological unit” (Merriam-Webster dictionary). Here the biotope is the environment including the context sub-system. This one is defined according to pertinence criteria by decision makers and/or project managers. Of course environment and context do exist only in their dialectical relationship with an organization, operation and project. Perturbations arise and reach their critical mass within the context. Shocks and macro destabilizations arise within the environment.
Exhibit 5: Ecosystem operation/organization/context and project/organization/context
In a similar way we have earlier defined knowing as an “intelligent” action, and learning as knowledge development, therefore project involves praxis, and is action-oriented to meet a goal in interaction with a specific context and environment. Therefore, the understanding of the dynamic relationship between information, knowledge, learning and acting leads to a systemic perspective.
Considering the dynamic aspect of the ecosystem project/context, three propositions can be made:
- A project starts with a simulation then continues with series of dissimulations;
- A project is a place for spontaneous generation of positive feedbacks;
- A project is a dialectic complexification/decomplexification.
The whole dynamic of the ecosystem and the information generated can be represented as follows (Exhibit 6):
Exhibit 6: Morphogenesis of ecosystem and information flows
Having this in mind, it is now time to look at the characteristics of a project team in charge of project activities, but to some extent, of “operational” activities as well, seen as a learning organization.
The specificity of a project team: acting, knowing and learning dynamic
I would like first to compare some characteristics of groups and teams. Wenger, McDermott & Snyder (2002, p. 142) draw a comparison between several forms of team organizations: community of practice, formal work group, informal network, and project team. There are some fundamentals differences between project team, community of practice, and Balatform for the knowledge creation process (Nonaka, Toyama, and Byosiere in Dierkes, Berhoin Antal, Child, & Nonaka, 2001, pp. 491-517). They are summarized in Table 2.
| Project Team | Community of Practice | Ba |
| Members practice their jobs and learn by participating in the project team | Members learn by participating in the community and practicing their jobs | Members learn by participating in the Ba and practicing their jobs |
| Place where knowledge is created, where members learn knowledge that is embedded, and where knowledge is utilized | Place where members learn knowledge that is embedded in the community | Place where knowledge is created |
| Need of energy (forming the team) and then learning occurs | Learning occurs in any community of practice | Need of energy in order to become active |
| Boundary is set by the task and the project. | Boundary is firmly set by the task, culture, and history of the community | Boundary is set by its participants and can be changed easily. Here-and-now. Created, function, disappear |
| Membership fixed for the project duration (temporary nature). May vary depending the phases of the project. | Membership rather stable. New members need time to learn and fully participate. |
Membership not fixed. Participants come and go. |
| Participants may relate or belong to the project team for the duration of the project but may belong or relate to the operational/functional organization (Department, contractors, suppliers, etc.). | Participants belong to the community. | Participants relate to the Ba. |
Table 2: Putting in perspective project team, community of practice, and Ba
To understand the specificity created by the project environment and project team as far as learning is concerned, let us synthesize some of the key perspectives. (Table 3)
| Epistemology | Positivist – ‘Have’ | Constructivist – ‘Be’ |
| Main acting mode | Operations | Projects |
| Knowledge Management | Western approach. Codification. Explicit knowledge. Linear thinking. Knowledge market. |
“Japanese” approach (and, actually, French one). Personalization Tacit knowledge Dialectical thinking: “synthesizing dialectical thinking”, aiming at identifying contradiction and resolving it by means of synthesis or integration, from “compromising dialectical thinking”, focusing on tolerating contradiction |
| Organizational Learning | Single-loop learning Information theory (knowledge as formal and systematic-hard data, codified procedures, universal principles) |
Double-loop learning Information theory (Nonaka, 1991, Boisot, 1998) System dynamics theory (Senge, 1990, Kim, 1993) |
| Learning Organization | Neoclassical learning (N-Learning), knowledge is considered cumulative. (Boisot, 1998) | SECI cycle, Ba, Knowledge assets, needs for a supportive organization. (Nonaka, 1991) Schumpeterian learning (S-Learning), change is the natural order of things. (Boisot, 1998) |
Table 3: Synthesis of two perspectives regarding knowledge management, organizational learning and learning organizations
From this table, it is clear that projects as such are learning organizations or learning places. Projects, through the way the project team acts (praxis), are a privileged place for learning: such project-based learning needs to integrate the two perspectives (‘Have’ and ‘Be’ or ‘operations’ and ‘projects’ acting modes), as there is a need for a blend of creative or exploratory learning and application or exploitative learning (Boisot, 1998, p. 116). Having in mind the need for efficiency and effectiveness, a project team acts as a temporary structure, generating first information and creating knowledge (adding complexity) with many degrees of freedom, and then applying it (reduction of complexity) in the former stage of a project. Of course, the level of knowledge being created will depend of the nature of system project/organization/environment. Some construction projects require a little amount of creativity, while others, in a different context, will require a lot.
On a larger issue, this praxis is so fascinating within projects precisely because all new project teams must solve a unique conundrum: to what degree is the information/knowledge available to complete the project based on past experience, replicable historical processes, etc., and to what degree must all knowledge and learning be acquired or “emergent” as a result of the unique nature of the project tasks.
The consequence at the praxis level is twofold. On the one hand, focusing on the “Have” side, there is a need of for some form of knowledge – guidance, best practice, standards, etc. – at the individual, team, and organizational level. The developments of professional certification programs, as well as maturity models, are important in this. It is important to recognize that such standards have to be seen as largely social constructs, developed facilitate communication and trust among those who are adopting them, but their evolution is in line with the experiences gained by the users, or because of new developments or practices is vital to avoid any fossilization (Bredillet, 2002). On the other hand, on the “Be” side, the need of more creative competence (e.g., some professional certifications are incorporating personal characteristics), flexible frameworks (e.g., use of meta rules), and organizational structure to enable the sharing of experience is fundamental.
Feedback loop…
The expected contribution (an immodest task, one might say!), was to draw the praxiological foundations for the development of project wisdom (Gnosis), going beyond any fundamentalism, thanks to a process of resolution of opposition where practice and education are intimately and inextricably linked, where simplicity and complexity are two faces of the same mirror.
I hope that I have helped to reveal the basis of project management so that we may become more conscious of the project management discipline in praxis.
Through a discussion of epistemological issues, I have tried to point out the very nature of the field and the necessity of being very clear, in accordance with this nature, about paradigms theories and hypotheses underpinning the use of methods and tools.
In so doing I hope to have contributed, however humbly, to a better perception and understanding of this fascinating field Be-Have! if not bee-hive…(d‘Arcy Thompson, 1917, 1969, p. 111; Marx, 1965, p. 728)
Ordo ab Chaos