by Paul Giammalvo

PMI, in their Policy Governance Manual, states "Project Management is a Profession"

Max Wideman, in his outstanding Comparative Glossary of Common Project Management Terms lists some 15+ definitions for the word “Project”and another 8 or so for Project Management.

Bill Zwerman, Janet Thomas et al in their recent book "Professionalization of Project Management: Mapping the Past to Explore the Future" states "to date, it has been impossible to obtain a consensus on the definition and scope of project management".

By any definition, all one has to do is look in any history book to see examples of project management in action- The taming of fire; Inventing the wheel; Constructing the Pyramids or the Great Wall of China; Discovering the Americas; Building the Panama Canal; Putting a Man on the Moon; The Seven Wonders of the Ancient or Modern World; Hardly an example of significance that has occurred over the past 10,000 or more years cannot be considered indisputably as a "Project"

And yet, hardly a day passes where there are not horror stories of projects gone bad, whether they be space shuttles crashing, buildings crumbling, 200 million USD software projects being written off, or wars being won but peace being lost.

So why is something so innate to human kind proving so elusive to define and causing so much confusion? Why is it that despite project management being at the core of our development as a "civilized society", we still, after 10,000 years of "trying to get it right", experience failures from our project delivery systems of 20%, 30%, 40% or more? How much longer can we tolerate this apparent “trial and error”approach to Project Management? If we have been unable to master this obvious life skill over the past 10,000 years, what can we possibly do today to make it better for tomorrow?

Could it be that we are asking the wrong questions? Are we looking at the "elephant"of Project Management as 7 Blind Men?

One possible approach would be to recognize or accept that Project Management does not lend itself well to the classical Positivist or Newtonian world view (Scientific Method) where a linear cause and effect relationship exists. It is this author’s opinion, based on 40 years experience, most projects exist in some state of marginally controlled chaos, often described in militaristic terms as "the fog of war". If the reader is willing to accept the description of Project Management as being chaotic, the argument against applying the scientific method can be supported. James Gleik, writing for the Santa Fe Institute, observed "where chaos begins, classical science stops". All which indicates more than likely we are on the wrong path in assuming that a linear process approach to project management is going to work. So if Newtonian determinism won’t work, what will?

Research to date on the writings of Kerzner, Frame, Cleland, Lewis et all point to consensus that project management is a System. The works of Pugh, Richardson, Forrester, and most recently Sterman at MIT’s Sloan School, take it one step further and call project management a Complex Dynamic System. Further research by the Santa Fe Institute takes it one step beyond and looks at Project Management not only as being Complex and Dynamic, but also Adaptive as well. In other words, Projects are to some degree other, "living organisms".

Norman Yoffee describes the complex adaptive systems this way:

...A complex system is a network of interacting parts that exhibits a dynamic, aggregate behavior. This system cannot be reduced to the ’sum of its parts’ because the action of some parts is always affecting the action of the other parts so that equilibrium of the entire system is never reached, or maintained for very long. There is no optimum state of the system performance and the system can always surprise, as when a small initial perturbation can result in a large outcome.

John Holland, published two books on complex adaptive systems, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems and Hidden Order. In these books, Holland identified 7 attributes of Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)

General CAS Properties

Nonlinearity: All complex adaptive systems involve large numbers of parts undergoing a kaleidoscopic array of simultaneous nonlinear interactions.

Aggregation: The collective interaction between individual agents results in an aggregate behavior not found in any one part. Indeed the aggregate behavior often feeds back to the individual parts, modifying the behavior of the whole.

Flows: Flows represent a process where resources are transmitted from node to node through a connector. This "node>connector>resource"relationship exists in all cas. In the economy, "banks>electronic transfers>money"; in the military "C2 sites>radio nets>information", describe this relationship.

Diversity: Because the persistence of any agent depends on the context (environment) provided by the other agents, and that context is continuously changing, a wide variety of agents is the result. It is important to note that this diversity is neither accidental nor random.

CAS Mechanisms

Tags: Tagging allows agents to form aggregates. Tags are used to manipulate symmetries, allowing agents to ignore certain details while directing our attention to others. The simplest form of tag would be a company logo or the unit patch of a military organization.

Internal Models: Seeking to adapt to changing circumstances, agents develop internal models of their environment. These models allow agents to anticipate the response of their environment. Evaluating the effectiveness and recognizing patterns associated with these models is a key aspect of understanding the adaptive process.

Building Blocks: Building blocks aid in the formation of useful models by providing familiar information from previous experience to confront novel situations. Building blocks provide models with consistency in a perpetually changing environment.

Having at least superficially made the argument that Project Management is in fact a Complex Adaptive System, let’s explore the similarities more specifically.

NON-LINEARITY- In applying CAS to project management, this author proposes that we have non-linearity, (as evidenced by the "fog of war" syndrome) but have yet to fully or completely acknowledge it in our writings much less conduct the kinds of research necessary to codify it. The PMBOK Guide 2000® 2000® alludes to it through the inclusions of various feedback loops from some outputs modifying their own inputs, but the nature of this critical relationship is not very well highlighted or explained. PRINCE2®® also alludes to the concept in the graphical representation, but neither fully develop the impact these feedback loops have on the outcome of the process.

AGGREGATION- Neither the PMBOK Guide 2000® nor PRINCE2® discuss at any length the impact aggregation has on the outcome of any individual project nor of the project in the context of the program or portfolio. The concept of "aggregation"was first proposed by Meteorologist Edward Lorenz, who proposed that a butterfly flapping its wings in Tokyo, could have a hugely disproportionate impact of the weather in New York city. PMI has made some tentative steps in this direction through the creation of Components, (Formerly Chapters and SIGS) but having divorced the components making them stand alone legal entities may or may not have contributed to the aggregation.

FLOWS- In Project Management we speak of "Inputs>Tools and Techniques>Outputs" while in CAS we speak of "Node>Connector>Resource"relationship. While beyond the scope of this paper to compare, considerable opportunity exists to compare the impacts of this difference in approach.

DIVERSITY- Here again is an area that project management, up to this point, has yet to fully develop or take advantage of. There is a movement to develop a "Global Body of Knowledge" and one of the initiatives supported by the PM Forum was to create a Wiki that enabled contribution by "agents"who are not normally able to participate in the process of creating knowledge in Project Management. In particular, those practitioners from the developing nations. By moving from a face to face to virtual organization, would enable the broadest form of diversity. One of the complaints from many is the secretive nature in which a few key people (be they organizations or individuals) influence or control so much of the creation of knowledge in Project Management. Applying the concept of CAS, the more diversity the better, and the milieu in which the agent is contributing makes a difference in the outcome.

TAGS- Tags are the enablers that allow individual agents to form Aggregates. (Centers of Knowledge or Centers of Excellence) In the world of CAS, these aggregates do not need to be related to one another in a hierarchical manner, but may be virtual or organic in nature. To some degree, we see this occurring, as the various professional organizations, while competing on one level, cooperate at other levels.

INTERNAL MODELS- This area represents the most challenging aspect for Project Managers. One of the frustrations of belonging to many of the professional societies claiming to represent Project Management practitioners is how to reconcile the differences between how project management is done in the various sectors. The best example being to compare project management in construction to that of IT. While both share some commonalities, the fact remains that Safety, Health and the Environment plays a MAJOR role in construction project management, especially so for the oil, gas and mining sectors. Yet to satisfy the needs of IT users, most models (PMBOK Guide 2000®/PRINCE2®) have largely ignored these specific applications.

BUILDING BLOCKS- The answer to the problems outlined above under the heading INTERNAL MODELS lies in the ability to develop a "building block" approach to project management. Applying this philosophy, various processes (both PMI and PRINCE2® have done an effective job of defining those processes found on "most projects, most of the time") would be the basic shapes, with industry specific "sub-processes" or "sub-routines" being developed that would enable customization to meet the needs of specific industries or sectors. This is sometimes called the "Lego" or "Organic Chemistry"model whereby core chains of processes could be enhanced or modified. i.e. the basic blocks (processes) would be the same for both Construction and IT projects, but the inclusion of additional processes for Safety, Health and the Environment or Configuration Management, would be the differentiator that made the CAS appropriate for each sector.

CONCLUSION- Despite Project Management having been around for 10,000 years or more, little or nothing "new"has been discovered in the past 20 years. Yet still our project delivery systems are failing to produce what stakeholder desire. Now is the time to step back and take a look at our perceptions and perspective. Something is radically wrong, and this author proposes the next step we need to look to for solutions will come from the world of Complex Adaptive/Dynamic Systems, for that truly seems to be what Project Management is.

------------------------------------