Project Management Defined

A discussion of the definition of project management from some of my earlier works might be a useful foundation for some of the blogs I intend to provide over the next couple months. I hope you enjoy and participate in this process.

Russ

“Project management is the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project activities to meet the project requirements” (Project Management Institute, Inc. p. 2013). This simple definition represents a compromise that resulted from intense discussions within the Project Management Institute (PMI) during the 1980’s. One of the priorities of PMI during this time was the development of project management as a profession. Although debate continues on whether project management is a profession with an enforceable code of conduct and other traditional criteria for recognition as a profession, the development of the Project Management Body of Knowledge and the project management certification that derived from these efforts, helped promote the understanding and development of the project management field.

The discussion about what should be included in the definition of project management included debates about the purpose of project management. Is the main purpose to meet client’s expectations or is the main purpose to meet the written specifications and requirements? This discussion around meeting project requirements was not easily settled. If it is assumed that the project client is the one that defines project requirements, then maybe project management is the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to meet client requirements or client expectations. PMI’s definition of project management does provide a good understanding of project management but it does not help us understand project success. For that, we must include the client.

Meredith and Mantel (2000) discussed project management in terms of producing project outcomes within the three objectives of cost, schedule, and specifications. Project managers are then expected to develop and execute a project plan that meets cost, schedule, and specification parameters. According to this view, project management is the application of everything a project manager does to meet these parameters. This approach to defining project management shares PMI’s focus on the project outcomes in terms of requirements.

Meredith and Mantel added a fourth aspect of project management—the expectations of the client. One client-centered definition of project management is the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to meet or exceed the expectations of the client. This definition focuses on delivering a product or service to the client that meets expectations rather than project specifications. It is possible to meet all project specifications and not meet client expectations or fail to meet one of more specifications and still meet or exceed a client’s expectation. 

Meredith and Mantel discussed a tendency noted by Darnall ( 2007) that expectations often increase during the life of a project. Meredith and Mantel suggest that this is a form of scope increase. A project scope is a carefully crafted document that reflects the performance specifications of the project deliverables. Defining the project scope and managing scope change is a very different process than developing an understanding of a client’s expectations and managing those expectations. Darnall focused on defining and managing client expectations as a critical project management skill that is distinct from scope development and management.

Client expectations encompass an emotional component that includes many client desires that are not easily captured within a specification document. Although closely correlated with project specifications, client expectations are driven by different needs. It is possible for a project team to exceed every project specification and the project end up with an unsatisfied client. 

The Evolution of Project Management?

I was reading my PMI today and found two articles that seemed related to me. The first was a short article describing the new organization of the project management Journal. The Journal will now have six new departments with two editors for each department. This appears to be an excellent approach to expanding the research concepts and opportunities with and project management.

Two things about this article interested me. First, was the selection of the six departments. The human side of project management and the organizational side of projects is easy to understand. The ICT side of project management? I have no idea what they will be researching. The management of infrastructure and public projects and project business is a title that is also confusing to me. I’m not sure what this department will be researching. Complex innovation projects and project strategy sounds like two different departments but included within one group. Project portfolio management, program management and implementation of strategies is the last department. I suspect any selection of departments for project research would be debatable. The current approach appears to be a good first start.

The thing that also interested me about this article was identification of the people to be the departmental editors. There were two editors selected for each department. Of the 12 departmental editors only one came from the United States. Although this group includes members from Canada  and Australia, to group is European centric. I am curious about what this says about the state of project management research.

In reviewing the August 2013 project management Journal I noted that none of the authors were US authors. There were six research papers presented by 17 authors and none were US authors or US research institutions. I am just curious what the implications are for US-based project management research.

This month is a PMI member I was asked to vote on the slate of officers for the PMI Board of Directors. I decided I would only go for board members became from an industry other than IT. I have a sense that IT is overly represented in many of the leadership roles within PMI. This might be a natural result of the growth of the IT industry. I also believe that the PMI board needs to be diverse. Therefore, my decision to only vote for board members outside the IT industry.

When the ballot arrived we were asked to vote for five out of the eight candidates for the PMI Board of Directors. After looking at the credentials of all a candidates and my determination not to vote for anybody with an IT background, I was only able to vote for three candidates. Of the people with non-IT backgrounds I voted for one candidate whose vita indicates he is a professional speaker. I voted for another candidate who’s the president of five companies including the biggest sport small in Argentina. The third candidate I voted for is an advisor for the United Nations with a focus on PMO’s.

The Board of Directors also has a resolution that they’ve asked the PMI membership to pass which would eliminate the ability of members to be nominated by a 1% approval of the membership. This would mean only the nominating committee could nominate people to the Board of Directors. I read the justification for this motion and do not understand why the board would want to restrict the nomination process.

I do not draw any conclusions based on these observations. There does not seem to be any correlation between the euro centric research approach and the IT dominance in the Board of Directors. I just contemplate disease trends have any implications for the future of the project management profession.

Russ