Unlearning PM: Seeing Different | ||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
||||||||||||
 |
[ Login/Subscribe ] | |||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
||||
 |
||||||||||||
Features
Departments
Opinion
Executive
Resources
|
Home > Opinion > Opinion
Most project managers are introduced to a way of seeing projects that is more reductive than holistic — more focused on work breakdown than flow and value creation; more metrics-measured than self-regulating. In Part Two of the series, the author explains why an emphasis on inputs, outputs and certain processes might hinder performance and, ultimately, project value.
The first installment of this series — “Unlearning Project Management” (March 17, 2008) — incited strong reactions from readers, some who rejected the article’s premise or were frustrated by its failure to propose an alternative solution, and others who found it insightful and relevant to their own experiences. Projects@Work strives to present a range of perspectives from and for the project management community; in doing so, disagreement is inevitable. Whether the debate inspires new avenues of thinking or serves to confirm long-held beliefs, the resulting discussion is healthy — and the essence of our editorial mission.
To recap Part One, in 2002, PMI published The Underlying Theory of Project Management Is Obsolete by Lauri Koskela of Finland’s VTT Technical Research Centre, and Gregory Howell of the Lean Construction Institute. This paper claimed that project management fails to deliver what it promises, and proposed that simply improving present practice is unlikely to improve results.
Please login/register to read the entire article.
| |||||||||||||||||
|
Privacy Policy Contact Us User Agreement