The Development of Project Management: Past, Present and Future Prof Ralf Müller BI Norwegian...
-
Upload
byron-benson -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of The Development of Project Management: Past, Present and Future Prof Ralf Müller BI Norwegian...
The Development of Project Management: Past, Present and Future
Prof Ralf MüllerBI Norwegian Business SchoolDepartment of Leadership and Organizational Behaviour
Theme Day Goal Directed Project Management in 30 Years13 May 2014
Agenda
• Where do we come from• Where are we now• Where do we og from here• … in research and practice
“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.”
― Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
BI Norwegian Business SchoolDepartment of Leadership and Organizational Behaviour
Research: where do we come from
Analysis of 15 years of IRNOP papers showed• a significant dominance of project
management research which is based on subjectivity, interpretivism, and use of case study methodologies together with qualitative methods.
• Contributions to knowledge were mainly in the governance, behavior and optimization school of thought.
Biedenbach & Müller 2011
Research: where are we nowAnalysis of 15 years of IRNOP papers showed
• Subjective research paradigms are gradually reduced at the
expense of more objective paradigms, albeit at a low level.
• About 80 percent of studies are subjective, interpretivistic and
use qualitative methods.
• Methodologies shift towards multiple case studies
• Along with a slight reduction in subjective studies comes an
increase in objective and positivist studies, using quantitative
methods (slightly less than 20 percent of all studies).• Contributions to knowledge have strongly shifted towards the
process school of thought and to a lesser extend the behavior and contingency schools.
Biedenbach & Müller 2011
Research: where are we heading?• Imbalance between objective and subjective research paradigms
will prevail. Too large is the gap in popularity of paradigms. • Trend shows a steady growth of objective studies and decline of
subjective studies.• Trend in conference papers (80% QUAL, 20% QUAN) is in
contrast to published research in project management with 66 percent positivist studies (Smyth and Morris, 2007). General management studies report 10% QUAL and 90% QUAN 90% with a steady increase in QUAL studies (Aguinis et al., 2007).
• The two streams are moving towards each other and will eventually be at par in a world of paradigmatic pluralism.
• The philosophical emphasis in project management research changed slightly, with gradual implications at the methodological level.
Biedenbach & Müller 2011
Practice: where do we come from?• 1950s and 1960s: Systems development
– Matrix organizations to develop major weapon systems, integrated through “special project offices” under a “project manager”
– WBS, PERT, CPM, EV ….– PMOs, Professional organizations
• 1970s to 1990s– Success and failure studies– PMBoKs– Diversity in management
• 1990s and early 20th century– IT, critical chain, agility– Enterprise-wide project management, programs, portfolios– Strategy and governance
Morris 2011
Practice: where are we now• Methodological multiplicity• Agile and combinations of traditional &
agile approaches• Awareness of soft factors increases• Awareness for governance grows• Enterprise project management on the
rise
Practice: where are we now
• Educated project managers• Sustainability aware generation• Declining tolerance for failure• Leadership “In command: out of control”• New commercial odels• Poly project management• Growing profile
Taylor 2014
Practice: where are we heading?
• Increase in large infrastructure projects– 2004-2998 China spent more on infrastructure
than during the 20th century, a 20 fold increase– “Biggest investment boom in history”
(Economist (2008)
• Price levels of USD 50-100 billion are common for gigaprojects, prices above USD 100 billion not uncommon
Flyvbjerg 2014
Practice: where are we heading?
DEPEST analysis:• Demographics• Economics• Political-legal factors• Ecological factors• Social-cultural factors• Technology
Jugdev, Müller & Hutchison 2009
Practice: where are we heading?
• Demographics– Multilingual business– Retiring baby boomers demand more projects for
hospitality, travel, entertainment
• Economics– Globalization and multi-culturality increases project
complexity– Increase in social projects, and importance of values such
as ethics, green, CSR etc
• Political-legal factors– Political unrest will continue to demand specialization of
project managers, e.g. in technology, military, IT, logistics etc.
Jugdev, Müller & Hutchison 2009
Practice: where are we heading?• Ecological factors
– Net generation at mid career by 2025– Increase in energy projects, but also freshwater supply and agricultural
projects
• Social-cultural factors– Social networks impact the development of tools and work practices of
project managers– PM a topic at undergraduate and grade school– Work-life balance importance for Generation X and Y (1983 onwards) – Communities driven projects
• Technology– Aging population demands more pharmaceutical projects and technology
enhancements for health and wellness– Virtual teams and virtual work, e.g. using highly intelligent analysis tools for
business intelligence– Advances from interactive computer games will make their way in project
management, control and reportingJugdev, Müller & Hutchison 2009
Practice: Some pragmatic trends• Demand for project managers to meet triple constraints
plus expectation will continue. Companies will:– Increase training and education– develop intelligent project selection techniques/tools and
project management tools
• Diversity of projects will increase, calling on well educated and trained PMs, e.g. in– Nanotechnology or other upcoming technologies, – Social competences for social media, crowdfunding and
community-based project management– Collaboration of companies, communities of practice and
professional organizations for knowledge sharing and integration
Jugdev, Müller & Hutchison 2009
Practice: Some pragmatic trends
• Professional organizations to:– Continue their BoKs, but diversify in more
industries– Expand certification to industries and
upcoming methodologies using more applied rather than rote learning apporaches
– Emphasize the role of values and ethics for a long-term orientation of and for projects
Jugdev, Müller & Hutchison 2009
Thank you
ReferencesAguinis, H., Pierce, C. a., Bosco, F. a., & Muslin, I. S. (2007). First Decade of Organizational
Research Methods: Trends in Design, Measurement, and Data-Analysis Topics. Organizational
Research Methods, 12(1), 69–112.
Biedenbach, T., & Müller, R. (2011). Paradigms in project management research: examples from 15
years of IRNOP conferences. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 4(1), 82–
104.
The Economist (2008). Building BRIC’s of growth, June 7, p. 80.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2014). What You Should Know About Megaprojects and Why : An Overview. Project
Management Journal, 45(2), 6–19. doi:10.1002/pmj
Jugdev, K., Müller, R., & Hutchison, M. (2009). Future Trends in Project Management: A Macro-
Environmental Analysis. In D. L. Cleland & B. Bidanda (Eds.), Project Management Circa 2025.
Newtown Square, PA, USA: PMI.
Morris, P. W. G. (2011). A brief history of project management. In P. W. G. Morris, J. K. Pinto, & J.
Söderlund (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Project Management (pp. 15–36). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press, UK.
Smyth, H., & Morris, P. (2007). An epistemological evaluation of research into projects and their
management: Methodological issues. International Journal of Project Management, 25(4), 423–
436.
Taylor, T. (2014): Project management trends and fashions. BalticPM Days conference, May 8-9,
2014, Vilnius, Lithuania.