Challenges in the Era of Globalization - iaabd

Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference © 2011 IAABD
In their paper on the main findings of the Network, Winter, Smith, Morris and Cicmil (2006) argue that
the rational, universal, deterministic model (also known as the ‘hard’ systems model) is the most
dominant strand of project management thinking. The major criticism of this model is threefold: firstly,
its failure to deal in enough detail with the changing nature of ‘front-end work’; secondly for treating all
projects as if they were the same and thirdly for not accounting for human issues in enough detail. The
relevance of the ‘hard’ systems model was increasingly being questioned by practitioners.
The main disadvantage of mainstream project management methods and techniques is identified as the
fact that it does not provide guidance on how the complexities of projects in an ever-changing
environment should be balanced. Experienced project managers resolve these complexities through a
combination of experience, intuition and ‘the pragmatic application of theory’ (Winter et al, 2006). It was
highlighted that the development of the ability, to move from being ‘trained technicians’ who can follow
detailed procedures and techniques, prescribed by project management methods and tools, to being
‘reflective practitioners’ who can learn, operate and adapt effectively in complex project environments,
through experience, intuition and the pragmatic application of theory in practice (Winter et al, 2006),
together with leadership abilities, should receive much more attention in the training of project managers.
Cicmil et al (2006) voices the concern that the emphasis in the bodies of knowledge has been on project
managers as ‘implementers’ or ‘skilful technicians – ’which belittles their social and political role in the
complex arrangements called projects. They choose to include, over and above what they term the
‘instrumental rationality’ required of project managers (epistemological knowledge), the ‘value
rationality’ ‘which means recognising and coping with the operation of power in any social setting, the
need for intuition, multiple perspective, holistic thinking, moral and ethical consideration as part of
complex human interaction and relating.’
This ‘value rationality’ becomes the single most important survival skill of the project manager in an
environment that is often ambiguous, fragmented and highly politicised. Cicmil et al. (2006) does point
out that the perception of the value of these skills often depends on the level of exposure to this project
management discourse as opposed to the traditional project management discourse. The conventional
bodies of knowledge or ‘decomposition models’ separate the project from its environment, while the
systems thinking approach to project management includes ‘soft’ factors/variables that play a key role in
determining project behaviour. In complex and uncertain projects the risks are exacerbated by
conventional methods and therefore both instrumental and value rationality needs to form the basis of
project management practice so that the theory reflects ‘the richness of what actually occurs in project
environments’ (Cicmil et al, 2006).
Morris, Crawford, Hodgson, Shepherd and Thomas (2006) argue that certification that only indicated that
a body of knowledge had been internalised had limited value. Hence any training that focused exclusively
on one of the existing bodies of knowledge is described as both narrow and shallow. Very little research
informed any of the current bodies of knowledge (Morris et al, 2006) and that these bodies of knowledge
get their legitimacy from ‘group endorsement’. In fact, Morris et al. (2006) indicate that all the key
players in putting together the bodies of knowledge have a vested interest in changing it as little as
possible – by implication the emphasis will therefore remain on execution issues at the expense of
strategic issues, project definition, management of external factors and human behaviour and the
definition of other facets of the project management job family, namely programme managers, project
sponsors, portfolio managers, etc.
At this stage it would add value to focus on a study by Birkhead (1999) that identified the key
competencies required of project managers in South Africa. His research, involving all the members of
the Project Management Institute of South Africa (PMISA) at the time, indicates the following as the core
competencies required of project managers (in rank order): (1) Planning and controlling, (2) Personal
734