Partnering, PM1960v85p, was that patch and it worked, at least for a while. Team building convinced people that they could get more of what they wanted by working to common goals. The process opened doors to problem solving by horizontal communication and mutual adjustment. Even so, people became cynical when there was no real change in the way projects were managed. Building trust was limited because the project management system could not assure the reliable of the release of work from one crew to the next.
Since then other efforts such as the Design-Build movement have tried by changing contracts and relationships to shift the optimization target from the activity back to the project. But effectiveness of this contracting approach remains limited by the same underlying assumption; a project is a set of sequentially dependent activities with such low uncertainty that it can be managed with central control. But a project isn't so simple and maintaining the fantasy only causes problems.
In reality, activities are often interdependent. They share resources, and/or the sequence and timing of tasks within one activity constrain downstream activities. Current project management fails to provide for this interdependence. It has no mechanism to assure that the flow of work between specialists is reliable, and no measures of its own performance. Worse, controls that pressurize managers to optimize activities result in sub-optimal projects. How often have we seen projects slide into chaos? On paper, the project and all activities may look great until the project is about 65% complete, but the best sequence of work has been destroyed because there is no control on the flow of work within and between activities. Waste abounds and value is lost under the pressure to optimize cost and schedule reports. Project controls have their function but they do not provide the information need to control production. They cannot answer questions about the production system like, “How well is our planning system working?” or “Where is the bottleneck?”
Projects are temporary production systems. Production systems can be conceived in three ways: 1) as a series of activities transforming inputs into outputs3, 2) as flows of materials and information between interdependent specialists, and 3) as a process for generating value for customers and stakeholders. Today's projects are complex uncertain and quick. Project management fit for dynamic projects needs a theory that embraces all three conceptions of production along with principles, techniques, and decision guides to define and assure project outcomes. In short, we need a new operating system, PM2001. This conceptual revolution will change the way work itself is managed.
3As in project management as currently practiced.
