The "Theory" of Project Management

Generally speaking, a theory is a set of related ideas, principles and techniques that apply to a particular subject. Theories are typically used to explain a set of observations, and can provide us with an expectation of what should happen, barring unforeseen circumstances. However, the underlying theory of project management is somewhat implicit in nature. In other words, projects don't play themselves out systematically like mathematics or logic. What works in Project A will not necessarily succeed in Project B. The transitive property of mathematics is rarely observed in projects.

For that reason, some discussion of the conceptualizations behind the theory is warranted before discussing the fundamental considerations. The benefits of using a theory, in the context of conducting a project, are that the practical actions derived from the proper implementation of the theory can help us achieve our goals. I would start by establishing three levels of goals for any project: first, there is the general goal of getting the intended deliverable completed; second, there are technical (or internal) goals, such as cost minimization and adhering to a schedule, that means the project has been done right; and third, there are customer satisfaction (or external) goals, such as quality and functional utility, that means the right project was done right. By applying project management theory, we can (hopefully) dramatically improve the likelihood of reaching the third, and ultimate, goal.

To begin, project management is about managing work. Turner (1993), claims that work can be managed by decomposing total work into activities and tasks – that’s the basic concept. As the PMBOK Guide shows, these activities and tasks are the unit of analysis in the core processes of project management, such as scope management, time management, and cost management. Morris (1994) supports this description by outlining a project management approach based on four steps: first, what needs to be done; second, who is going to do what; third, when actions are to be performed; and fourth, how much is required to be spent in total, how much has been spent so far, and how much still has to be spent. Central to this sequence is the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), which is a key deliverable of the project planning process, and is crucial to scope management and project control.

The PMBOK Guide provides us with a second concept in project management, by laying the groundwork for planning progression. Ten core processes, including scope planning, scope definition, activity definition, resource planning, activity sequencing, estimating, and project plan development, have been identified to guide the planning process. The outputs from these processes are the project plans, which form the inputs to the execution processes. The implication here is that if you effectively complete these steps, you’ll have the necessary inputs for successful execution, which will lead to a successful project.

These two primary concepts – the project as a series of tasks and activities, and the core planning methodologies as guiding principles – can help us understand a general theory of project management, which is thus: by undertaking a series of sequential, yet interrelated, tasks to define, plan, prepare and execute a project, you will be able to effectively achieve technical success and customer acceptance.

Although this theory sounds relatively simple, we often find that organizations have trouble putting the concepts into practice. Some of the key reasons are a combination of limited resources, lack of understanding, and the perception that there are no immediate financial benefits to justify the time spent on project management (i.e. it’s a cost-center). More specifically, young organizations view formal project management as overly bureaucratic, and as a hindrance to getting business done. Yet, these organizations are the ones who can most benefit from the application of theories that improve structure and accountability – which are direct results of the two key concepts discussed above.

Additionally, the theory of project management helps organizations gain efficiencies through standardization and streamlining. An organization that understands their own business, by analyzing and consistently following the core processes, can lower costs and enhance service levels. These core processes can be documented, allowing the organization to work on ways to improve the work-flow and customer experience at each stage. This feedback loop creates a virtuous cycle: documenting the steps to produce a deliverable will lead to more consistent application of the processes, which leads to more standardization, then to continuous improvement, and then back to documenting the improved steps.

Furthermore, by increasing consistency, deviation rates will decrease and you will find improvements in predictability – lending credence to the theory suggested above that by breaking a project down into tasks and following the core planning methodologies, we can create a plausible expectation of the outcome. This application of project theory also provides more accurate measures of project progress, which enhances our ability to meet project goals.
By ignoring the fundamentals of project management theory, especially during the planning stages, we find that customer requirements are poorly defined, and the process of clarifying and changing requirements leads to disruption. This is one of the key reasons that projects fail – incomplete or inaccurate scope definition. The constant disruptions cause actual progress to drift from the plan, which becomes too burdensome to regularly update (adding to the perception that project management is overly bureaucratic).

Without an updated plan to work from, informal management becomes prevalent. This causes work to be rushed, which in turn causes tasks to be commenced without all inputs or prerequisites, leading to low efficiency, task interruption, and increased variability (degrading our ability to predict an outcome – hence the importance of the theory). Likewise, controlling by means of a performance baseline that is no longer based on actual status becomes ineffective, or simply counterproductive, and results in the customer needs not being met. When we fail to meet customer needs, it’s impossible for us to achieve project success.