Some Insights on Research Issues and Method

An Epistemological Perspective of Project Management

I would like first to adopt Terry Cooke-Davies presentation of research issues and approaches in his International Research Network on Organizing by Projects (IRNOP IV) Conference paper as mine (Cooke-Davies 2000). Quoting Michael Polanyi (1959), he proposes an alternative epistemology both to positivism and constructivism. We do not want to separate personal judgment from scientific method.

We think that, especially in project management, knowledge has to integrate both scientific and mathematical aspects (operational research in network optimization for example) and fuzzy or symbolic aspects. A "reality" can be explained according to a specific point of view and be considered as the symbol of higher order (Guenon 1986) and more general reality (for example, a 2-dimensional form can be seen as the projection on a plan of a n-dimensional figure). We think that the "demiurgic" characteristic of project management involves seeing this field as an open space, without "having" but rather with a raison d tre. This is because of the construction of reality by the projects. Project management can be seen as a means to realize different purposes as Boutinet shows in his compass rose: technical/existential project and individual/collective project (Boutinet 1996).

Our vision of project management would be one of an integral function: the knowledge field is made up of differential elements, each of them being able to be defined (for example, cost control, scheduling, communication, quality, information system, temporary group) but seen as a whole. It is a transition to the limit. In mathematics the result of an integral is both quantitatively and qualitatively more than the sum of the parts. In another way, it is what we can call a system effect: parts A, B, and C form a system S, keep some of their properties and potential performances, lose some others, but gain some entirely new performances (Legay 1996).

Discourse on the Method …

"… of rightly conducting the reason, and seeking truth in the sciences" (Rene Descartes 1637).

I am in doubt as to the propriety of making my first meditations in the place above mentioned matter of discourse; for these are so metaphysical, and so uncommon, as not, perhaps, to be acceptable to every one. And yet, that it may be determined whether the foundations that I have laid are sufficiently secure, I find myself in a measure constrained to advert to them (Part IV).

The method we chose is the integration of inputs coming from several fields according to two dimensions. The first dimension is what we call the individual/organizational dimension. The individual level includes the aspects of project management having an impact on the person: bodies of knowledge, certifications, standards, best practices, and all project management tools, techniques, experiences, competencies, changes, and task performances. The organizational level includes the aspects of project management having an impact on the team, the organization: bodies of knowledge, maturity, standards, norms, best practices, all project management tools and techniques, project success and performance, and creation of value. The second dimension is what we call the synchronic/diachronic dimension. The synchronic dimension is made up of what has an immediate or short-term impact or effectiveness. It's the level of optimization, stability, predictability, and control. The diachronic dimension is composed of what has to be considered over a long period of time. It is the level of complexity, fuzzy logic, influence rather than control, creation of value, project performance, performance of the organization, and change of culture.

We are considering a map figuring only the first level of the inputs (fields). For example at a lower level knowledge management would include: Anthropology, Artificial Intelligence (Individual), Artificial Intelligence (Collective), Artificial Intelligence (Other), Cognitive Psychology (Individual), Cognitive Psychology (Collective), Complexity and Adaptive Systems, Linguistics, Organizational Learning and Management Science, Philosophy, and Sociology of Knowledge (Knowledge Management Consortium International [KMCI] website, last updated 06/18/99).

We have to note that we want to keep a general perspective according to the definition of the inputs; the different perspectives of each input are sources of pluralities of meaning.

1. Standards: Standards (including all organization standards: for example NASA 7120-5A, NSIA EVMS, United States Department of Defense (DoD) 5000, bodies of knowledge, best practices, norms, maturity models, and professional certifications) represent the social construct of the project management knowledge field mainly accepted at a time (Bredillet 1998), but as we put it forward higher they evolve according to changes in the global context (Gomez 1994).

2. Learning aspects: We will consider the different levels of learning: individual learning (Hawrylyshyn 1977), organizational learning (Senge 1990), single loop learning, and double loop learning (Fiol and Lyles 1985; Kim 1993). They represent both the structure and the process of learning (Romme and Dillen 1997).

3. Performance, value: The performance measurements have to be done at the different levels and according to the different time perspectives. Normative, prescriptive, or threshold definitions can be considered. The creation of value includes here all the developments on intellectual capital, intangible assets, and the different perspectives developed in this field (Sveiby 1998; Kaplan and Norton 1992, 1996).

4. Knowledge management: Knowledge management (KM) is "The art of creating value from an organization's Intangible Assets" (Sveiby 1999). With Sveiby we can define KM by looking at what people in this field are doing. "Both among KM researchers and consultants and among KM users there seem to be two tracks of activities—and two levels. The tracks of activities are 1) Management of information: Researchers and practitioners in this field tend to have their education in computer and/or information science. They are involved in construction of information management systems, artificial intelligence (AI), reengineering, group ware, and so on. To them knowledge equals objects that can be identified and handled in information systems. This track is new and is growing very fast at the moment, assisted by new developments in information technology (IT); 2) Management of people: Researchers and practitioners in this field tend to have their education in philosophy, psychology, sociology, or business/management. They are primarily involved in assessing, changing, and improving human individual skills and/or behavior. To them knowledge equals processes, a complex set of dynamic skills, know-how, and such, that is constantly changing. They are traditionally involved in learning and in managing these competencies individually—like psychologists—or on an organizational level—like philosophers, sociologists, or organizational theorists. This track is very old, and is not growing so fast.

The two levels are 1) Individual Perspective: The focus in research and practice is on the individual (AI specialists, psychologists) and 2) Organizational Perspective: The focus in research and practice is on the organization (re-engineers, organization theorists).

Crossing these two dimensions, we can capture one essential issue: There are paradigmatic differences in our understanding of what knowledge is. The researchers and practitioners in the "knowledge equals object" column tend to rely on concepts from Information Theory in their understanding of knowledge. The researchers and practitioners in the column "knowledge equals process" tend to take their concepts from philosophy, psychology, or sociology. Some development including KM and measurement of performance can be found in Bontis (1999) showing that creation of value and knowledge are closely linked, see Figure 1.

Figure 1: Mapping the Four Fields (Inputs) According to the Individual/Organizational and the Synchronic/Diachronic Dimensions

The Interrelation between the Fields

As many books and papers show it, the four fields we consider are in interrelation: for example Sveiby (1998) and Bontis (1999) integrate KM, intellectual capital, and measure and management of intangible resources. Some others (Morten et al. 1999) put forward the role of standardization to manage knowledge. Individual learning and organizational learning are the heart of numerous books and papers (Senge 1994, 1999; Kim and Senge 1994; Kim 1993; Morecroft and Sterman 1994; Garvin 1993). Many standards include the management of knowledge through the lessons learned (ICB 36, PMBOK 9.3, NASA 7120-5A, see "capture process knowledge" in each step), training, and building communities of practice (Wenger 1998). But these fields not only interrelate, they share the same fundamental way of seeing the world. To take into account complexity, one needs systems thinking and a system dynamics perspective. Thus, we have the integral function of the four fields, as seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Interrelation between the Four Fields and Their Integration through Systems Thinking and System Dynamics

After these short insights on research issues and method, we are going to propose some insights and elements to define a systemic and dynamic conceptual framework to design a lifelong learning process enabling concurrent development of individual competencies and the maturity of the organization in a perspective of creation of value.