Preparing project managers to deal with complexity Advanced project management education
Janice Thomas, PhD, Program Director,
MBA in Project Management, Centre for Innovative Management,
Athabasca University
Thomas Mengel, PhD, PMP, Associate Professor,
Renaissance College, University of New Brunswick;
Prepared for the Excellence in Teaching and Learning Project
Management Conference to be held in September 2007
Keywords: project management education; project management
development; project management knowledge; project leadership;
complexity;
2/16/2016
1
Preparing project managers to deal with complexity Advanced project management education 1
Abstract
Interest in project management is growing significantly. Yet, projects
continue to fail at an astonishing rate. At the same time, the role complexity,
chaos and uncertainty play within our projects and project environments is
gaining recognition in both research and practice. Hence, it is time to review our
understanding of project management education and reflect about how we
develop project managers to deal with the increasing level of complexity, chaos,
and uncertainty in project environments.
In this paper we discuss new perspectives and concepts for an advanced
level of project management education that may help develop the abilities
necessary to confidently navigate the dynamic organizational environments and
complex projects facing project managers today. First, we describe the evolution
of project management and project management education. In particular, our
review of the literature and of project management training programs
demonstrates the focus on standardization of the field and on preparation for the
professional designation of project managers. Next, we discuss the impact of
taking complexity seriously on the requirements for professional development of
project managers. We lay out the requirements for preparing project managers to
deal with complexity and present a comprehensive model of project manager
development. Finally, we discuss the characteristics of an appropriate framework
of project management education that does embrace uncertainty and unknown
possibilities. In particular, we examine how distance based education in project
management may help develop a learning community that collaboratively
questions existing theory and practice and develops innovative approaches as
well as caters to the needs of project management practitioners for extensive
learning opportunities within a flexible learning environment.
1. Introduction
Interest in project management is growing significantly and an industry is
evolving around project management training and education (Price & Dolfi, 2004;
Thomas, Mengel & Andres, 2004). Professional associations the world over are
introducing ever more project management standards and certification
An earlier version of this paper co-authored with Natalie Andres was presented to PMI’s North
American Global Congress in October of 2004 in Anaheim. Special thanks are given to Natalie
Andres for her help with the research presented in this paper.
1
2/16/2016
2
processes. Trainers and consultants produce an endless stream of courses and
assessment tools. Organizations invest in training, methodologies, etc. Yet the
trend towards professionalism and the focus on standardization come into
question as the behavioral and personal competencies of project managers
outside of project management standards appear to be more relevant for their
workplace performance (Crawford, 2005) than the tools and techniques
emphasized in the standards.
Furthermore, failures to plan accurately and control within “acceptable”
limits are commonplace and projects fail at an astonishing rate in spite of the
increasing interest in project management and project management
implementation over the last decades (Morris and Hough, 1994, Standish, 1994,
2004, Flyvbjerg et al., 2000), In fact, there is little or no empirical evidence that
trained and or certified project managers are any more successful than
“accidental” project managers in today’s complex world (Crawford, 2005).
At the same time, the role complexity, chaos, and uncertainty play within
our projects and project environments is gaining recognition in both research and
practice (Aram & Noble, 1999; Stacey et al., 2000; Ives, 2005, Jaafari, 2003,
Singh & Singh, 2002). Hence, it is time to review our understanding of project
management education and reflect about how we develop project managers. In
particular, we need to discuss new perspectives and concepts for an advanced
level of project management education that may help develop the abilities
necessary to navigate with confidence within the dynamic organizational
environments and complex projects facing project managers today.
In this paper we first briefly comment on the evolution of project
management and project manager development to provide background for the
paper. We examine the current status of project management educational
practices and compare them to the building blocks of advanced project
management education that does prepare for complex environments. The large
majority of providers and programs in North America seem to focus on the
PMBOK© Guide (PMI, 2004) based transfer of “know what” and “know how”
2/16/2016
3
aimed at improving the problem-solving skills of junior level project management
professionals. In Europe the focus is training to the standards provided by
professional associations such as the APM or on standards accepted by major
project owners such as PRINCE2 in the UK Government. We contend (as others
have recently (Crawford, Morris, Thomas and Winter, 2006 )that this level of
education fails to prepare project management students to deal with the
increasing complexity that they face in today’s working environment nor does it
make full use of existing innovative learning environments and techniques
(Mengel & Thomas, 2004).
Next we look at the impact of taking concepts of complexity and
complexity theory seriously on project management and project management
education. In particular, we demonstrate how highly adaptive and responsive
systems with a large number of independent yet interacting agents call for new
leadership approaches beyond the control-room metaphor of management (Ivory
and Alderman, 2005) and for an education of the understanding and creative
facilitation of change (Thamhain, 2004a, 2004b). We also explore recent project
management literature that discusses what skills and competencies project
managers need to be successful in a world that takes complexity seriously.
In addition, we discuss the requirements for an advanced level of project
management education that prepares project managers to deal with complexity.
Based on a three dimensional model of project management knowledge (Mengel
& Thomas, 2004), we suggest a more comprehensive approach towards the
development of the “emotionally and spiritually intelligent” project leaders
involved in highly complex and unique projects (Kloppenburg & Opfer, 2002;
Ives, 2005; Turner & Müller, 2005). In particular, in discussing how developing
the master project manager may go beyond the current focus on the transfer of
entry-level knowledge and on the training of basic problem-solving skills within
traditional learning environments, we build on earlier suggestions for advanced
project management education (Thomas, Mengel, and Andres, 2004).
2/16/2016
4
Finally, we explore opportunities for web-based education at the masters
level by looking at how this particular learning environment is conducive to
developing the specific skills required of senior project managers working in a
complex environment.
2. The Evolution of Project Management and Project
Managers
Over the past ten years, various standards have emerged and have
helped to increase the degree of professionalism of project management. The
International Project Management Association (IPMA) that represents members
of various national organizations primarily in Europe, Asia, and Africa (IPMA,
2007) “has developed its own standards and certification program which is
comprised of a central framework and quality assurance process plus national
programs developed by association members” (Zwerman and Thomas, 2006, p.
241). In 1996 the Australian Institute of Project Management (AIPM) published its
National Competency Standard for Project Management (AIPM, 2007), which
“was adopted by the Australian Government as part of that country’s national
qualification system” (Crawford and Cabanis-Brewin, 2006, p. 253). The
Association for Project Management in England also created “competency
standards” around project control and project management. Other national
project management organizations of significant size are actively involved in the
development of the “profession” in South Africa, Japan, and China.
However, “aggressive global growth over the last decade has given the
Project Management Professional (PMP) designation [of the Project
Management Institute (PMI)] widespread recognition and many organizations are
using it as an entrance requirement when hiring project managers. In this way,
PMP certification is beginning to control entry into the practice of project
management in many jurisdictions” (Zwerman and Thomas, 2006, p. 242). The
fact that the PMBOK ® Guide is accepted by the ANSI, IEEE, and Standards
Australia contribute further to the notion that it has “become the de facto global
2/16/2016
5
standard for project management” (Project Management Institute, 2004, p. 1).
Based on this development and on the efforts of the various project management
organizations to define a common ground for the standards to be applied in the
field and for the framework of professional competencies, one can argue that
PMI’s Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK®) and its process of
certification are moving towards becoming the quasi-standard of project
management in many regions of the world. This is why we will focus on this
particular standard in the following discussion.
Between 1996, when the first edition of PMI’s PMBOK ® Guide was
published (Project Management Institute, 1996), and 2004, (Project Management
Institute, 2004), various additional standards have been published (Project
Management Institute, 2000, 2000b, 2000c, 2002, 2003). Changes over the
various versions of the PMBOK® Guide show an increased perception of project
management being embedded in various environments (Project Management
Institute, 2000, p. IX) and “related endeavours” (Project Management Institute
2004, p. 2). . Specific references to team and stakeholder management as well
as to the professional responsibilities and adherence to ethics (Project
Management Institute 2004, p. 4; Mengel, 2005) acknowledge the importance of
knowledge areas and competence fields that reach far beyond the original
approach. However, the “softer” and more intuitive approaches to human
activities are still under-represented in the PMBOK® Guide which still focuses
almost exclusively on linear, rational, analytic approaches to the world, omitting
more flexible alternatives that include relational and improvisational perspectives
(Buckle & Thomas, 2003).
At the same time, there is no recognized development path for project
managers. The “Project Management Competency Development Framework”
(Project Management Institute, 2002b) identifies a rather comprehensive list of
knowledge and performance indicators including personal competencies crucial
for project management success in addition to the application of project
management knowledge (p. 57; Mengel & Thomas, 2004). However, these
extensive “shopping list” approaches to identifying project management
2/16/2016
6
competencies do not address the learning or development issues around how
these skills, competencies and characteristics are to be acquired, when and at
what level or for what kind of project. At present project managers are left to
choose among these lists based on their own best judgment.
Current approaches to educating project managers
In this section we provide an overview of the current focus of educational
programs in project management in regards to the competencies and capabilities
required by increasing complexity and uncertainty. We have systematically
scanned two sources: PMI’s Registered Education Provider (REP) database and
educational programs on project management offered by universities.
Educational programs in PMI’s REP database
1,486 REPs offer 12,500 programs or courses (retrieved February 23,
2007). However, only 954 of these offerings (7.63%) are targeted towards an
advanced audience. When searching for the keyword “complexity” or “complex”
within the programs offered, only 5 or 49 entries respectively were produced
(0.04% or 0.39% respectively offered by 36 providers or 2.42% of all providers).
Furthermore, analyzing the descriptions of the programs and courses offered
revealed the following result: in most cases the descriptions were not detailed
enough to dig deeper and assess what exactly the providers meant by the terms
“complexity” and “complex”. However, 5 out of the 36 providers referred to large
or multiple projects or programs when speaking about “complex” projects or
managing complexity. Others refer to teaching skills of advanced project
management in general (10 providers) or quality management, scheduling, risk
management, skills, scheduling in particular (5 providers) within complex project
environments. Two providers directly refer to preparing participants for APM or
PMP certification and one particularly helps to prepare for managing a project
management office within a complex project environment. Only one of these
respective programs is offered online rather than in individual or classroom
based training.
2/16/2016
7
The remaining 13 providers (less than 1%) explicitly touch on issues like
complexity theory and complexity science and their impact on project
environments and project management; project leadership in complex projects;
complex multicultural and international projects; and group dynamics and
knowledge management in complex environments and thus get close to what we
have described as the requirements of increasingly complex project
environments on project management education. Three of these providers
offered courses online. It appears noteworthy that while between 2004 and 2007
the number of REPs has increased from 1,210 to 1,486 (+22.8%) and the
number of offered programs has grown from 6982 to 12,500 (+79%) the state of
project management education as presented above has not significantly changed
within this timeframe (Thomas and Mengel, 2004) despite PMI’s recognition and
suggestion to REPs in September of 2005 that educational offerings for
advanced project managers were lacking.
Universities
We have looked at 15 universities and colleges that – as of February 2007
– offer project management programs through PMI channels or through webmarketing; most of them (12) offer their programs online. These institutions are
dispersed throughout the (English-speaking) globe with the majority of them
residing in the US. Most of the programs (10) offered are at the master’s level
(MBA, MA, MSc etc.); some offer certificates or doctoral programs. 8 out of these
programs are explicitly targeted at covering the PMBOK© Guide areas and
preparing for PMP© certification. Three programs touch on issues of complexity
in their program description. All of these do offer their programs in an onlineenvironment.
Emphasis on PMBOK© Guide and traditional educational offerings
The large majority of all providers and programs we reviewed focus on
PMBOK© Guide based, basic training. Even the few providers offering advanced
training – including universities offering courses at the graduate level – focus on
PMBOK© Guide based education prior to and at the level of professional
2/16/2016
8
certification. The majority of surveys of practitioner demand for project
management education tend to stay at the level of the PMBOK topics (Society of
Information Management, 2005; Center for Business Practices, 2006). Only two
providers of all that we reviewed explicitly go beyond the PMBOK© Guide level in
that it mentions certification as PMP© (or equivalent) as prerequisite.
In our research, we have had difficulty finding educational providers, either
REPs or universities that prepare their project management students to deal with
the increasing complexity that they will face in today’s working environment. Our
findings are supported by recent critiques of project manager education
(Crawford, Morris, Thomas & Winter, 2006) that question the capacity of current
education offerings to address a more complex world (Jaafari, 2003), strategic
and change oriented topics (Thiry, 2004), the tie between the topics taught and
the competencies required (Crawford, 2005), the need for unbounded and soft
systems thinking/training (Ives, 2005), and the need to focus on the practice of
managing rather than the tools and techniques of management (Winter &
Thomas, 2004) to mention a few. Clearly, there appears to be a gap between
what education providers are offering and what is needed to deal with projects in
today’s environment.
In summary, the development of project managers to date has followed a
very linear approach focusing on the development and transfer of “know what”
aimed at improving the competence of project managers on “most projects most
of the time”. This level of education falls into the realm of “training” which teaches
people to think, feel, and perform as instructed. This level of training does not
prepare people to deal with unexpected difficulties or unique situations. “Trained”
people tend to fear change and be unable to adapt to unexpected situations and
innovate new techniques and strategies (Siebert, 2005). There is very little that
training provides to the development of the “emotionally and spiritually intelligent”
expert project manager (Mengel & Thomas 2004, p. 5) involved in highly complex
and unique projects.
2/16/2016
9
The next section of the paper explores what taking complexity theory
seriously would imply for project management education, supported by recent
research findings on required project manager competencies.
3. Impact of Taking Complexity Seriously
The term “edge of chaos” has found its way into many practitioner
presentations at recent project management symposia. However, the term
complexity is often used in its more common sense or dictionary definition rather
than in the theoretical context of complexity theory. More often than not
practitioners talking about complexity are referring to the state or condition of
being complex, composed of many interconnected parts or complicated, intricate
or hard to understand rather than referring to the new understanding of
complexity as it is emerging from the hard sciences and focusing on highly
adaptive and self-organizing systems.
A brief introduction to complexity theory serves to show how concepts
from complexity theory provide a theoretical foundation to our discussion of how
to develop project managers capable of taking complexity in this sense seriously.
Complexity theory is concerned with the behavior over time of certain kinds of
complex systems. Complexity sciences are a relatively eclectic collection of
academic efforts crossing a wide variety of disciplines. The notion of complexity
and chaos has been widely studied in fields such as astronomy, chemistry,
evolutionary biology, geology and meteorology (Gleick, 1987; Kauffman, 1995;
Lorenz, 1995; Nicolis & Prigogine, 1989; Stein, 1989); however its translation into
management theory and education has been rather slow (Peters, 1987; Lewin,
1992; Gharajedaghi, 1999; Aram & Noble, 1999, Stacey et al, 2000). The
systems these researchers are interested in are dynamic yet unstable systems –
specifically those that are continually changing and evolving in a random fashion
– since it is within these systems that one must attempt to respond and make
decisions in this unpredictable environment – very different from the linear,
predictable systems traditionally studied.
2/16/2016
10
Organizational theorists drawing on this literature typically draw from one
or more of three approaches (Stacey et al., 2000): chaos theory, dissipative
structure theory, or complex adaptive systems.

Chaos theory is concerned with the behaviour over time of certain
kinds of dynamic yet unstable systems – specifically those that are
continually changing and evolving in a random fashion.

Dissipative structures build on this dynamic between stability and
instability to point out the potential for unforeseen consequences
embedded in deterministic linear equations (Prigogine, 1997).

Complex adaptive systems consist of a large number of
independent agents, each capable of behaving according to unique
principles of interaction and relation. Organizations are adaptive in
that they do not simply respond to events, but evolve or learn. Each
agent is guided by its own schema or rules of behaviour and also
by a scheme shared with other groups. Complex adaptive systems
are spontaneously self-reorganizing.
All three streams of research are interested in the two zones in which a
disturbed system may return to: a stable zone and an unstable zone. “Under
appropriate conditions, systems may operate at the boundary between these
zones, sometimes called a phase transition, or the ‘edge of chaos’” (Rosenhead,
1998).
As organizations become increasingly complex, understanding complexity
has become more and more important in organizational theory. The
interrelationships between internal and external environments – from the culture
and products through the competition and customers – force organizations to
make decisions based on multiple unknown variables. The increasing
unpredictability and complexity of unforeseen consequences of actions means
that new methods of managing, planning and executing strategy are needed. As
organizations adapt to these changes and to feedback they receive, they find that
strategy or project execution can no longer be modeled as linear outcomes of
2/16/2016
11
planned actions. Largely this is due to the inherent agency of individuals within
organizations who are charged with initiating change. These agents naturally
self-organize to accomplish pre-determined goals based on the feedback they
have received in the past, the current emerging circumstances and their
expectations of the future.
As these agents self organize to accomplish goals, organizations and
economies evolve and grow over time, and the inter-relationships and interactions become more complicated. At the same point in this evolution, what
Rosenhead (1998) called phase transitions occur where increased social
complexity results in complex adaptive systems increasingly evolving throughout
the organization and creating unpredictable changes operating on the edge of
chaos between stability and instability. Interestingly, it has long been known that
in order to initiate change in an organization you must be able to destabilize the
existing structures enough to introduce change while maintaining enough stability
for the organization to survive the change (Hinings and Greenwood, 1997).
Operating at this ‘edge of chaos’ requires managers to first pay attention
to relationships at all levels, second to realize that small changes can have large
unexpected results, and finally to understand that organizational activity is
emergent rather than planned (Lewin, 1992). Cooke-Davies (2004) suggests that
adopting an approach that recognizes projects as complex adaptive systems
means that people – understanding them, motivating them, communicating with
them, etc. – become the fundamental tools available to the project manager for
“managing” the project. Making sense, generating meaning, and learning
become far more important activities than the traditional “control” techniques
emphasized in traditional project management (Thomas, 2000). Guidelines
become tools to assist in making meaningful conversations with project
participants.
Singh and Singh (2002) conclude their introduction to the implications of
complexity and chaos theory in project execution by stating:
2/16/2016
12
“The implications are that project managers must begin to pay
greater attention to the non-linear and subtle influences in their planning
and management and shift away from the primal importance they grant to
quantitative analysis and project controls. This is not to say that managers
should begin to adopt their old seat of the pants approach to
management. To the contrary, managers must work at the edge of chaos,
where linear systems begin to fail and non-linear systems begin to
dominate. It is at this edge, or region, that managers can continue to
exercise basic controls (negative feedback) while hunting for new ideas
and systems to change the way business is conducted and projects are
constructed (positive feedback)” (p. 32).
In this view of the world, many of the rules around planning and control
that are currently taught in business schools or project management programs
are inappropriate and thus ineffective. New and different approaches to project
management such as “extreme” project management begin to emerge.
Thus, today’s project managers may not be equipped or trained
adequately to handle complex projects even though significant efforts have been
put into professionalizing project management and providing an ever growing
number of project management education courses (Price & Dolfi, 2004) based on
the traditional project management tools and techniques. We next turn to an
examination of what competencies current research suggests project managers
need to operate in a world that takes complexity seriously.
Competencies Required for Successful Project Management
Recent research has explored successful project management and raised
interesting assertions about the competencies of successful project managers
that need to be incorporated into any discussion of how to develop master project
managers. Shared leadership; social competence and emotional intelligence;
communication; skills in organizational politics; and the importance of visions,
values, and beliefs have emerged as competencies that are required from project
managers in complex environments.
In their review of 3,500 articles, journals and papers on project
management, Kloppenborg and Opfer (2002) have identified the “evolution of the
2/16/2016
13
project manager’s role to demonstrate their ability as leaders and not just
managers” (p. 41) as a key trend. Furthermore, Keegan and Den Hertogg (2004)
point out that the complex reality of projects suggests that reciprocal and
dynamic relationships and shared leadership increasingly become important due
to the temporary nature of projects and multiple and overlapping leader-follower
relationships. As a consequence, project managers must be both technically and
socially competent to develop teams that can work dynamically and creatively
toward objectives in changing environments across organizational functional
lines (Thamhain, 2004). Furthermore, Dainty, Cheng, & Moore (2005) have
identified the competencies of client-orientation, flexibility and self-control as
most important in this environment and concluded that they need to be integrated
into the competence frameworks in PM profession. Introducing the concept of
Emotional Intelligence (Goleman, 2004) into the context of project management,
Dulewicz and Higgs (2000, 2003) show that emotional competence accounts for
36% of leadership performance (as opposed to intellectual competence - 27% and managerial competence - 16%).
Furthermore, in order to be able to manage change in complex
environments, according to Hällgren and Maaninen-Olssen (2005) successful
project managers “used both formal and informal communication and interaction
to solve deviations” (p. 23) in spite of the existence of and expertise in traditional
methods. Hence communication is being presented as “integral to knowledge
sharing…whereby deviations can be managed” (Hällgren & Maaninen-Olssen,
2005, p. 23).
Others point out the importance of skills in organizational politics for
project success. Political savvy project managers move freely across hierarchical
and departmental boundaries if need be to achieve the outcomes required for the
success of their projects (Peled, 2000; Ives, 2005, Thomas, 2000).
Finally, the significance of a vision and shared beliefs and values has
increasingly been identified and demonstrated (Briner, Hastings, and Geddes et
al., 1996). Wang, Chou, and Jiang (2005) provide empirical evidence from the
2/16/2016
14
field of information systems of the importance of project managers’ ability to instill
a strong sense of purpose, beliefs and values in team members which positively
influences team members’ cohesiveness and team performance. Similarly,
Kendra and Taplin (2004) state that “for organizations to be successful with the
adoption of project management, they need to establish a shared set of values
and beliefs (a project management culture) that aligns with the social and
technical aspects of project management to achieve the organization’s business
objectives” (p. 43). Furthermore, Christensen and Walker (2004) provide
evidence from a case study from a major information technology project and
argue that “’project vision’ is a significant contributing factor to project success,
and, the communication and maintenance of a project vision will impact project
outcomes” (p. 39). They even conclude that a project vision ”may be the key to
successful project outcomes” (p. 39) This new focus on these “softer” project
manager competencies supports our assertion that taking complexity theories
seriously would a) help us to understand the current project environment in new
and different ways, and b) would require new types of competencies.
4. Requirements for preparing project managers to deal
with complexity
As a result, we raise the following concerns regarding educational needs
of project managers in complex environments. First, transformational leadership
and/or reciprocal, shared leadership process "knowledge" is not currently well
represented in project management education programs. Yet, Keagan and Den
Hertogg (2004) as well as Thamhain (2004) identify a great need for this focus on
leadership perspectives. A second set of needs not yet well addressed is "social
architecture", development of a culture of shared values and of a powerful vision,
decision making, team development, and team leadership (Thamhain, 2004;
Christensen and Walker, 2004; Wang, Chou, and Jiang, 2005; Pheng and
Chuan, 2006). Third, instead of raising project managers’ awareness for the
necessity of politics and contextual understanding (Ives, 2005), most programs
appear to produce more of the same left brain PM process oriented people.
2/16/2016
15
Fourth, the need to develop emotional and spiritual intelligent project managers
capable of building relationships effectively and of helping create meaningful
project environments (Zohar and Marshall, 2001; Goleman, 2004; Mengel and
Thomas, 2004) is currently addressed inadequately. Flexibility and adaptation
need to be introduced into conventional, linear project management models and
tools (Ivory and Alderman, 2006).
The following model (Exhibit 1; originally presented in Mengel and
Thomas, 2004) suggests how to relate the three concepts of intelligence
introduced earlier to the various levels and codifications as well as to the
following three dimensions of project management knowledge. This model further
indicates how increasing complexity and uncertainty call for a more
comprehensive inclusion of managerial and leadership knowledge respectively
into our “bodies of knowledge” - or at least our teaching of advanced project
management.
Exhibit 1: Three-dimensional model of project management knowledge
Using the structure of apprentice, journeyman, master model originating in
the medieval guild structure, and incorporating the insights from the work on
types of knowledge presented above into management knowledge (Mengel and
2/16/2016
16
Thomas 2004), Thomas, Mengel and Andres (2004) suggest a comprehensive
model of project manager development as described in the following table:
Characteristics
Apprentice
Journeyman
Master
Knowledge
Novices
Competent and
Emotionally
level
and Advanced
Proficient Performers
Beginners
Nature of
knowledge
Context
independent rules
Situational
elements
and spiritually
intelligent Expert
Categorizations
Intuitive,
of context dependent
holistic, synchronic,
and independent rules
synthetic
based on experience
and education
Nature of
Intelligence employed
Cognitive
Intelligence
Development of
Know What
Emotional
Intelligence
Spiritual
Intelligence
Know How
Know Why
Know Where,
when, who
Relation to
external environment
Reactive to
context environment
Role and Types
of projects
Team
leader
Relational and
Orientational,
responsive to context
Interpreting and
environment
transforming context
Manager of
systems type projects
Leaders of
complex adaptive
projects in uncertain
environments
Method of
application
Method of
Analytical
deliberation
Significant
Analytical
interpretation
Significant
Intuitive
leaps
Maintaining a
movement from one
levels of project
levels of project
position in this level
level to another
experience under
management
requires “giving
an experienced
experience; additional
back” to the
practitioner; formal
formal training in
occupation through
education in PM
advanced topics of PM
mentoring, training,
2/16/2016
17
fundamentals
researching practise
Exhibit 2: Comprehensive model of project manager development
This model indicates that the PMBOK® Guide and training based on
linear, rational, analytical knowledge only moves practitioners to the Competent
or Proficient performer level. Given that projects in a real time environment tend
to unfold as complex adaptive systems, effective project managers need to be
the masters and leaders who can act and react in a timely manner without having
to resort to time consuming analytical application of context dependent or
independent techniques. Advanced project managers need to be capable of
“staying with the ambivalence and ambiguity of the not-yet-known; recognizing
that how a situation emerges crucially shapes its meaning, interpretation and
social significance “(Chia, 1997; p. 84). Thus, development of the master project
manager requires going beyond the inculcation of standards of best practice.
In order to have enough adaptive capacity to handle the level of
environmental complexity and change found on many projects today the
following skills are needed by master level project managers: a high degree of
self-reference, the ability to thrive on change, a solid foundation in traditional
methods and techniques, and the ability to adapt to change and develop new
approaches on the fly - this has been called the “resilience factor” by Reivich and
Shatté (2002) and Siebert (2005).
Project management education is a relatively new field and has much to
learn from it’s elder sister Management education. As project manager also are
managers, we turn here to a discussion of how management education has been
criticized and what we can learn from their attempts to rethink what is required to
develop managers for today’s environment.
To better accommodate the need for preparing managers for the
ambiguity, complexity, and uncertainty inherent in today’s world, discussions of
critical management pedagogy have received considerable attention in recent
2/16/2016
18
years (Reynolds, 1998, 1999; Dehler, 2001; Alvesson and Willmott, 1992; Reed
and Anthony, 1992). Drawing from work in critical pedagogy out of the education
arena (particularly Freire, 1972 and Giroux, 1981), management theorists take a
constructivist approach, recognizing that knowledge is socially constructed and
that this makes the underlying values and historical assumptions in place a key
part of the usefulness of any knowledge in any particular situation. Giroux (1997)
suggested that critical pedagogy was necessary to turn out “students as critical
citizens capable of governing rather than simply being governed” (p. 259).
Perhaps in a similar way critical management pedagogy is required to develop
managers capable of managing and changing organizations rather than simply
being managed (or being a member of management).
From this critical perspective, the main role of management education is to
develop practitioners with the ability to synthesize and embed management
theory within their own experience and theories of practice, critically assess and
reformulate theories, and apply this information on the fly when appropriate
circumstances present themselves. Thus, critical reflection is a fundamental
component of a critical management pedagogy. Critical reflection entails:

questioning assumptions and taken for granted notions embedded
in theory and practice;

recognizing the processes of power and ideology inherent in
institutional practices, procedures and institutions;

exploring the hidden agendas concealed by claims of rationality
and objectivity;

and, working towards realizing a more just work environment
(Reynolds, 1998, 1999)
Following Giroux (1981), implementing a critical management pedagogy requires
changes to both curricular content and pedagogical method (Reynolds, 1998,
1999; Dehler et al, 2001).
5. Developing the Master Project Manager
2/16/2016
19
Much of our knowledge of project management to date suggests that the
tools and techniques we apply do not always result in successful projects
(Standish reports 1994 through 2004 show little change in the success of IT
project implementations). In fact, we see more and more clearly that the
traditional project management practices and project manager competencies
associated with certification processes and standards are not necessarily the
practices and competencies that are effective on complex projects (Crawford,
2005; Williams, 2005). Focusing on developing factual knowledge and subject
matter expertise has not prevented failure (Dörner, 1996). Traditional training and
even education focusing solely on a transfer of knowledge and intellectual
competency does little to prepare project managers to understand and cope with
the levels of ambiguity and uncertainty today’s projects almost inevitably present
them with.
We need to unlearn the “ideal of scientific detachment” (King, 1999, p.
125), the logical myth of reason and emotion being separate. Only if people
succeed to emotionally identify with common objectives, are they willing to
understand individual behaviour, goals, and motifs and to share values. In order
to “discover” new meaning and values (Frankl 1981), King (1999) suggests that
we first need to uncover and overcome our biases by learning to withdraw
temporarily from comfortable environments exposing ourselves to the unknown.
This will enable us to get to “know ourselves” and to discover new values and
meaningful perspectives. Only then will we be able to understand how to
transform reality accordingly.
Professional development “should focus on enabling… [the student]…to
understand the context which they are in” (Gunter, 1995). Project managers must
be taught to “seek first to understand” the increasingly complex environments
they are operating in as opposed to our current “biased…focus on problem
solving” and applying prescribed techniques (King, 1999, p. 114). Rather than
training project managers to apply tools and techniques, we need to prepare
them to diagnose situations, adopt appropriate tools and techniques, adapt the
tools and techniques as necessary, and to learn continuously. This level of
2/16/2016
20
education requires the learner to develop a keen level of self knowledge, the
intellectual skills to understand existing best practice and to adapt it as
necessary, and the emotional skills to motivate and coach team members.
Scholars and practitioners alike have recognized that the intellectual
understanding and mastery of a subject does not in itself allow for successful
application of this knowledge. Scholars such as Zohar and Marshall (1999)
suggest that managerial competency requires intellect (IQ), emotional
intelligence (EQ) and some capacity for finding meaning (SQ). We adapted this
framework to describe the types of knowledge required of project managers as
follows:
To reach the leadership level we need to recognize and better understand
our biases related to our focus on problem solving rather than on “seeking first to
understand” (King 1999). At first, the rush to solve the problem in front of us by
immediately applying the models at hand and without questioning their
assumptions and implications may hinder discovering the model to be part of the
problem. Linear thinking restricts awareness and understanding of context and
relations. Thus creativity and holistic thinking should be the focus of our
education.
Furthermore, people tend to feel safer in a familiar and well-organized
environment where they appear to be at home and in control. Especially in
stressful situations (typical of most project environments) we tend to avoid further
exposure to insecurity and focus on solving problems within the frameworks we
feel comfortable with. Rather than trying first to understand we appear to search
for simplified models of reality in order to cope.
Moving from analysis to synthesis, from breaking down to integrating, from
knowing to understanding, from asking “how to” to “when, where, why?” (King
1999, p. 116; Lester 1994) and integrating emotional and spiritual intelligence
into our cognitive approaches will move us ahead. It will help us grow from
novice to competent and proficient performers and finally to become experts
(Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986) that are emotionally and spiritually intelligent. As
2/16/2016
21
leaders we will be capable of leading, creating and transforming our environment
rather than reacting to the inevitable changes and challenges facing us.
Analytical thinking will help us identify what is, emotional approaches may
provide us with insight as to how people feel about what is and thus help us to
intuitively understand the dynamics of where we are going. Finally, the spiritual
capabilities may help us grasp new meaningful options of where to go. Personal
development towards knowing ourselves (the ability to understand why we do
what we do and the way we do it) is a major step towards understanding others
(the ability to understand why others do what they do and the way they do it) and
towards learning how to influence both towards solving crucial problems ahead of
us.
This comprehensive knowledge will enable us to intelligently apply our
bodies of project management knowledge successfully. Meaningful
communication based on listening and striving for mutual understanding will help
us to gain “a shared understanding of the project as a whole” (Ruuska &
Vertainen, 2003, p. 307). Thus we may get closer to what Ruuska & Vertainen
(2003) called “collective project competences”.
6. Opportunities for Distance Based Education
Project management education increasingly requires a framework
embracing uncertainty and unknown possibilities. Three things are required of
this training:
o it needs to flexibly fit into the work lives of senior practitioners,
o it should develop a learning community that encourages
questioning theory and practice; and
o it has to be of sufficient duration to give the students time to reflect
on action and then apply that reflection in action to close the
learning loop.
2/16/2016
22
It must also be at the Masters level to ensure the recognition and
dedication necessary to develop.
What is required is a transfer of knowledge and experience across
academics and practitioners of a sustained nature where practitioners are
encouraged to question deeply held assumptions and “given knowledge” both to
develop closely held pattern reading skills. Traditional “stand and deliver” lecture
based courses or short form seminars are unlikely to develop the “deep” thinking
changes required to instill a whole new world view in project managers who have
up to this point focused solely on rational analytical planning techniques.
Web-based delivery of Masters education may be an appropriate
approach. Some educators argue that web-based education is not simply offering
“more of the same” on a different platform but actually entails the need to return
to a truly “collaborative approach to learning” (Garrison & Anderson, 2003, p. 8)
that challenges the construction of our personal meaning by exposing us to a
larger, less familiar and constantly changing social context. Web-based
education enables and supports “communities of inquiries…where both reflection
and discourse are utilized to facilitate the construction of personally meaningful
and socially valid knowledge” (Garrison & Anderson, 2003, p. 21). Education in
these communities inspires reflection, sets the climate and supports the
discourse.
Project management education takes time and effort if it includes
providing the knowledge and tools on how to develop teams, to create a joint
vision and mission, and to contribute to and facilitate a process of exploration in
achieving moving targets. Creating the learning environment that is conducive to
the application of the acquired knowledge requires several weeks of full-time
training to even come close to real working life complexity found in the
participants’ work environments. However, many advanced project managers are
heavily involved in projects already and face difficulties freeing up the time
necessary for such training within a traditional classroom setting.
2/16/2016
23
Furthermore, multicultural and locally dispersed project teams frequently
call for intense virtual communication and collaboration that add to the complexity
of the project environments. That too needs to be reflected by respective
advanced project management education. Hence, the features of web-based
education that is build on professional knowledge as well as on the elements of
advanced leadership education may provide opportunities that traditional
classroom education does not offer.
New models of training and development need to support collaborative
approaches to learning and the construction of meaning. They need to help
create learning environments and communities of inquiry and should integrate
“social presence, cognitive presence and teaching presence” (Garrison and
Anderson, 2003) and utilize technology facilitating high interaction and being
highly independent of time and distance (e.g. computer conferencing) –
connecting anybody, anywhere, anytime, anyhow. Finally, new education
approaches need to allow for asynchronous interaction and multidimensional
form of communication and focus on facilitating the process rather than delivering
content. Needless to say, educators themselves need to be prepared through
change oriented “train-the-trainer” modules to be able to cope with the
requirements to facilitate these processes. In short, new project management
education needs to help learners to identify and cope with various levels of
complexity, change and chaos.
Distance education has made great strides over this decade in gaining
acceptance as an alternative delivery option within graduate education.
Numerous studies over the last decade have shown that, regardless of discipline,
there is no significant difference in the learning outcomes of distance versus
classroom students in graduate programs (Haga & Heitkamp, 2000; Levine,
2001; Mulligan & Geary, 1999; O’Hanlon, 2001; Ponzurick, France & Logar,
2000; Weigel, 2000; Worley, 2000). Others have shown that there are no
significant differences in student satisfaction (Arbaugh, 2000c; Phillips & Peters,
1999; Baldwin, Bedell, and Johnson, 1997) or participation rates (Arbaugh,
2000a, 2000b) between the two settings.
2/16/2016
24
In fact, the challenges of distance learning very much resemble the
challenges of project management in increasingly uncertain and complex
environments (e.g. virtual and globally dispersed teams). Therefore distance
education seems a very “natural” way of learning the skills and approaches
necessary for modern project management in complex project environments.
7. Conclusions
Our review of current models of project management training continue to
focus on transferring “know how” on knowledge areas and process groups
through programs delivered in traditional learning environments emphasizing
instruction and training. Developing the problem solving expert is privileged over
educating the understanding and creative facilitator of change. That may be an
appropriate approach to developing junior level project management
professionals. However, to encourage growth and development towards master
project managers another approach altogether is needed.
Project management education in a world that takes complexity and
complex adaptive or responsive systems seriously requires much more than the
transfer of know what or know how through traditional educational/training
methods. In order to meet the increasing requirements of complex projects being
conducted on the edge of chaos, we need more emphasis on educational models
supporting and fostering continuous change, creative and critical reflection, selforganized networking, virtual and cross-cultural communication, coping with
uncertainty and various frames of reference, increasing self-knowledge and the
ability to build and contribute to high-performance teams. Master project
managers need to develop the emotional and spiritual skills and capabilities to
create buy-in and provide orientation even in complex, unknown and uncertain
environments. Thus, they need to learn and practice how to lead the changes
into an unknown future by surfing on the edge of chaos.
Further they need to do this in a learning environment that fosters critical
reflection on theory while they engage in practice on an ongoing basis and within
self-organizing networks of self-managing teams continuously empowering each
2/16/2016
25
other. Distance education provides an ideal approach for many practicing project
managers to accomplish these goals.
References
Aram, E. & Noble, D. (1999) Educating Prospective Managers in the Complexity
of Organizational Life. Management Learning, 30, 3, 321-342.
Arbaugh, J.B. (2000a). An exploratory study of the effects of gender on student
learning and class participation in an Internet based MBA course.
Management Learning, 31, 503-519.
Arbaugh, J.B. (2000b). Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction
with Internet-based MBA courses. Journal of Management Education, 24,
1, 32-55.
Arbaugh, J.B. (2000c). Virtual classroom versus physical classroom: An
exploratory study of class discussion patterns and student learning in an
asynchronous Internet based MBA course. Journal of Management
Education, 24, 1, 213-233.
AIPM Australian Institute of Project Management. (2007). [datafile]. Retrieved on
February 25, 2007 from http://www.aipm.com.au.
Briner, W., Hastings, C., & Geddes, M. (1996) Project Leadership.
Gower Publishing, UK.
Buckle, P., & Thomas, J. (2003). Deconstructing project management: a gender
analysis of project management guidelines. International Journal of
Project Management, 21, 6, 433-441.
Center for Business Practices. (2006). The State of Project Management 2006.
Retrieved February 25, 2007 from
http://www.pmsolutions.com/experts/research_smry06.pdf.
Chia, R. (1997) “Process Philosophy and Management Learning: Cultivating
“Foresight” in management Education”. Management Learning. Editors J.
Burgoyne and M. Reynolds. London: Sage Publications.
Christenson, D. & Walker, D. H. T. (2004) Understanding the role of “vision” for
project success. Project Management Journal, 35, 3, 39-52.
Cicmil, S. (2006). Understanding project management practice through
interpretative and critical research perspectives. Project Management
Journal, 37, 2, 27-37.
2/16/2016
26
Cooke-Davies, T. (2004) De-engineering Project Management. Presented to the
International Research Network on Managing by Projects Biannual
Conference, in Turku, Finland.
Crawford, L. (2005) Senior management perceptions of project management
competence. Journal of Project Management, 23, 1, 7-16.
Crawford, L., Morris, P., Thomas, J. and Winter, M (2006)
“Practitioner
Development: From Trained Technicians to Reflective Practitioners”
International Journal of Project Management. Vol. 24, Iss. 8; p. 722
Crawford, J. K., & Cabanis-Brewin, J. (2006). Competency and Careers in
Project Management. In P. C. Dinsmore & J. Cabanis-Brewin (Eds.), The
AMA Handbook of Project Management (2nd ed., pp. 248-264). New York:
AMACOM.
Dainty, A. Cheng, M. & Moore, D. (2005) A Comparison of the Behavioral
Competencies of Client-Focused and Production-Focused Project
Managers in the Construction Sector, Project Management Journal, 36, 1,
39-48.
Dehler, G. Welsh, M.A. & Lewis, M. W. (2001) Critical Pedagogy in the “new”
paradigm. Management Learning, 32, 4, 493-511
.Dörner, D. (1996) The Logic of Failure. Recognizing and Avoiding Error in
Complex Situations. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.
Dreyfus, H.L., & Dreyfus, S.E. (1986) Mind over machine. The Power of Human
Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Computer. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (2000). Emotional intelligence - A review and
evaluation study Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 4, 341-368.
Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (2003). Design of a new instrument to assess
leadership dimensions and styles. Henley Working Paper Series
HWP0311. Henley-On-Thames, UK: Henley Management College.
Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N. & Rothengatter, W. (2003) Megaprojects and Risk.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Garrison, D. R. & Anderson, T. (2003) E-Learning in the 21st Century. A
Framework for Research and Practice. London-New York:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Gharajedaghi, J. (1999) Systems Thinking. Managing Chaos and Complexity. A
Platform for Designing Business Architecture. Boston, MA: Butterworth
Heinemann.
Giroux, H.A. (1981) Ideology, Culture, and the Process of Schooling,
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
2/16/2016
27
Giroux, H.A. (1997) Pedagogy and the Politics of Hope: Theory Culture and
Schooling, Boulder Co: Westview Press.
Gleick, J. (1987) Chaos: Making a New Science. New York, NY: Viking.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2004). Primal leadership: learning to
lead with emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Gunter, H. (1995). Jurassic management: Chaos and management development
in educational institutions. Journal of Educational Administration, 33, 4, 520.
Haga, M., and Heitkamp, T. (2000). Bringing social work education to the prairie.
Journal of Social Work Education 36, 309 – 324.
Hällgren, M. & Maaninen-Olssen, E. (2005) Deviation, ambiguity and uncertainty
in a project-intensive organization, Project Management Journal, 36, 3,
17-26.
Hinings, B. & Greenwood, R, (1997). The Dynamics of Strategic Change.
London: Blackwell Publishers.
International Project Management Association. (2007). [datafile]. Retrieved
February 25, 2007 from http://www.ipma.ch.
Ives, M. (2005) Identifying the Contextual Elements of Project Management
within Organizations and their Impact on Project Success, Project
Management Journal Mar, 36, 1, 37-50.
Ivory, C. & Alderman, N. (2005). Can Project Management Learn Anything From
Studies of Failure in Complex Systems?, Project Management Journal,
36, 3, 5-16.
Jafaari, A. (2003) Project Management in the Age of Complexity and Change.
Project Management Journal, 34, 4, 47-57.
Kauffman, S. A. (1995). At Home in the Universe. The Search for Laws of
Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keegan, A. and Den Hertogg, D. (2004). Transformational Leadership in a
project-based environment. International Journal of Project Management,
22, 8, 609-617.
Kendra, K., & Taplin, L. (2004). Project Success: A Cultural Framework, Project
Management Journal, 35, 1, 30-45.
King, J.B. (1999). On Seeking First to Understand. Teaching Business Ethics, 3,
113-136.
Kloppenborg, T. & W. Opfer (2002). The Current State of Project Management
Research: Trends, Interpretation, and Predictions, Project Management
Journal, 33, 2, 5-18.
Lester, S. (1994). On professionalism and professionality. Retrieved February 28,
2007 from
2/16/2016
28
http://www.devmts.demon.co.uk/profnal.pdfwww.devmts.demon.co.uk/prof
nal.htm.
Levine, A. (2001). The remaking of the American university. Innovative Higher
Education 25, 253 – 267.
Lewin, R. (1992) Complexity: Life on the Edge of Chaos. New York, NY:
Macmillan.
Lorenz, E. N. (1995) The Essence of Chaos. Seattle, WA: University of
Washington Press.
Mengel, T. (2005). Project Management Ethics: Responsibility, Values and Ethics
in Project Environments. Submitted for publication in: Dinsmore, P. (ed.).
The AMA Handbook of Project Management. New York: American
Management Association.
Mengel, T. & Thomas, J. (2004). From Know-How to Know-Why - A Three
111Dimensional Model of Project Management Knowledge. Presentation
at the PMI Global Congress 2004 - North America.
Morris, P.W.G., Hough, G.H. (1991). The Anatomy of Major Projects. A Study of
the Reality of Project Management. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.
Mulligan, R., Geary, S. (1999) Requiring Writing, Ensuring Distance-Learning
Outcomes. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26, 4, 387-395.
Nicolis, G. & Prigogine, I. (1989) Exploring Complexity. New York, NY: Freeman.
O’Hanlon, N. (2001). Development, delivery, and outcomes assessment of a
distance course for new college studies. Library Trends, 59, 8 – 27.
Peled, A. (2000). Politicking for success: the missing skill. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 21, 1, 20-29.
Peters, T. (1987) Thriving on Chaos. Handbook for a Management Revolution.
New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Pheng, L.S. & Chuan, Q. T. (2006) Environmental factors and work performance
of project managers in the construction industry, International Journal of
Project Management, 24, 24-37.
Phillips, M. R., & Peters, M. J. (1999). Targeting rural students with distance
learning courses: A comparative study of determinant attributes and
satisfaction levels. Journal of Education for Business, 4, 6, 351-356.
Ponzurick, T. G., France, K. R., & Logar, C. M. (2000). Delivering
graduate marketing education: An analysis of face-to-face versus distance
education. Journal of Marketing Education, 22, 3, 180 – 187.
Price, M. & Dolfi, J. (2004) Learning Preferences and Trends of Project
Management Professionals: PMI (2004) A Preliminary Report.
Presentation at the PMI Global Congress 2004 - Europe.
Prigogine, I. (1997). The End of Certainty—Time, Chaos and the Laws of Nature.
New York: The Free Press.
2/16/2016
29
Project Management Institute (1996) A Guide to the Project Management Body
of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). Newton Square, NA: Project
Management Institute.
Project Management Institute (2000) A Guide to the Project Management Body
of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). Newton Square, NA: Project
Management Institute.
Project Management Institute (2000b) Construction Extension to A Guide to the
Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). Newton
Square, NA: Project Management Institute.
Project Management Institute (2000c) Government Extension to A Guide to the
Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). Newton
Square, NA: Project Management Institute.
Project Management Institute (2002) Practice Standard for Work Breakdown
Structures. Newton Square, NA: Project Management Institute.
Project Management Institute (2002b) Project Manager Competency
Development Framework. Newton Square, NA: Project Management
Institute.
Project Management Institute (2003) Organizational Project Management
Maturity Model (OPM3) Knowledge Foundation. Newton Square, NA:
Project Management Institute.
Project Management Institute (2004) Exposure Draft of A Guide to the Project
Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). Newton Square, NA:
Project Management Institute.
Reed, M. & Anthony, P. (1992) Professionalizing Management and Managing
Professionalization: British Management in the 1980s. Journal of
Management Studies, 29, 5, 591-613.
Reivich, K., & Shatté, A. (2002). The Resilience Factor: 7 essential skills for
overcoming life's inevitable obstacles (1st ed.). New York, NY: Broadway
Books.
Reynolds, M. (1998) Reflection and Critical Reflection in Management Learning.
Management Learning, 29, 2, 193-200.
Reynolds, M (1999) Grasping the Nettle: Possibilities and Pitfalls of a Critical
Management Pedagogy. In J. Burgoyne and M. Reynolds (eds)
Management Learning: Integrating Perspectives in Theory and Practice.
Pp 312-328. London: Sage Publications.
Rosenhead, J. (1998) Complexity Theory and Management Practice, Science as
Culture. Retrieved June, 13, 2004 from http://human-nature.com/scienceas-culture/rosenhead.html.
Ruuska, I. & Vartainen, M. (2003) Critical project competences – a case study,
Journal of Workplace Learning, 15, 7/8., 307-312.
2/16/2016
30
Santosus, M. (1998). Simple, Yet Complex, CIO Enterprise Magazine, August
15, 1998. Retrieved June 20, 2004 from
http://www.cio.com/archive/enterprise/041598_qanda_content.html
Siebert, A. (2005) The Resiliency Advantage. San Fransisco: Berrett-Koelher
Publishers.
Singh, H. & Singh, A. (2002) Principles of complexity and chaos theory in project
execution: A new approach to management cost engineering. Journal of
Cost Engineering, 44, 12, 23-32.
Society of Information Management. (2005). IT Workforce Developments, Now
and Into the Future. Retrieved on February 25, 2007 from
http://www.simnet.org/.
Stacey, R., Griffin, D. & Shaw, P. (2000). Complexity and Management: Fad or
Radical Challenge to Systems Thinking? (Complexity and Emergence in
Organizations). London: Routledge.
Standish Group (1994, 2004) Chaos Reports. Retrieved February 25, 2007 from
http://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research/index.php.
Stein, D. (1989 ed.) Lectures in the Sciences of Complexity. Santa Fe Institute
Studies in the Sciences of Complexity. Lectures vol. 1. Redwood City, CA:
Addison-Wesley.
Thamhain, H.J. (2004a) Linkages of Project Environment to performance:
lessons for team leaderships, International Journal of Project
Management, 22, 7, 533-544.
Thamhain, H.J. (2004b) Team Leadership Effectiveness in Technology-Based
Project Environments, Project Management Journal, 35, 4, 35-46.
Thiry, M. (2004) How can the benefits of PM training programs be improved?
International Journal of Project Management, 22, 1, 13-18.
Thomas, J. (2000). Making Sense of Project Management. Unpublished doctoral
thesis University of Alberta.
Thomas, J., Mengel, T., & Andres, N. (2004). Surfing on the Edge of Chaos –
Developing the Master Project Manager. PMI Global Conference 2004 –
North America. Conference Proceedings. Newtown Square, PA: Project
Management Institute.
Turner R, and Mueller, R. (2005) The Project Manager’s Leadership Style as a
Success Factor on Projects: A Literature Review, Project Management
Journal, 36, 1, 49-61.
Wang, E., Chou, H., Jiang, J. (2005) The impacts of charismatic leadership style
on team cohesiveness and overall performance during ERP
implementation, International Journal of Project Management, 23, 3, 173180.
2/16/2016
31
Weigel, V. (2000). E-learning and the tradeoff between richness and reach in
higher education. Change 32, 5, 10 – 15.
Williams, T.M. (2005). Assessing and building on project management theory in
the light of badly over-run projects. IEEE Transactions in Engineering
Management, 52, 4, 497- 508.
Winter, M. and Thomas, J. (2005) “Understanding the Lived Experience of
Managing Projects: The Need for More Emphasis on the Practice of
Managing” in Frontiers of Project Management Research Edited by Jeffrey
Pinto, Denis Slevin and David Cleland. Newtown, Pennsylvania: PMI
Publishing.
Worley, R. B. (2000). The medium is not the message. Business Communication
Quarterly, 63, 3, 93 – 106.
Zohar, D, and Marshall, L. (2001) Spiritual Intelligence: The Ultimate Intelligence.
London, UK: Bloomsbury Paperbacks.
Zwerman, B., & Thomas, J. (2006). Professionalization of Project Management:
What Does It Mean for Practice? In P. C. Dinsmore & J. Cabanis-Brewin
(Eds.), The AMA Handbook of Project Management (2nd ed., pp. 236247). New York: AMACOM.
2/16/2016
32