January 3, 2009
Dear David,
I have read – I must say that too late – your very interesting editorial on future of project management. Currently I prepare (also too late) my Ph. D. thesis on knowledge in project management and your paper substantially extends my knowledge – or meta-knowledge.
I would like to comment one thing in your paper – I know that very basic – namely the definition of project, cited after PMBoK ® Guide 4th Edition. In my opinion this definition is logically inconsistent with the rest of PMBoK ® Guide. The well known definition says that, as all of us know, “A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service, or result.” But, from the other hand, according to the description of Develop Project Charter process (chapter 4.1) neither Project Statement of Work (input to this process) nor Project Charter (output) contains precise description of project product – I agree with this approach, they may not contain it. So let us for a while assume that the word “unique” in project definition means something. “Means” – i.e. it partitions products into “unique” and “not unique”.
But when we may tell whether a product is or is not unique? When the product is fully defined. And, all the time according to PMBoK ® Guide, project product is defined not earlier then after executing the Collect Requirements (new in fourth edition) and Define Scope processes, which aim is “[…] developing a detailed description […] of the product.” And just then you may tell whether a product is or is not “unique”. If it is unique – we may proceed with execution of the project. But what should happen if we suddenly see that it is not unique? PMBoK ® Guide does not say what to do in this case. The formal consequence of such situation should be – cancelling the project? Informing the initiator that he/she made a mistake?
Such an inconsistence would not occur under two conditions:
1. “Unique” means nothing, i.e. all possible project products positively pass the test of “uniqueness”. But if it means nothing it should be removed from the definition of the project.
2. There is no reference to characteristics of project product in project definition. If there is any such reference, it might be falsified after detailed product definition.
This was the formal, logical analysis of the project definition. And practical comment – who cares and tests whether a product is or is not unique? Project are chartered not “to do something” but to “achieve some goal”. And just the project business, not its product should be present in project definition.
Such comments may be continued. Let us look at first sentences of project definition. “A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service, or result. […] The end is reached when the project’s objectives are reached […]” No, this is inconsistent with the previous sentence (who cares for any project objectives, according to the first cited sentence?). It would be consistent if we replace the second with something like “The end is reached when the project’s product, service or result are completed […]”. But it would not be consistent with common sense.
The right and consistent definition of a project is in fact hidden somewhere else in PMBoK ® Guide. In section 4.1 you may find information that “Project are authorized due to internal business needs or external influence”. So the definition should be like this: “A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to satisfy internal business need or respond to external influence.” Only project characteristics known to its initiator at the time of its project initiation should be present in its project definition. Other approaches to project definition lead to inconsistencies shown above.
What you think about publishing this comment as a letter to the editor of PM World Today?
Best regards
Stanisław Gasik
Warsaw, Poland
sgasik@sybena.pl
www.sybena.pl
