Lost Roots: How Project Management Settled on the Phased Approach (and Compromised its Ability to Lead Change in Modern Enterprises)

26 Pages Posted: 7 Nov 2009 Last revised: 17 Nov 2009

See all articles by Sylvain Lenfle

Sylvain Lenfle

University of Cergy-Pontoise; Ecole Polytechnique, Paris

Christoph H. Loch

INSEAD - Technology and Operations Management

Date Written: November 6, 2009

Abstract

The discipline of project management adheres to the dominant model of 
the project life cycle, or the phased stage-gate approach, of executing 
projects. This implies a clear definition of mission and system at the 
outset (to reduce uncertainty), and subsequent execution in phases with
 decision gates.

 This approach contrasts with the way the seminal 
projects were conducted that are credited with establishing the foundation of the 
discipline in the 1950s.

These
 projects started with missions that were beyond the currently possible, 
thus any solutions had to emerge over time. They succeeded by a
 combination of parallel trials (from which the best would then be 
selected) and trial-and-error iteration (allowing for the modification 
of solutions pursued over a period of time). 

Although the success of these approaches was documented and explained by scientific 
work in the 1950s, today they seem to fly in the face of accepted 
professional standards, making managers uncomfortable when they
 encounter them.



The explanation for this contradiction has its roots in the 1960s, when 
the so-called McNamara revolution at the Department of Defense gave a 
control orientation to the PM discipline. This shift was cemented by the 
encoded practices of the DoD and NASA, contemporary scientific writing,
 and the foundation of the Project Management Institute as a professional
 organization that translated the standard into the educational norm for 
a generation of project managers.

The project management discipline was 
thus relegated to a "grunt work niche" - the engineering execution of
 moderately novel projects with a clear mission. As a result, it has been
 prevented from taking center stage in the crucial strategic change 
initiatives facing many organizations today.

 This article describes the historical events at the origin of PM's
 reorientation, arguing that the discipline should be broadened in order
 to create greater value for organizations whose portfolios include push-the-envelope projects.

Keywords: Project Management, Strategy Execution, Stage Gate Process

Suggested Citation

Lenfle, Sylvain and Loch, Christoph H., Lost Roots: How Project Management Settled on the Phased Approach (and Compromised its Ability to Lead Change in Modern Enterprises) (November 6, 2009). INSEAD Working Paper No. 2009/59/TOM, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1501176 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1501176

Sylvain Lenfle

University of Cergy-Pontoise

33 Boulevard du Port
Cergy-Pontoise Cedex, Cedex 95011
France

Ecole Polytechnique, Paris ( email )

1 rue Descartes
Paris, 75005
France

HOME PAGE: http://crg.polytechnique.fr/home/lenfle/FR

Christoph H. Loch (Contact Author)

INSEAD - Technology and Operations Management ( email )

Boulevard de Constance
77305 Fontainebleau
France
+33 1 6072 4477 (Phone)
+33 1 6074 6716 (Fax)

HOME PAGE: www.insead.edu/~loch/fullcv.htm

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
403
Abstract Views
1,669
Rank
134,014
PlumX Metrics