تاریخچه ای از مدل های مدیریت پروژه : از پیش مدل ها تا مدل های استاندارد
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|3327||2013||7 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||5890 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Journal of Project Management, Available online 14 January 2013
The basis of project management theory includes, as is the case of many management theories an “articulated collection of best practices”, drawn for the most part from the study of major North American engineering projects. There is no history of project management comparable to the ones that have been produced for marketing, accounting or strategic analysis. Very few historians have studied projects as a specific activity and academics in project management are rarely specialists with archives or have familiarity with historical reasoning. Defining the historic trajectory of project management implies specifying the scope of what this history includes beforehand. To write a history of project management we must specify the object of this “historicization”. What are we dealing with when we talk about “history of project management”? A first objective of this paper is to define object and scope of this history. The author suggests a difference between “managerial practices” and “management models” and recommends writing a history of models rather than a history of singular practices. A second objective is to sketch the transition between pre-models of project to the standard North American model.
Project management has been in vogue since the end of the 1980s, even though it is not, by any means, a simple trend. Interest in the various means of steering human activities has not declined over time in the media, as well as managerial and academic circles. We can observe the development of project management in the service sector, mass production industries or public companies. Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello (1999, p. 154) have gone as far as to suggest that the “projective city” is an integral part of modern capitalist ideology. This article examines the projects conducted by people within organizations. Project management raises the dual issue of envisaging a future undertaking and the act of making it happen. Mastery of the unique and sometimes highly complex processes that constitute a project implies the implementation of specific management techniques (Turner, 2007). Research on project management has developed a great deal since the mid-1990s. The notion has earned a place in management sciences as an organizational mode and more generally as a system of anticipating and rationalizing temporary collective initiatives, or even as the foundation of a new theorization of the firm (Söderlund, 2004). While there is a global conception of the phenomenon (Boutinet, 2005), there is no unified theory of project management. According to Mats Engwall (1998), the basis of project management theory includes, as is the case of many management theories, first of all, an “articulated collection of best practices”, drawn for the most part from the study of major North American engineering projects. Project management has been hard to integrate in traditional management disciplines, even if it has become more widespread since the turn of the 21st century. In the business world as well, project mode is rarely institutionalized, at least at the corporate level, compared to finance, accounting, marketing or strategy. The functions of project leaders are only temporary and individuals are, over the long term, identified and defined professionally by their business skills rather than their project experience. Finally, project management is a generalized practice in contemporary capitalism and a legitimate field of research, even if it is still nascent (Blomquist et al., 2010). Project management is not a “crossroads discipline”, which would mean diluting its content and making it a “receptacle” or depository of what is produced elsewhere, in other academic disciplines. Project management exists in and for itself, with its own corpus of knowledge, concepts, organizations, methodologies and lines of thinking. The status of project management as a “theory” continues to compete for recognition against its “professional” dimension. This tension is commonplace in disciplines rooted in practices, especially when they are new. What are the main stages in the evolution of project management models and the determinants of their differences? Ordinarily, any historical approach is exciting because, in the social sciences, history is part of the laboratory. While converging contributions have emerged in the past five years and have helped structure the field of project management history (Scranton, 2008), this part of the laboratory is rarely explored in the case of project management. There is no history of project management comparable to the ones that have been produced for marketing, accounting or strategic analysis. Very few historians have studied projects as a specific activity (Scranton, 2008) and academics in project management are rarely specialists with archives or have familiarity with historical reasoning. As for specialists in project management, generally focused on the study of practices in real time, they rarely consider history or often only concede to a quick overview in the introductions of their work (Engwall, 2003). However, the intersection between the terms “project” and “history” is not an empty space. Whether the contributors are historians or researchers in management, we can find: – case studies generally presenting projects that are emblematic in their scope and success or failure, whether they concern events, works or new products (ex. Sapolsky, 1972 on Polaris project; Latour, 1996 on Aramis project; Lenfle and Loch, 2010 on Manhattan Project or Garel and Mock, 2012 on Swatch project). – Analyses of a sector or particular firm. For example, projects in aeronautics (Whittle, 2004 and Scranton, 2006 on jet industry) and railways (Caron, 2005) or development of project management in the automobile industry have been extensively studied (Midler, 1993). – “Typologico-historic” markers. For example Christophe Midler (1996) identifies four project management models (the entrepreneurial model, the engineering model, the Taylorist model and the concurrent engineering model) that have more or less succeeded each other over time. Note however that the emergence of one model does not necessarily correspond to the disappearance of another. This study defines the typical ideals of project management through organizational and economic characteristics, and situates them within specific timeframes and challenges. On the other hand, Navarre, 1989 and Navarre, 1993 has graded the modern history of project management according to two degrees: “degree zero” that, at the start of the 20th century, rendered project management autonomous and “degree one” that, during the second half of the 20th century, rationalized and defined a standard model for it. Many project management handbooks present a “historical section”, from past to present, sometimes with some anachronisms (Kozak-Holland, 2011). Defining the historic trajectory of project management implies specifying the scope of what this history includes beforehand. To write a history of project management we must specify the object of this “historicization”. What are we dealing with when we talk about “history of project management”? A first objective of this paper is to define object and scope of this history. We suggest a difference between “managerial practices” and “management models” and recommend writing a history of models rather than a history of singular practices. A second objective is to sketch the transition between pre-models of project to the standard North American model. This article primarily uses literature from project management journals and also the founder work of Jean-Pierre Boutinet and Christian Navarre. The first part introduces this difference between “managerial practices” and “management models” and reviews the premises of project management models. In the second part, project management is rationalized and then standardized, until a common model is defined, i.e. the one used in North American engineering.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The history of project management is both one of practices that are not or rarely institutionalized, followed by one of increasingly institutionalized ones. Up until the start of the 20th century, the history of project management was indistinct from the history of techniques or professions. The project activity had no specific status. Project management only became a management model in the 1950s and 1960s. At the time, it became independent and standardized, in particular because differences between business sectors were perceived as less important than common preoccupations in managing engineering projects. The standardization of practices and tools was widely encouraged by major contractors who viewed them as a way of rationalizing their efforts. Beyond the standard model, what could be the other(s) one(s)? Possibly a more agile and reactive “concurrent engineering” model could be defined. Industries that design new products and services implemented concurrent engineering at the end of the 1980s. They changed their organizations to develop projects more quickly. The automobile industry was the first to experiment with it on a large scale (Clark and Fujimoto, 1991). Concurrent engineering, through its widespread development, produced transversal links across traditionally functional organizations. It constituted a new approach to project development in anticipating certain tasks and decisions in order to delay as long as possible those that engage significant and strategic resources. Concurrent engineering and agile project management are management models supported by an “interactive” representation of the firm, extended beyond its original (IT, information systems, automotive) sector and promoted by institutions. Several areas in the history of project management might be explored further according to the definition of a management model. – The history of techniques and tools in project management. In that way, product management is clearly a contributor to modern project management. – The representations of the firm supporting the model (e.g. planning and control for the “standard model”; network, transversality and compromise for a “concurrent engineering model”). – The history of institutions and actors in project management. For example, the identity of project actors has gradually been constructed inside Renault since 1972, when the “project leader” function was created (Midler, 1993). More broadly speaking, the master builder, architect, engineer or “heavyweight project manager” represent different figures of the project actor over time. Gradually, in each profession, and then across business sectors, a specific identity has been constructed for actors in charge of projects. Firms, professional associations and public authorities all take part directly in this process. Their role and their contribution to the diffusion of models are a part of project management history. – Construction and deconstruction of “exemplary projects”. The work of Lenfle (2012) and Lenfle and Loch (2010) shows that pre-PMI US military projects are usually and wrongly presented as the roots of the standard model. A deconstruction approach leads searchers “to focus on the forgotten paths, the practices, models, organization that have been lost during the institutionalization of the (…) model” (Lenfle, 2012). Because this is only the beginning, the history of project management remains to be written.