تغییر پارادایم ها در مدیریت پروژه

This paper examines the academic literature on Project Management in relation to the hard and soft paradigms, two broad tendencies for thought and action that have had considerable impact on the development of a variety of comparable fields. A critical reading of the literature confirms strong links between the hard paradigm and Project Management. However, it is also demonstrated that undercurrents exist in the literature, which suggest a growing acceptance of the soft paradigm. Models of the field are presented through which the influence of these paradigms on the field can be understood, and a way is suggested in which further developments in the use of the soft paradigm in Project Management could be progressed.

Over the last few decades a great deal has been written about the hard and soft paradigms, two broad tendencies for thought which have had a strong influence on the development of a variety of practical and academic disciplines. Previous authors [e.g. [2] and [8]] have stated that the development of Project Management (PM) has been strongly influenced by the hard paradigm. However, there has be little in depth examination of the veracity of these claims in the PM literature. Others claim that the field of PM currently lacks a coherent underlying theoretical basis [e.g. [17] and [50]], that additional theoretical development is needed, and that the general “… conceptual framework is inadequate to the job it should be addressing” [49, p. 31]. Theory in PM is predominantly implicit. Development of an explicit theoretical basis for PM has been heralded as one of the most crucial issues in the development of the profession [11, p. 293]. It has been suggested “… that a paradigm change, long overdue, has to be realized” [11, p. 298]. The purpose of this paper is to explore whether claims regarding the hard paradigmatic basis of PM can be substantiated based on evidence in the PM literature, and to examine how the hard and soft paradigms have influenced, and are continuing to influence, the field. It is also argued that the field of PM may actually be in the process, not of a paradigm change, but an expansion of paradigms that are acceptable and applied within the field. This paper contributes to development of an explicit understanding of the theoretical basis of PM. Models of the role of the hard and soft paradigms in the field are presented, and some ways in which this paradigm expansion could be further progressed are suggested.

The theoretical basis of PM is predominantly implicit, and discussion of the theoretical basis of PM is rare. If the field is to progress, explicit understanding of the theoretical basis of PM is necessary, as it provides the opportunity to understand the assumptions which underpin practice, to question their appropriateness, and then consciously choose an alternative, when it is appropriate to do so. Examination of the literature shows many examples to indicate that traditional PM is deeply rooted in the hard paradigm. This is apparent in significant assumptions and attitudes regarding the purpose of PM, the contexts it is suited to, and the role that project managers are traditionally expected to play. By contrast, the influence of the soft paradigm on PM is less substantial, but it does appear that respect for this paradigm is growing within the field. Evidence of its influence is often in the form of authors identifying existing deficiencies or questioning existing assumptions, rather than embodying the assumptions of the soft paradigm in research or practice. The range of theoretical frameworks being applied in PM research and practice appears to be expanding, and the field “… shows a significant level of plurality” [14, p. 20]. Evidence for the influence of both the hard and soft paradigms on PM supports this. Increasing diversity of theoretical frameworks in the field of Information Systems has been heralded as “… as a healthy sign for research progress …” [45, p. 561] and a “… sign of maturation of a discipline …” [45, p. 559]. An increase in theoretical diversity can be taken as a health sign for the field of PM as well. A paradigmatic expansion provides increased opportunity for practitioners and researchers. What is visible, valuable, or considered relevant from any one paradigm is both dependant upon and limited by, the assumptions which underpin it. No one perspective is appropriate to all situations. For project managers in non-traditional application areas, it is necessary to be able to adapt the approach taken to suit the current demands. A wider variety of paradigms employed within the field increases the ways in which existing techniques are understood, allowing familiar techniques to be applied to new situations in novel ways.