An Overview of Project Management Development and Evolution over the Last 60 Years - Coursework Example

An Overview of Project Management Development and Evolution over the Last 60 years Introduction Project management is a discipline that involves planning, organizing as well as managing resources. Presently, this discipline is indispensable in contemporary organizations and industries because of its significance in successful completion of work through structured approach. As a result, industries and organizations using project management techniques accomplish the goals and objectives of their projects effectively (Meyer, n.d.). This paper offers an overview of the development of project management in the last 60 years. The roots of the project management are explored, including the early philosophies and their failures. Project management’s evolution has resulted in multiple theories. The fundamental project management theories are explored. Overview of the History of Project Management Over the Past 60 Years The project management growth and acceptance have changed considerably over the past 60 years. The changes in project management are still anticipated to progress into the XXI century, particularly in the multinational project management region. In the earlier days, the present project management was referred to as system management (Kerzner, 2009, p.37). Project management growth is rooted in its roles and responsibilities, authority delegation and decision-making besides corporate profitability. Approximately twenty years ago, industries and organizations had the choice of accepting or rejecting the approach of project management in their activities. In contrast, presently, certain organizations still operate in the old way despite the importance of project management in the stability and survival of companies (Kerzner, 2009, p.38). The General System Management Most experts in modern project management agree that project management was founded in systems management. It is, therefore, essential to understand the concept of system management. Consequently, project management is applied systems management because it puts into practice the principles of management across the organizational disciplines. The project management approach to organizational management has led to significant changes in philosophies of organizational theory and management. The principles of general systems theory are important because they form the foundation of project management (Kerzner, 2009, p.38). The general systems theory is categorized as an approach in management because it tries to resolve issues through exploring the comprehensive picture instead of individual elements’ analysis. The general systems theory has existed for over 40 years although its implementation has been impeded by the requirement of studying and analyzing new theories in development. The general systems theory exemplifies the establishment of a technique in management capable of cutting across several organizational disciplines, such as marketing, manufacturing, finance and engineering, and accomplishing the management functions (Kerzner, 2009, p.38). Project Management during 1945-1960 In the earlier years of this period, organizations and industries majorly managed their projects on an unplanned basis employing mainly Gantt charts or other informal tools and techniques (Azzopardi, 2009a; Ferrell, 2010, p.84). Project management during this period entailed line managers using informal management model to manage the organizational projects. The line managers were considered the project managers performing the duties required by the line organizations. Subsequently, the project would be forwarded to the next person in line and the previous line managers would be through with their contribution to the project (Kerzner, 2009, p.39). The challenges of this approach were that the failure of a project would be blamed on the line manager handling the project at that particular time. In this approach, customers did not have any input into the process, hence, complicating the process of filtering information. It was more challenging for customers to get the required information from the line managers when the projects involved were big and complicated (Kerzner, 2009, p.39). Over-the-fence management approach was changed by the Department of Defense (DoD) after challenges were realized in the arms’ race. The shift was toward a project manager who could be responsible for the whole project. Further, the concept was spread to cover all the activities linked to space program. The growth of project management started, albeit slowly with the defense and aerospace industries and extended to the suppliers of these sectors (Kerzner, 2009, p.39). Midway across 1950s, several organizations took interest in the practice and implementation of project management techniques as well as tools in their work. The US Navy was among the first organizations to embrace and advance the use of project management tools and techniques in their work, involving complex projects (Weaver, 2007, p.2). Moreover, the E.I du Pont de Nemours Company created project planning and scheduling (PPS) to help realize logical cost and time approximates building on the Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) created by the US Navy. The PPS project management technique was improved into critical path method (CPM) (Azzopardi, 2009). Project management has the benefit of standardization across various disciplines involved in a particular project, particularly in the information reporting and planning. Consequently, the evolution of project management took a different twist with the regime establishing a life cycle planning and control model besides a cost monitoring system (CMS) (Kerzner, 2009, p.39). The major challenge in project management was the economic issue of resource management (Lenfle and Loch, 2010, p.39). In addition, it initiated a team of project management auditors to ensure that project planning was achieved successfully. At this time, the private corporations were not interested in the concept because of the perception that it represented over-management cost with no logical values (Kerzner, 2009, p.39). Collectively, project management development emphasized network analysis and planning methods, such as the CPM and PERT (Crawford, Pollack and England, 2006, p.176). Project Management during 1960-1985 Project management growth and development was a necessitated and not a desired process. It was hindered because of poor reception of new management techniques essential for its effective implementation. The managers were unsure whether implementation of project management tools and techniques would benefit their different industries and organizations. During the mid- and late 1960s, several companies and organizations sought to acquire new management techniques as well as organizational structures to adapt swiftly to the changing business needs (Kerzner, 2009, p.39). Organizations with dynamic environments and complex functions such as computing, defense, construction, and aerospace moved toward project management techniques. As for the organizations and industries with less complex work and static environment, they maintained the informal project management techniques. The informal management meant that the project managers had limited authority. The projects were handled within one or more business areas but lacked formal communication means (Kerzner, 2009, p.44). Project managers, therefore, are very important in facilitating cross-project learning and communications progressively to improve the efficacy of the projects (Julian, 2008, p.43). In 1970s and early 1980s, the concept of project management was progressively increasing because of the restructuring due to the complexity, size and project values. The informal project management structures and philosophies lacked the capacity to handle effectively the big and complex projects (Kerzner, 2009, p.44). The important characteristics of project management gained widespread recognition as the techniques developed and progressed. During this period, the project manager had the sole responsibility of integrating activities across the business areas. Subsequently, the integration practice led to accountability by an individual, emphasis on the challenges encountered in the process, the need for coordination across various stakeholders, and appropriate application of integrated planning and control in the project (Kerzner, 2009, p.45). Project Management during 1985-to date During 1990s, organizations realized that project management implementation was an obligation and not a choice. Focus was, thus, shifted to how the implementation could be done and the pace at which this could achieved. The project development life cycle was established with five phases during the implementation process, namely, the embryonic, executive management acceptance, line management acceptance, the growth, and maturity phases. In the initial stage, the industry identifies the importance of project management. The drivers that influence the project management implementation through recognition by the executive include the expectations of the customers, the cost of the project, understanding of the executive, competitiveness, new project development besides efficacy and efficiency (Kerzner, 2009, p.46). The second phase of project management implementation is the acceptance of the executive management. The collaboration of the executive management is an essential aspect of project management. The third stage is represented by the acceptance of the line managers. If the executive fails to support the project, line managers encounter a challenge in working together. Similarly, if the project managers fail to support the process of project management implementation, the project is bound to be unsuccessful (Kerzner, 2009, p.46). Backing of executive management and the line managers leads to the growth phase of the project. At this phase, the organization commits its support to the development of project management. The fifth stage involves the organizational commitment in which the developed tools from the past stages are employed. Proper education and training is required to help the project management ‘toolbox’ besides establishing the desired culture in the company (Kerzner, 2009, p.46). The most important aspects of the project management life cycle which determine the pace at which the organization implements the project management successfully are education and training in addition to effective communication. The commitment of the organization in implementing project management is fundamental to the implementation time (Kerzner, 2009, p.47). The XX and the XXI centuries have been accompanied by a move toward standardization and compliance to the project management techniques and tools (Andersen, 2010, p.4). It has been established by most organizations and industries as the standard management methodology in operations (Rivard and Dupré, 2009, p.20). Several techniques emerged, and it became hard to harmonize their implementation in varied projects (Atkinson, 1999, p.337). As a result, efforts have been made to standardize and control the approaches used in project management. The project life cycle was established to help the project managers with the aptitude to manage the resources better and realize the objectives. Even so, there is marginal industry harmony in the project life cycle phases leading to application of unique methodologies by various organizations. The general standardized project life cycle by the Project Management Institute (PMI) includes initiation, planning, execution, control, and closure (Kerzner, 2009, p.48). Conclusion Understanding the history of project management offers an insight into the challenges and difficulties the discipline has undergone. Even though project management has achieved acceptance in several industries and organizations, the attempts to standardize it have not materialized with various models used by different organizations. The discipline of project management keeps changing and developing but the project managers remain important in successfully implementing projects. Training and effective communication between the stakeholders are some of the main characteristics of project management. Reference List Andersen, E.S., 2010. Are we getting any better? Comparing project management in the Years 2000 and 2008. Project Management Journal, 41 (4), pp.4–16. Atkinson, R., 1999. Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 17 (6), pp.337-342. Azzopardi, S., 2009a. The Evolution of Project Management. [online] Available at: [3 August 2012]. Azzopardi, S., 2009b. The Evolution of Project Management Part 2. [online] Available at: [3 August 2012]. Crawford, L., Pollack, J. and England, D., 2006. Uncovering the trends in project management: Journal emphases over the last 10 years. International Journal of Project Management, 24, pp.175–184. Ferrell, G., 2010. The five pillars of project management infrastructure – An interview with Glenn Ferrell. Journal of Digital Asset Management, 6 (2), pp.83–96. Julian, J., 2008. How project management office leaders facilitate cross-project Learning and Continuous Improvement. Project Management Journal, 39 (3), pp.43–58. Kerzner, H., 2009. Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, N.J. Lenfle, S. and Loch, C., 2010 Lost Roots: How Project Management Came To Emphasize Control Over Flexibility And Novelty. California Management Review, 53 (1), pp.32-55. Meyer, C., n.d. How Project Management Developed. [online] Available at: [3 August 2012]. Rivard, S. and Dupré, R., 2009. Information systems project management in PMJ: A brief history. Project Management Journal, 40 (4), pp.20–30. Weaver, P., 2007. The Origins Of Modern Project Management. Fourth Annual PMI College of Scheduling Conference. Marriott Pinnacle Downtown, Vancouver, Mosaic Project Services Pty Ltd., pp.1-21. Read More