Missing Dimensions Of
Project Management?

By Dr. Gerald Mulenburg, PMP:

Have we (meaning me, at least) been missing what project management is all about? One of my favorite ways of thinking about the complexity of project management has been to compare it to completing a puzzle where you don’t have all the pieces and need to make some of them up as you go along. Another favorite of mine is to think about it is as if I were a juggler trying to keep several balls in the air (scope, cost, schedule, quality, etc.), experiencing only brief encounters with each important part on some rotating basis. But I am now convinced I’ve been wrong because of the simplistic ways I’ve assumed projects can be understood and managed.

At a recent PMI Chapter meeting I had an epiphany about my distorted approach during the speaker’s presentation. The speaker provided insight into problem solving by not only identifying that there are only six different types of problems and cautioning us that to solve them requires choosing the correct approach for each particular type (http://www.problemsolving2.com), but also that many problems may require using more than one approach.

Project management is one such type of problem where my single puzzle or juggler thinking is insufficient. I now know that it requires a triple problem type approach. These three approaches include the following:

1) Puzzle problem thinking works on most projects to identify the pieces involved (at least I was partially right on this method), the interdependencies of the pieces, the constraints on them (resources, time, quality, etc.), and then working with standard tools (network diagramming, critical path, schedule, etc.) until a reasonable solution evolves or something can be changed to create a more workable solution (crashing, fast-tracking, use of float, etc.).

2) Uncertainties abound on projects as risk. This is where my puzzle and juggler solutions were weak, and need to be applied as part of the solution more than they are in many cases.

3) Dilemmas, however, were the key problem-solving link I was missing from my thinking. Dilemmas result from an imbalance between stakeholder requirements and expectations, and what can be achieved with the time and resources available to accomplish the desired scope at the appropriate level of quality. The dilemma is that you want to do what the customer wants, but can’t do it within the imposed constraints. As the famous “you can’t have all three” has shown countless times, flexibility is required somewhere. NASA’s experience with faster-cheaper-better projects shows the fallacy of demanding all three, treating the problems in projects too simplistically.

In my own work with researchers and scientists on their projects, I made it clear they could demand any two of the three constraints (schedule, cost, quality), but the remaining one belonged to me. And it actually worked with them! I’m now convinced that we can do better in our project management by considering that there are often three types of problems intertwined: a puzzle to be solved; uncertainties to be identified and dealt with; dilemmas to be solved in the best interests of both the customer and the project. Considering all three together will achieve a higher level of project accomplishment and success. I can’t wait to try this, or hear from someone else who has.

How have you managed the complexity of projects?