"Magic Beans" or credible alternatives

Please Note is this a Theory Discussion, sparked by a recent post about the soon to be revealed possession of "magic beans" of project management.

    There's a notion going around these days that the processes and practices of project management are somehow one of the sources of project failure. There may be some truth to this. But as a trained scientist (although long since not a practicing scientist), such a conjecture needs to have a "test" of the hypothesis. Otherwise, it's just that conjecture. Possibly even uninformed conjecture. Happens all the time, even in hard science. Remember Tachyons - "an important connection between science and consciousness." Faster than the speed of light. Oh yeah the "Cold Fusion" mania. Even in hard science there are diversions from the  process of peer review and tested hypothesis.
    I diverge. The notion that "magic beans" are needed to solve these problems are trying to expand our minds to the possibilities of "alternative" project management approach.
    The magical aspects of managing projects is of course nonsense. But the issues and difficulties of projects and the processes applied to them is very real.
    I came across an interesting paper titled "A Memetic Paradigm of Project Management," Stephen Jonathan Whitty, International Project Management Journal (2005) 23 (8). At this site there are many other thought provoking papers.
    What strikes me here is the thoughtfulness of the papers in addressing the  same problems the "magic beaners" are trying to address. The primary difference is just this thoughtfulness.

Thoughtfulness - a trait of thinking carefully before acting, speaking or otherwise engaging. Intentful consideration.

Yeah, that's what missing from the conversation.

So What's The Real Problem Here
    After reading through the papers at the UQ site, it's clear there are still misunderstanding about the processes involved in managing projects. But it is clearer now that these misunderstandings come for not separating the Guide to the Body of Project Management from the Practice of Project Management. Because of course project management is a practice. Not one based on any recognizable theory - although there are those trying very hard to find a theory, replace the supposed theory with another theory, or in some way just speak about the theory and avoid the discussion of practice.
    What the problem is, is that some people want to replace common sense with common process. CMM then and CMMI went through this for awhile. Then figured out how to get results by asking common sense questions. The rapid - and possibly uncontrolled growth - of project management, the certification of project managers, and the application of pure and unfettered project management methods - is cause for concern.
    It's like the unfettered application of CMMI in the off-shoring business a few years back. Same problem, different process, same result. Every one was pretty much disappointed with the CMMI Level 5 shops (except a half-hand full) at delivering code that looked anything like CMMI Level 5 shop code.

So What's "A" Solution
    Not "the" solution - because there isn't one. But "A" solution?

• What are the stakeholders of a project interested in?
• What are the units of measure of success for a project?
• How would we measure this success in some units meaningful to the stakeholder?

Use of the term "value" is meaningless in the absence of a unit of measure

• How can the "human" equation be integrated with the processes, technology, and engineering equations needed to of manage projects.

These are the questions that need answers - not magic beans.

The Effective Leader Knows the Way, Shows the Way, and Goes the Way - anonymous