Many project managers cringe when the talk of project management processes are compared to the broader business process or organizational processes. Trained as specialist and wary of sweeping generlaizatons, they flinch when the "soft sciences" attempt to speak directly to the needs of project management management with claims of breakthrough solutions. When these claims are made in the absence of specific actions it is even more troubling to project managers in the field, since not only are they told their current practices are flawed, there is no actionable replacement – just philosophical jargon words.
Here in the field, these attempts to generalize remind me of the unique circumstances highlighting the situational differences in projects and their processes from general business situations. Where a “generalist” may see similarities I see uniqueness and limitations. These two points of view are not incompatible. The problem comes when an “actionable outcome” is desired from the generalist. The generalist don’t always have specifics – hence their position as generalist. The field PM’s don’t always see the larger patterns that emerge from their specific experiences. The disconnect between theory and practice is long standing. By searching for tools and processes that share a common understanding, it may be possible to join these two distinct points of view. In the absence of this connection, the practical aspects of project management must prevail, since “delivering the goods” is the principle measure of a PM’s success. I've come to the conclusion that “field experience” is a prized position from which to speak to PM issues. There are eloquent theorist in the PM realm, Lauri Koskela’s Theory of Project Management being one. But for the most part the usefulness of project management theory is to frame the daily actions of those delivering products and services to paying customers.
