If we consider the traditional linear phase–centric approach to project management as described in places like PMBOK, assumptions emerge that negatively impact a project manager's ability to deliver value:
- Planning – it assumed that it is possible to produce a plan so that its implementation is merely a matter of executing a defined set of tasks in a predefined order. In fact planning is a continuous process whose changes are driven by the delivery of software into the hands of the users.
- Change – it assumed that changes can be stabilized early in the process. The concept that change must be avoided, somehow “controlled” through management processes, ignores the source of most creative solutions in the software development domains. Business and external market forces usually drive late changes and are a natural part of the business cycle.
- Stability – it is assumed that management can be given a plan to which it can commit. In fact by making this commitment, they give up the ability to take advantage of fortuitous developments in the business and technology environment.
The traditional project management approach is based primarily on “normative” and “rational” methods that make use of processes known to work. These methods are conveyed through standards and bodies of knowledge. They are independent of any specific application of this knowledge – that is they are domain independent. They assume the underlying processes are stable and not impacted by the very efforts they are trying to manage. One final aspect of the “normal–science” project management method is the overwhelming emphasis on “planning–as–management” paradigm. This paradigm creates several “myths,” including:
§ Clear–cut investment opportunities exist with an explicit purpose, beginning, duration, and end can be identified early in the project.
§ Low opportunity costs for each business or technical decision exist, in most instances with a reversible decision process.
§ Feasible, suitable, and acceptable project attributes can be identified early in its lifecycle.
§ Accurate predictions of project duration and resource demands are possible once the requirements have been defined.
§ Worst–case consequences can be determined well in advance and clear–cut mitigations can be created.
§ The failure of the project was due to lack of technical and managerial skills rather than inappropriate feasibility, suitability, or acceptability of the solution.
