Beyond the Gantt chart:: Project management moving on

European Management Journal Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 92–100, 2001 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reservedPergamon

Printed in Great Britain0263-2373/01 $20.00PII: S0263-2373(00)00074-8

Beyond the Gantt Chart:Project ManagementMoving onHARVEY MAYLOR, University of Bath

Large-scale engineering projects have traditionallydominated the subject of project management.Today, however, project management has become acore business process for most organisations. Thispaper argues that the academic subject and manyof the practices have lagged behind this change.Particular problems are identified with the role ofstrategy and planning, the units of assessment, theplanning process itself and the body of knowledgeof the subject. An alternative view of project man-agement is proposed based on an integrative modeland areas for further development are identified. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Keywords: Project management, Gantt charts, Strat-egy, Operations management

Introduction

During a recent study of new product developmentpractices in a wide range of firms, one of the issuesaddressed was ‘Tell me how you manage projects.’Many responses were to the effect of ‘If you mean,“do we have a Gantt Chart for every project?” Theanswer is no.’ It wasn’t what was meant, but the factthat so many, both during this study and during themany executive development courses I have taught,viewed the Gantt Chart as representing ‘project man-agement’ is indicative of a very limited approach tothe subject. The Gantt Chart alone is a blunt instru-ment. In this paper, the traditional view of projectswill be compared with a new view — termed theBeyond the Gantt Chart approach. This is a hybridapproach, which combines best practices from prac-titioners with leading-edge management theory, withthe objective of defining a way forward for the sub-ject and the practice of project management.

Specifically, this paper reviews the current state andpotential future directions of project management

European Management Journal Vol 19 No 1 February 200192

and associated research activities. Projects are econ-omically important, both as direct value-earners andas means of carrying out organisational change.Indeed, a shift in value-adding activity from repeti-tive to project-based organisations has been noted(Kerzner, 1998; Peters, 1999). In addition, the skill-set of the project manager is very much in demand(Fortune, 10/7/95, pp. 121–122).

It will be demonstrated that this economic impor-tance has not been reflected in the level of importancegiven to the subject area, both in academe and inbusiness. Currently, performance in business projectsis generally perceived to be poor (Atkinson, 1999). Atthe same time, the subject appears to have failed tocapture the imagination of academics in the way thatknowledge management, for instance, has done. Thislack of wide-scale attention has resulted in the situ-ation today where there is considerable potential forthe subject area to be developed, from both an aca-demic and a practitioner perspective. This paper willidentify the areas where this potential exists and sug-gests specific issues that could move the subject for-ward. Such change has successfully taken place inrepetitive operations (both in theory and practice)over the past twenty years; a key question is whetherthis development can also occur in the project arena.It will certainly require a fundamental re-think of thenature of projects and the role of management in theproject environment, and how this differs from theapproach that has been used since the 1950s.

We conclude that many relevant issues are givenvery limited treatment under the traditionalapproach to project management and that this doesnot fit with the context in which project managers(regardless of whether they have that title) operatetoday in many industries, not least those of the ‘neweconomy.’ In particular, the need to make the subjectarea a more inclusive discipline is argued. This papercloses with a set of recommendations for explorationto develop their application within this approach.

BEYOND THE GANTT CHART: PROJECT MANAGEMENT MOVING ON

Is There a Problem?

Whether there is a need for a new approach dependson establishing that there is indeed a problem withthe existing approach. The existing or traditionalapproach is based on the computational planningand control models originating in large projects fromthe 1950s onwards, and used extensively by manytraditional project industries, predominantly contrac-tors to the aerospace, defence and large construction(Kerzner, 1998). The models are highly deterministicand based on techniques — notably PERT. Whilstthese models have been refined significantly over theyears, they are not considered useful by a large num-ber of world-class organisations. For example, con-sider the approach taken by the Japanese automotivefirms in their new product development projects andthese methods and approaches are nowhere to beseen (e.g. Clark and Fujimoto, 1991). Whilst whole-sale adoption of Japanese working practices is notbeing advocated here, the methods of Toyota (Sobeket al., 1998) in developing new vehicles in half thetime of their western counterparts, are surely worthyof study, particularly when they are so different frommore traditional project management. Given thatmany of the current business needs more closelyresemble those of Toyota, operating in saturated,hyper-competitive fast-moving global markets ratherthan that of the cost-plus defence contractors of yore,it is only appropriate that project management be re-considered. Firms such as Hewlett Packard andMotorola have done so with their practices makingthe traditional approach look anachronistic. Clearly,practice has moved ahead of the body of knowledgein many respects.

In addition to the project context having radicallychanged, there is even some doubt as to whether thetraditional methods are effective in many sectors.Collins and Bicknell (1997) showed that problemswith IT projects were perennial. In the constructionsector, various reports have highlighted systemicproblems with the methods of management in theindustry (Egan, 1998). Indeed, one interviewee dur-ing this work commented that, ‘The only way we hittargets is if we continuously “adjust” the baseline.’Shoot first and whatever you hit, call it the target.Given that project managers usually have an inputto the original baselines, how these were constructedis surely a topic for investigation.

There are clearly problems with the traditionalapproach. The next question is whether other areasmay provide ideas for improvement.

Are Other Areas Doing Better?

Many repetitive operations have improved their per-formance significantly over the past 20 years. In partsof the automotive supply, electronics and retail sec-tors, it is now common for deliveries to be demanded

European Management Journal Vol 19 No 1 February 2001 93

within a very limited time period, at a cost thatdecreases year by year, and with a level of qualitythat is expressed in Parts Per Million (PPM). Twentyyears ago, deliveries were infrequent and often late,cost escalation was normal and quality levels wereexpressed in terms of % defective (or AcceptableQuality Levels — AQL). This change in operationspractices and performance has been reflected in theliterature. Starr’s operations text (Starr, 1972) ignoresstrategy, in favour of Operations Research (OR) withmanpower management covered in reference to workstudy alone, and a heavy reliance on numericalmethods. In modern texts, operations strategy is akey driver of the text and the role of OR has beensignificantly reduced.

On the other hand, the chapters on project manage-ment have changed little over this 20-year period.Unlike operations’ rapid improvement, the problemsof projects seem to be repetitive. ‘War stories’ of pro-jects that have run over time, over budget or both arecommonplace in the press. This apparent lag behindoperations as a whole is considered further in thenext section.

The Key Issues

Role of Strategy

Buttrick’s (Buttrick, 2000) analysis of project failureshows that the lack of a clear strategy is a root causeof failure. I would go further and say that more than80 per cent of all problems at the project level arecaused by failures at a board level in firms to provideclear policy and priorities. This is consistent withDeming’s observation about product defects — thatthe vast majority are caused by ‘the system’ ratherthan by individual failure. The result of this at theproject level is conflict and confusion and ongoingtension over resources — particularly where theyhave to be shared with other projects. The traditionalapproach to project management provides little helpin this respect, putting the project manager in afirmly reactive position, with the causes of projectfailure already built into the project because ofthese conflicts.

Many firms believe that it is vital to provide focusto the project resources through the prioritisation ofproject resources and an aggregate project plan(Wheelwright and Clark, 1992; Maylor, 1999). Itwould appear that as Wickham Skinner showed inmanufacturing (Skinner, 1969), an organisationwhich attempts a limited number of projects at anyone time is more likely to be successful than one thatattempts many (due to the effects of queuing and badmulti-tasking — Goldratt, 1997). As with the devel-opment of manufacturing strategy (production man-agement re-invented as a strategic competence), thesame potential exists in project management. Cru-


Figure 1 Approaches to Strategy

cially, the business imperative now exists in sufficientareas of business to warrant such development. Thecomparison of the traditional and the BTGCapproach are shown in Figure 1.

As shown in Figure 1, the two approaches are sig-nificantly different. Using a traditional approach, itis often found that rather than aiming to create com-petitive advantage through projects, project man-agers are forced into the mode of trying to ‘minimisethe negative potential’ of projects (Hayes and Wheel-wright, 1984).

Units of Assessment

In the literature on the traditional approach to projectmanagement, it is striking that all of the project sys-tems are geared towards assuring conformance tobudget, scope and time constraints. Higher level con-siderations such as the need for excellence, continu-ous improvement and achieving customer delight areapparently outside the scope of the project manager.This is a major weakness and one that is similar tothe manufacturing management approaches to qual-ity management of the 1960s, where the emphasiswas on quality control and conformance tostandard/specification. The quality revolution in the1980s and 1990s completely changed the agenda inmanufacturing, but this paradigm shift seems to havepassed project management by in both the literatureand many instances of practice. Whilst project man-agers are judged by measures of conformance, themodern project requires real performance. The follow-ing discussion suggests further reasons for the cur-rent state and the gap between repetitive operationsand project practices in this respect. Table 1 summar-ises the comparison between conformance and per-

Table 1 Conformance and Performance Measures of Project Success

Time Cost Quality

Conformance As planned As budgeted As specifiedPerformance As short as possible As cheaply as possible Maximising customer delight


formance measures in the basic project success cri-teria of time, cost and quality.

Manufacturing or Service Paradigms

The manufacturing approach to quality championedconformance to specification as the metric for suc-cess. This relied on quality being definable througha precisely measurable set of characteristics. Whilstthis may work well for large-scale engineering pro-jects, the modern project environment requires amuch higher degree of customer orientation, con-sidering management of both perceptions and expec-tations. Furthermore, many modern projects do nothave tangible outputs. Rather than applying product-based measures of quality in such instances, service-based definitions and derived measures are far moreappropriate. The contrast between the two is illus-trated in Table 2.

Focus of Project Management Activities

Tatikonda and Rosenthal (1999) note that ‘Althoughthere is a substantial Operations Management [sic]literature on the topic of project management the pro-ject execution phase has received little attention inthis literature.’ Indeed, most texts implicitly suggestthat planning and systems are everything, and thatif plans and systems are put in place using the rightprocedures, then the project will succeed. As thisliterature appears to have been relatively stable overthe past 20 years, an opportunity therefore also existsfor a greater discussion of the role of managers in theexecution of projects. Further consideration suggestsanother difference between the traditional approachand current practices, concerning the nature of the


Table 2 Manufacturing and Service Approaches to Quality

Manufacturing Service

Definition Product-based — a precise and measurable set of Based on stakeholders’ expectations andcharacteristics perceptions

Attributes Performance, conformance, features, reliability, Access, communication, competence, courtesy,durability, serviceability, perceived quality and credibility, reliability, responsiveness, security,aesthetics (Garvin, 1984) tangibles, understanding/knowing the customer

(Parasuraman et al., 1985)

planning process, both the nature of the activity andthe tools and techniques.

The Planning Process

Scheduling and inventory control were key issues inthe operations management texts of the 1970s and1980s, necessitating a grasp of an ever-expandingarray of numerical methods. Just-In-Time — and toa certain extent the Theory Of Constraints (TOC) —changed the underlying problem that these numeri-cal methods had set out to solve. In project manage-ment, the traditional approach is focused primarilyon detailed network scheduling approaches for pro-ject planning (Tatikonda and Rosenthal, 1999), whichrequire increasingly complex tools and techniques tooptimise. Quite how effective these techniques are isdebatable given the number of high-profile failureswhere they have been used extensively. Recent devel-opments in the literature (specifically Goldratt, 1997)may change the nature of the scheduling problem inthe same manner as occurred with production plan-ning.

As previously discussed, project over-runs are con-sidered the norm in many areas of commercialactivity. Given the level of failure in projects wherethe classical techniques — particularly PERT — havebeen used, it is time to call them into question. Rand(2000, p. 175) speaks heresy in traditional terms byasking:

Why should there be need for other methods for ProjectManagement to replace or maybe enhance CPM/PERT?Self-evidently, CPM/PERT frequently does not work.

Goldratt (1997) questions our very understanding ofthe problem of project scheduling, rejecting tra-ditional methods of project scheduling on the basisthat:

1. There is too much uncertainty in plans — plansrequire (and indeed infer) a high degree of cer-tainty in time estimates to be representative mod-els. He contends that whilst it may be possible inthe short-term to consider likely scenarios, longerterm there are stronger factors coming into play —specifically uncertainty, which has to be managedas you progress (requiring flexibility) rather thanpre-determined actions;


2. The nature of the distributions used for planningare inherently flawed for two reasons: firstlywhilst delays will accumulate, any benefits froman early finish in activities are rarely passed on;secondly, estimates are often sandbagged orinclude large amounts of slack time built in byindividuals to protect themselves resulting in localtime buffers, which do not benefit the project over-all;

Goldratt’s solution is sufficiently different from pre-vious approaches to warrant some further attention,and uses the same logical basis — the Theory Of Con-straints (TOC) that has been successfully applied inmanufacturing. References to applications are cur-rently limited (Barber et al., 1999; Newbold, 1999;Leach, 1999; Maylor, 2000), but as applicationsincrease and software support improves(e.g.www.ProChain.com) this solution is likely to bemore widely used and be open to further evaluation.

Whilst there are clearly problems to be resolved here,further evaluation of the tools and techniques usedby project managers is timely. The Gantt Chart isprobably the most widely-used of these. Whilst com-puter-generated graphics and colour print-outs havegiven Henry Gantt’s production planning bar charta perceived new lease of life by imbuing a sense ofcertainty and they have retained their credibilitydespite contrary evidence, particular problems arisehere. Firstly, the Gantt Chart is a useful tool for thepresentation of time information concerning plans.This can be a presentation of predictions of futuretimings or graphical representation of past achieve-ments and disasters. It does not cover the reason whysuch planning is carried out — to enable modellingand analysis of project systems. Secondly, it encour-ages a one-step approach to planning. As a result ofthe presentation capabilities of modern planningpackages, the visual quality of colour charts meansthat they gain an implicit credibility. This can resultin staff being unwilling to challenge the charts, andso they gain a momentum all of their own. Thirdly,they encourage the project manager to over-controlthe project rather than devolve the responsibility forthe time-plan to team members. With the increasingpower and availability of the PC, and increased func-tionality and interfaceability of the software, there isthe tendency for the project manager to become notjust ‘keeper of the charts’ but also computer operator.This will often occur in a vain attempt to keep the


computer version of the project plan up to date.Many consider the predominance of planningsoftware not to be as helpful to the profession as thevendors of such systems would have us believe.Indeed as the projects director of a large constructioncompany recently commented, ‘I believe that com-puter-based project management software has set thesubject back 20 years.’

Many truly excellent organisations do not use thePERT approach to planning projects. One of HewlettPackard’s UK plants uses whiteboards and Post-Itnotes for project planning at the top level with indi-vidual sub-project managers free to use computerisedplanning software at the task level. This approach isan adaptation of the principle so well demonstratedby Japanese manufacturers in planning and schedul-ing — that of ensuring visibility. To assist in movingtowards more visual methods of planning, there aremay tools and techniques available to the projectmanager. Deployment flow charts are just one suchexample, which allow whole processes to be mappedsimply (Maylor, 1999; www.teamflow.com). Theseare fundamentally different from the ubiquitousGantt Chart — and are used for bringing the subjectof project management to the boardroom, by provid-ing better descriptions of project-based business pro-cesses. In addition, they facilitate communicationsand analysis appropriate at this level.

Definition of Project and Project Management

A project is often simply defined as ‘a one-offactivity.’ This definition was applicable for largeengineering projects taking carried out over long per-iods of time, but for today’s environment, causessome problems of its own. Firstly, it infers a degreeof novelty that is often mis-placed. Today, projectmanagement is concerned with a much wider rangeof durations and levels of complexity. Secondly, itdiscourages the role of consideration of projects as abusiness process, focusing instead on the technical orphysical aspects of the work involved. Projects todayare a core business process for most organisations.

The traditional view may still be current for somesectors, but it is argued that the business processview is superior. For example, during discussion ofthe role of the Deming Cycle (plan – do – check – act)as applied to project management, managers from aconstruction firm commented that ‘…our projects areunique, there is no role for review.’ Further investi-gation showed that the same mistakes were madeover and over again in projects. This was predictable;like hedgehogs squashed on the road, the lack ofevolutionary feedback in this system means mistakeswill be repeated. Discussions with managers from avery different firm showed that most projects startedwith the consideration of the documented reviewsfrom previous similar projects. The need to improvethe process was paramount. This was reflected in lev-


els of success comparable with the best in the worldtoday. The difference between the two cases showsthe benefits of treating projects as a business process,that can be improved and the learning managed fromeach time the project is run.

Treating a project as a process, in the traditional oper-ations sense of a conversion process, leads to a searchfor similarities rather than differences between pro-cesses. The underlying conversion process, and there-fore the task for management, has strong similaritiesacross many industries and many types of projectactivities. Firstly, at the individual task level, it islikely that there is little novelty. Indeed it is likelythat there are many repetitive operations being con-ducted. Whether this is designing a new product orimplementing an IT system, there are elements thatare common to many activities. The conventionalapproaches of operations management to the design,analysis and improvement of these processes areindeed highly useful rather than inappropriate, as theconventional definition would have us believe.

When the definition of the project is focused on thephysical product, two other characteristics generallyaccompany it. The first concerns the view of whatconstitutes ‘project management.’ The second con-cerns the role of the project manager. On the firstissue there has been much debate, though thisappears to have missed the central point concerningorganisational needs of project managers. Turner(1999) considers the need for project management todistinguish itself from general management for fearof losing its identity. The problem with this approachis that it is not backed by any level of professionaluniqueness, rather than a jealous guarding of the‘tools of the trade.’ Given the (lack of) success ofthese tools, as discussed in previous sections, thereis surely room for a different approach. This comeswhen one considers the role of project managers inmodern organisations. It is much wider than the con-ventional consideration of the subject leads us tobelieve. For example, Tatikonda and Rosenthal (1999)show project management as involving a large num-ber of disciplines and draw upon the literature oforganisational theory in particular to expand the dis-cussion of issues faced by project managers.

I suggest that this is a more generally applicablemodel and one that has been ignored for too long. Aproject can be redefined as a finite activity, which isa point of convergence for business functions, theor-etical disciplines and all parts of the value-stream.Projects differ from repetitive operations in that theyare more likely to involve inputs from other functionsand this is a key to broadening the subject base.Maintaining project management as a specialism thatignores this unique requirement to integrate knowl-edge and resources will keep the subject irrelevant toboth aspiring and high-performing organisations.The consideration of the role will be continued here,and the integration of academic disciplines discussedin the following section.


Gray and Larson (2000), p. 13) contrast an integratedapproach with that of the piecemeal approach to pro-jects. ‘Piecemeal systems fail to tie projects to theoverall strategies of the firm. Piecemeal project pri-ority systems fail to prioritise project selection toresources and those projects that contribute most tothe strategic plan. Piecemeal tools and techniques failto be integrated throughout the project life cycle.Piecemeal approaches fail to balance the applicationof project planning and control methods with appro-priate adjustments in the organisation’s culture tosupport project endeavours.’ They might usefullyhave added many more issues that are the victims ofpiecemeal approach to project management — moreare covered in the following section.

Evidence as to why there is such a piecemealapproach to project management must consider theelement of management training and education. Dur-ing a recent study of new product development man-agers, of 43 interviewed, none of them had had anytraining in the area of project management. It wasclear that people were given projects to manage(generally a cross-functional task) as a reward forgood functional performance. It was not generallyrecognised that the skill-set of a manager was any-thing other than that learned by experience. Giventhat the issue of ‘learning from experience’ hasalready been shown to be a weakness of the currentapproach, this is hardly a good basis for either indi-viduals or organisations to be progressing from. Thepromotional issue has been noted previously, thoughappears not to have been resolved. It has resulted inmany calling project management the accidental pro-fession (Kerzner, 1998).

Together with an apparent lack of training of projectmanagers, it was recently reported that project man-agement was an option on only two of the top 11European MBA programmes (Goffin, 1998). As a corevalue-adding activity this seems out of step with theneeds of practitioners and students, most of whomare/will be involved, if not full-time, then at least forpart of their time, in project activities. Considerationof this particular problem shows that this could bedue to a number of factors. Firstly, unlike operationsmanagement, the subject is still dominated bynumerical ‘skill’ issues. Secondly, with the currentliterature available on project management, the litera-ture is not sufficiently strategically relevant toencourage high-level debate.

Project Management as an Integrative AcademicDiscipline

Turner (1999, p. 329) notes that ‘Project managementlacks a strong theoretical base. Yes, there is an exten-sive body of knowledge, including many familiartools and techniques. However the Project Manage-ment Body of Knowledge [sic] is not based on a seriesof premises from which a strong, consistent theory is


derived, but more on conjecture. The Body of Knowl-edge is based more on empirical evidence than cer-tain knowledge.’ If project management does indeedlack a strong theoretical base it is perhaps because ithas been trying to establish its own domain withinthe management arena, but with little success. All thewell-developed theories of management are withinone or more specialisms that have many years ofdedicated research and development behind them.

The academic discipline of project management hasso far missed the very point of its existence. It shouldnot strive to become a specialism that develops itsown grand theories (those concerning planning havealready been questioned in this paper), but to echothe role that project managers take in practice and bethe integrators of knowledge and theory from all theother disciplines. So what are the grand theories ofintegration and what are the great and the good inproject management doing to promote them?Specifically — the academic discipline of projectmanagement should be aiming to be the point whereall the relevant knowledge is brought to bear on theproblems being faced. This is completely consistentwith the nature of project management of being‘where the rubber hits the road.’ Table 3 showsexamples of these areas of contact with project man-agement and some of the issues that are pertinent tothe subject. This also shows that there is a significantbody of theory to be drawn on for our purposes andit is not necessary to re-invent that particular wheel,but focus on the task of making project managementthe point of integration. Whilst this is achieved to alimited extent in the project management bodies ofknowledge cited in the following section, there is sig-nificant potential for these interfaces to be developedand greater integration of the work of these special-ists to take place.

Other areas that have significant bodies of knowl-edge that are highly pertinent include quality man-agement, information management (not just IT), per-formance measurement, organisational change,knowledge management, management science(though this has already been extensively used) andoperations management.

Within the project management arena there are anumber of formalised ‘bodies of knowledge’ whichare relevant to this discussion. These are reviewed inTurner (2000) and include those of the InternationalProject Management Association (Caupin et al., 1999),the Project Management Institute (Duncan, 1996) andthe Association for Project Management (Dixon,2000). Firms from the ‘traditional projects’ sectorheavily influence these documents and these formal-ised bodies of knowledge contrast markedly with thelive, rapidly moving but often tacit bodies of knowl-edge that exist in many high-performing firms. Withthe change in the nature of project management toencompass a wider range of activities comes the needto re-invent the bodies of knowledge. In particular,


Table 3 Issues for Integration

Area Relevant issues

Strategy Role of strategy in projects and projects in strategy; policy deployment; aggregate planning;policy and focus; creating competencies and competitive advantage; leveraging knowledgeand capability.

Human resources Selecting, managing and leading teams; motivation; empowerment; pay and control systems;skills development; job design.

Organisational behaviour Work structures and systems; communications; systems of authority, responsibility andresource allocation.

Marketing Customer and stakeholder needs analysis; expectations management; ongoing provision ofcues; management of marketing communications; post-project perceptions management.

Supply-chain management The integration of suppliers and customers into project teams; establishing long-termrelationships and developing networks of organisations (see following section).

Financial management Systems for evaluation; systems for planning cost, credit and budgetary control; financial riskevaluation; auditing systems.

there is an opportunity to make application contin-gent on the type of project being undertaken.

Conclusions

Projects represent an economically important set ofactivities. In developing the argument for a forwardmove in the subject area, some underlying problemsare identified with the universality of the traditionalapproach. High-performing firms, taking a radically

Table 4 Summary of Beyond the Gantt Chart Issues

Traditional approach BTGC approach

Role of strategy Projects are reactive Projects contribute to and form part of organisationalstrategy

Unit of assessment Conformance to plan/schedule Performance/excellence; project success measured byappropriate process and outcome measures

Prevailing paradigm Manufacturing — quality is a Service — quality is based on exceeding stakeholders’definable and measurable set of expectationscharacteristics

Focus of project management Planning All activities from planning through to post projectactivities review and marketing of project performanceThe planning process Employs predominantly tactical Whole range of tools and approaches applied as and

tools — typically CPA/PERT/Gantt when needed at strategic, systems and tactical levelsView of project and project Project is unique activity and project Project is a core business process which draws onmanagement management can only draw from similar processes for experience; project contains

things directly concerned with many elements of repetitive work. The project is aproject management convergence point for theoretical disciplines, business

functions and all parts of the project value-stream.Project management is an integrative discipline

Role of academic subject Subject defined by formalised bodies Subject is a live and rapidly moving body ofof knowledge, heavily reliant on knowledge updated by experience and regular testing;generic standards which assure regular trials of ideas from other sectors; recognition ofconformance; driven by traditional content through achievement; driven by cross-sectoralproject-based industries — in practices, generating new ideas and adding to theparticular heavy engineering, knowledge base on the application of existing ideas.defence, construction Academic input focuses on providing methods for

integrating the necessary knowledge into projects fromstrategy, HRM, OB, marketing, SCM, operations andfinance.


different approach to strategy, assessment, planningand the subject of project management itself havesolved many of these problems. These solutions havebeen synthesised into the Beyond the Gantt Chartapproach. The comparisons between this approachand the traditional are summarised in Table 4.

Areas for Further Research

If this approach is to be itself developed further,work involving practitioners and academics shouldbe carried out under the following headings:


1. Develop a set of normative models of practice andperformance in project management representingcurrent ‘best practice’ comparing this with the tra-ditional models. This is necessary if there is majorchange to be made to the current bodies of knowl-edge, and to find in different business sectors, whoare the leaders. As was expressed by a colleagueof mine recently — ‘Every sector needs its Toyota’;

2. Better integrate project performance and businessdrivers — notably the role of policy deployment inbusiness. Project performance management clearlyneeds development in the light of the move fromconformance-based measures and the popularityof approaches such as the balanced scorecard(Kaplan and Norton, 1992);

3. Knowledge structuring — the knowledge-base atpresent is too wide and poorly structuredresulting in confusion for practitioners. Benefitwould be gained from some attempt to structurethe knowledge available (e.g. on strategies,theories, conflicts, what has worked and what hasnot) and to represent projects in a more integrativeand contingent manner, rather than the stepwiseapproach of current efforts;

4. Knowledge management — the implications forproject management need to be addressed as thereare many aspects of organisational learning whereproject managers have a unique contribution tomake;

5. The role of TOC in projects — specifically anevaluation of TOC and whether the benefits areas widespread as claimed, or are more limited toparticular contexts;

6. Stakeholder management and stakeholder market-ing — the role of project managers in managingstakeholder expectations, perceptions and involve-ment in the project process is poorly understoodand consequently ignored by many project man-agers.

All of these are integrative areas, drawing further onthe bodies of knowledge of established subjects andcombining them with the needs of the various projectmanagement environments. The role of the projectmanagement academic is in this integration process.However, a critical approach to these developmentsis required. Promoting panacea after panacea willneither grow credibility for the academic subject norimprove the practitioner processes it purports to sup-port. Both the current and future issues deserve seri-ous consideration and the potential for this consider-ation to yield significant benefits is high. It is anopportunity that must be taken.

Acknowledgements

Dr Kate Blackmon at the University of Bath School of Manage-ment for her insightful comments on an earlier draft of thispaper.


References

Atkinson, R. (1999) Project management: cost, time and qual-ity, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its [sic] time toaccept other success criteria. International Journal of ProjectManagement 17(6), 337–342.

Barber, P., Tomkins, C. and Graves, A. (1999) Decentralisedsite management — a case study. International Journal ofProject Management 17(2), 113–120.

Buttrick, R. (2000) The Project Workout, 2nd edn. FinancialTimes Management, London.

Caupin, G., Knopfel, H., Morris, P.G.W., Motzel, E. and Pan-nebacker, O. (eds) (1999) IPMA Competence Baseline.IPMA.

Collins, A. and Bicknell, D. (1997) Crash: Learning from theWorld’s Worst Computer Disasters. Simon and Schuster,Basingstoke.

Clark, K.B. and Fujimoto, T. (1991) Product Development Per-formance: Strategy, Organisation and Management in theWorld Automotive Industry. Harvard Business SchoolPress, Boston, MA.

Dixon, M. (ed.) (2000) Project Management Body of Knowledge,4th edn. APM, High Wycombe.

Duncan, W. (ed.) (1996) A Guide to the Project Management Bodyof Knowledge. PMI, Upper Darby, PA.

Egan, J. (1998) Rethinking Construction. Department of theEnvironment, Transport and the Regions,http://www.construction.detr.gov.uk/cis/rethink/index.htm

Garvin, D. (1984) What does product quality really mean.Sloan Management Review Fall, 25–36.

Goffin, K. (1998) Operations management teaching on Euro-pean MBA programmes. International Journal of Oper-ations and Production Management 18(5), 424–451.

Goldratt, E.M. (1997) The Critical Chain. North River Press,New York.

Gray, C.F. and Larson, E.W. (2000) Project Management: TheManagerial Process. McGraw Hill, Singapore.

Hayes, R.H. and Wheelwright, S.C. (1984) Restoring Our Com-petitive Edge: Competing Through Manufacturing. Wiley,New York.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992) The balanced score-card — measures that drive performance. Harvard Busi-ness Review Jan–Feb, 71–79.

Kerzner, H. (1998) In Search of Excellence in Project Management:Successful Practices in High-Performing Organisations. VanNostrand Reinhold, New York.

Leach, L.P. (1999) Critical chain project managementimproves project performance. Project Management Jour-nal 30(2), 39–51.

Maylor, H. (1999) Project Management, 2nd edn. FinancialTimes Management, London.

Maylor, H. (2000) Another silver bullet? A review of TOC inproject management. In Proceedings of the 7th InternationalConference of the European Operations Management Associ-ation, eds R. Van Dierdonck and A. Verbeke.

Newbold, R. (1999) Project Management in the Fast Lane. StLucie Press.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985) A con-ceptual model of service quality and its implications forfurther research. Journal of Marketing 49(Fall), 41–50.

Peters, T. (1999) The Project 50. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.Skinner, W. (1969) Manufacturing — missing link in corporate

strategy. Harvard Business Review May–Jun, 136–145.Sobek II, D.K., Liker, J.K. and Ward, A.C. (1998) Another look

at how Toyota integrates product development. HarvardBusiness Review Jul–Aug, 36–49.

Starr, K. (1972) Production Management, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Tatikonda, M.V. and Rosenthal, S. (1999) Successful Executionof Product Development Projects: The Effects of Project Man-agement Formality, Autonomy and Resource Flexibility,presented to the Academy of Management Conference,Chicago, IL, August, 1999.

Turner, J.R. (1999) Editorial: project management: a profession


based on knowledge or faith?. International Journal of Pro-ject Management 17(6), 329–330.

Turner, J.R. (2000) Editorial: the global body of knowledge….International Journal of Project Management 18(1), 1–5.

HARVEY MAYLOR,School of Management,University of Bath, BathBA2 7AY, UK. E-mail:[email protected]

Dr Harvey Maylor isLecturer in Operationsand Project Managementat the University of BathSchool of Management

and a Visiting Professor at Kasetsart University,Bangkok, Thailand. Amongst his publications, Pro-ject Management (Financial Times, 1999) is theleading text in the area. He has worked with organis-ations from both public and private sectors as atrainer and consultant, and has received funding forhis work in project management and new productdevelopment from industry, UK government and theEuropean Commission.


Wheelwright, S.C. and Clark, K.B. (1992) Creating projectplans to focus product development. Harvard BusinessReview Mar–Apr, 70–82.

Documents

Beyond the Gantt chart:: Project management moving on