http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/blind_men_elephant.html

We must look at project management in a more HOLISTIC manner and your definition just doesn’t achieve that……..

And yes, I totally agree that project management is nothing more than a subset of general management, which is OK…… That doesn’t diminish the importance of project management as a delivery system…. All it does is put in the appropriate context…..

Good debate regardless…..

BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta, Indonesia

Hmmmmmm……… I for one am not comfortable taking the “lowest common denominator” approach…….

I especially have a hard time accepting the premise that there has to be agreement to scope (why do so many projects run late and over budget if this was true?) as opposed to having an objective or outcome (which works whether you are a contractor or owner) and I also don’t see how there has to be “agreement to run the work as a project”? Look at flying a plane from City A to City B or removing an inflamed appendix? Both are projects but where did anyone say “Oh, I have a great idea, let’s run this as a project?”

Sorry but with all due respect, I think your definition is fatally flawed and the only valid or credible way to approach this is to build on what linguists have already agreed forms the basis of the English Language. As I see it, you are allowing the tail to wag the dog……

To do anything less is to bastardize the language, which we have already done badly enough already……. (See Wideman’s Comparative Glossary and count how many definitions there are for “Project” or “Project Manager” to see exactly why I think taking your approach is wrong)

BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta, Indonesia

Hmmmmmmm…….. Still doesn’t excite me much…..

“A project is a temporary organisation” OK…..

“established to accomplish an agreed scope of work,” Hmmmmmm….. Is it REALLY about a supposedly “agreed scope of work” or is it really about “achieve(ing) a particular aim or objective”?

“within defined constraints,” Pretty vague……. I’d rather see the constraints more clearly defined “within a specific time frame” and “skillful handling or use of limited or constrained resources”. This parses time from money, people, materials and other resources.

“which the relevant stakeholders agree” Hmmmm….. Dicey….. How often to the relevant stakeholders agree? This needs to be more clearly defined

“shall be managed as a project” ??? What other options are there? Managed as on-going operations? Not managed at all?

Going back to our English Language dictionary definition (restated) what about “with some reasonable expectation for success”? Your proposed definition ignores the risks involved.

And your definition as proposed totally ignores the fact that projects are undertaken (whether by Owners or Contractors) to achieve some BUSINESS OBJECTIVE “organization, administration and controlling these affairs in a business-like manner.”

Bottom line- I don’t see how we can rationalize or justify creating a definition which is NOT consistent with any standard American Language dictionary. (i.e. Oxford or Merriam Webster) One of the problems PMI, AACE and all the other professional organizations are making is they keep inventing new definitions without ever bothering to check to see if those definitions are consistent with the “official” versions of our language. No wonder we end up with a “Tower of Babylon” in terms of project management terms!!!!

BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta, Indonesia

We agree – Lynda posted this a few weeks back: http://www.projectmanagement.com/blog-post/20757/What-Does-Professional-Project-Management-Look-Like—Part-1-

I’ve been pushing for both PMI and AACE to incorporate these two often divergent views and thus far, only the Guild has recognized the importance of doing do.

HOPEFULLY when PMI’s new PMBOK Guide 2016 is actually published, they will incorporate it? So far, I have yet to see any evidence of it…..????

BR,
PDG Jakarta