COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THEORIES AND APPROACHES TO PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Abstract

Objective. Initially, we undertook a process of reconstructing the fundamental theoretical underpinnings of project management by juxtaposing key tenets of project management prescriptions with established theories within operations management. This inquiry revealed that project management relies on a composite theory of projects and management. Subsequently, we scrutinized this foundational theory of project management using two distinct sources of evidence: (1) competing theories, and (2) empirical validation. Remarkably, findings from both avenues converged, indicating deficiencies in the underlying theoretical framework of project management, suggesting the presence of superior or supplementary theories. Notably, no individual component of this theoretical foundation could be deemed sufficient, leading to a cascade of challenges in practical project management. These issues are essentially self-inflicted, stemming from the very theories and methodologies upon which we rely. Methods. During this study was analyzed a lot of theoretical information and used the following methods like, comparison method, abstraction method, analysis and synthesis. The shortcomings of both the project and management theories exacerbate one another, permeating through the project life cycle. Typically, initial customer requirements are inadequately explored, leading to disruptions during requirement clarification and subsequent changes, derailing project progress. As deviations from the plan occur, the cumbersome nature of updating the plan renders it obsolete, prompting a shift towards informal management practices. Consequently, tasks commence without all necessary inputs, resulting in reduced efficiency, task interruptions, and increased variability downstream. Correspondingly, controlling via performance baselines disconnected from actual progress becomes ineffective or counterproductive. In essence, systematic project management becomes a faсade, concealing reduced efficiency and diminished customer value. How has this situation persisted, despite the methodology's counterproductive tendencies rooted in an implicit and inadequate theoretical foundation? The endurance of traditional project management can be attributed to the absence of an explicit theory. While practitioners have observed methodological shortcomings, the lack of an underlying theory has hindered identification and critique of deficient assumptions. Conversely, alternative methods emerging from practical observations lack theoretical explanations, impeding their wider adoption. It is evident that project management as a discipline faces a crisis, necessitating a long-overdue paradigm shift. Results. While this paper does not propose a new theory of project management per se, novel theories identified as more robust or complementary to existing implicit theories offer insights into a renewed theoretical foundation. Scientific novelty. In this endeavor, we contribute by presenting an expansive, cohesive theoretical framework for theory development. Drawing from an extensive review of literature within project management and beyond, this framework encompasses four distinct types of theory, along with their constituent components and associated activities. Practical significance can be pursued through two avenues: firstly, by developing and trialing new project management methodologies based on emerging theories in operations management; and secondly, by consolidating and theoretically explicating advanced practices that diverge from current doctrine, fostering new insights and potential refinements in practice.