Acting and knowing in temporary and project-based organizing : turning from the practice world to a liberation praxeology?

The purpose of this article is to offer a critical discussion about the “practice” lens and its weaknesses in addressing acting and knowledge & competence development in the context of temporary and project-based organizing. I demonstrate that “practice turn” and “phronetic proposal” are dual and opposite perspectives within the “practice” world, none of them being fully relevant to grasp project organizing and that each of them maintain the opposition between the “observer” and the “natives “of the practices. I suggest an alternate style of reasoning in order to address the dissatisfaction in face of problems, antinomies, perplexities and contradictions generated by the dichotomous thinking: a liberation praxeology rooted in Aristotle philosophy aiming, through praxis & phronesis and practical acquired experience & perfecting actualization, at reconciling facts & values and means & ends, and Ethics & Politics in the quest for human happiness and social good through project organizing.

Learning and acting in project situations through a meta-method (MAP) a case study : contextual and situational approach for project management governance in management education

The paper introduces the underlying principles and the general features of a meta-method (MAP method) developed as part of and used in various research, education and professional development programmes at ESC Lille. This method aims at providing effective and efficient structure and process for acting and learning in various complex, uncertain and ambiguous managerial situations (projects, programmes, portfolios). The paper is developed around three main parts. First, I suggest revisiting the dominant vision of the project management knowledge field, based on the assumptions they are not addressing adequately current business and management contexts and situations, and that competencies in management of entrepreneurial activities are the sources of creation of value for organisations. Then, grounded on the former developments, I introduce the underlying concepts supporting MAP method seen as a ‘convention generator’ and how this meta method inextricably links learning and practice in addressing managerial situations. Finally, I briefly describe an example of application, illustrating with a case study how the method integrates Project Management Governance, and give few examples of use in Management Education and Professional Development.

Project management governance : a situational approach

The purpose of this paper is to show how project management governance is addressed through the use of a specific meta-method. Governance is defined here on two criteria: accountability and performance. Accountability is promoted through transparency and performance is promoted by responsive and responsible decision-making. According to a systemic perspective, transparency and decision-making involve having information, tacit or explicit knowledge, as well as understanding of the context, the different parameters and variables, their interaction and conditions of change. Although this method of methods was built according a heuristic process involving 25 years of various researches and consulting activities, it seems appropriate to draw its foundations. I clarify first my epistemological position and the notion of project and project management, as Art and Science. This lead me to define a "Be" / "Have" posture to this regards. Then, the main theoretical roots of MAP Method are exposed: Boisot' s Social Learning Cycle, Praxeology and Theory of Convention. Then we introduced the main characteristics of the method and the 17 methods and tools constituting MAP "tool box", thus with regard to the project management governance perspective. Finally, I discuss the integration of two managerial modes (operational and project modes) and the consequence in term of governance in a specific socio-techno-economic project/context ecosystem.

Understanding the very nature of Project Management : a praxiological approach

Foreword: In this paper I call upon a praxiological approach. Praxeology (early alteration of praxiology) is the study of human action and conduct. The name praxeology/praxiologyakes is root in praxis, Medieval Latin, from Greek, doing, action, from prassein to do, practice (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Having been involved in project management education, research and practice for the last twenty years, I have constantly tried to improve and to provide a better understanding/knowledge of the field and related practice, and as a consequence widen and deepen the competencies of the people I was working with (and my own competencies as well!), assuming that better project management lead to more efficient and effective use of resources, development of people and at the end to a better world. For some time I have perceived a need to clarify the foundations of the discipline of project management, or at least elucidate what these foundations could be. An immodest task, one might say! But not a neutral one! I am constantly surprised by the way the world (i.e., organizations, universities, students and professional bodies) sees project management: as a set of methods, techniques, tools, interacting with others fields – general management, engineering, construction, information systems, etc. – bringing some effective ways of dealing with various sets of problems – from launching a new satellite to product development through to organizational change.

A discourse on the non-method

In spite of the activism of professional bodies and researchers, empirical evidence shows that project management still does not deliver the expected benefits and promises. Hence, many have questioned the validity of the hegemonic rationalist paradigm anchored in the Enlightenment and Natural Sciences tradition supporting project management research and practice for the last 60 years and the lack of relevance to practice of the current conceptual base of project management. In order to address these limitations many authors, taking a post-modernist stance in social sciences, build on ‘pre-modern’ philosophies such as the Aristotelian one, specially emphasizing the role of praxis (activity), and phronesis (practical wisdom, prudence). Indeed, ‘Praxis … is the central category of the philosophy which is not merely an interpretation of the world, but is also a guide to its transformation …’ (Vazquez, 1977:. 149). Therefore, praxis offers an important focus for practitioners and researchers in social sciences, one in which theory is integrated with practice at the point of intervention. Simply stated, praxis can serve as a common ground for those interested in basic and applied research by providing knowledge of the reality in which action, informed by theory, takes place. Consequently, I suggest a ‘praxeological’ style of reasoning (praxeology being defined as study or science of human actions and conduct, including praxis, practices and phronesis) and to go beyond the ‘Theory-Practice’ divide. Moreover, I argue that we need to move away from the current dichotomy between the two classes ‘scholars experts-researchers’ and ‘managers/workers-practitioners-participants’. Considering one single class of ‘PraXitioner’, becoming a phronimos, may contribute to create new perspectives and open up new ways of thinking and acting in project situations. Thus, I call for a Perestroika in researching and acting in project management situations. My intent is to suggest a balanced praxeological view of the apparent opposition between social and natural science approaches. I explore, in this chapter, three key questions, covering the ontological, epistemological and praxeological dimensions of project management in action. 1. Are the research approaches being currently used appropriate for generating contributions that matter to both theory and practice with regards to what a ‘project’ is or to what we do when we call a specific situation ‘a project’? 2. On the basis of which intellectual virtues is the knowledge generated and what is the impact for theory and practice? 3. Are the modes of action of the practitioners ‘prudent’ and are they differentiating or reconciling formal and abstract rationality from substantive rationality and situated reasoning with regards to the mode of action they adopt in particular project situations? The investigation of the above questions leads me to debate about ‘Project Management-as-Praxis’, and to suggest ‘A’ (not ‘THE’) ‘praxeological’ style of reasoning and mode of inquiry – acknowledging a non-paradigmatic, subjective and kaleidoscopic perspective – for ‘Knowing-as-Practicing’ in project management. In short, this is about making a ‘Projects Science’ that matters.