European Management Journal Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 92–100, 2001 © 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain S0263-2373(00)00074-8 0263-2373/01 $20.00

Beyond the Gantt Chart: Project Management Moving on
HARVEY MAYLOR, University of Bath
Large-scale engineering projects have traditionally dominated the subject of project management. Today, however, project management has become a core business process for most organisations. This paper argues that the academic subject and many of the practices have lagged behind this change. Particular problems are identified with the role of strategy and planning, the units of assessment, the planning process itself and the body of knowledge of the subject. An alternative view of project management is proposed based on an integrative model and areas for further development are identified. © 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Keywords: Project management, Gantt charts, Strategy, Operations management and associated research activities. Projects are economically important, both as direct value-earners and as means of carrying out organisational change. Indeed, a shift in value-adding activity from repetitive to project-based organisations has been noted (Kerzner, 1998; Peters, 1999). In addition, the skillset of the project manager is very much in demand (Fortune, 10/7/95, pp. 121–122). It will be demonstrated that this economic importance has not been reflected in the level of importance given to the subject area, both in academe and in business. Currently, performance in business projects is generally perceived to be poor (Atkinson, 1999). At the same time, the subject appears to have failed to capture the imagination of academics in the way that knowledge management, for instance, has done. This lack of wide-scale attention has resulted in the situation today where there is considerable potential for the subject area to be developed, from both an academic and a practitioner perspective. This paper will identify the areas where this potential exists and suggests specific issues that could move the subject forward. Such change has successfully taken place in repetitive operations (both in theory and practice) over the past twenty years; a key question is whether this development can also occur in the project arena. It will certainly require a fundamental re-think of the nature of projects and the role of management in the project environment, and how this differs from the approach that has been used since the 1950s. We conclude that many relevant issues are given very limited treatment under the traditional approach to project management and that this does not fit with the context in which project managers (regardless of whether they have that title) operate today in many industries, not least those of the ‘new economy.’ In particular, the need to make the subject area a more inclusive discipline is argued. This paper closes with a set of recommendations for exploration to develop their application within this approach.
European Management Journal Vol 19 No 1 February 2001

During a recent study of new product development practices in a wide range of firms, one of the issues addressed 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?” The answer is no.’ It wasn’t what was meant, but the fact that so many, both during this study and during the many executive development courses I have taught, viewed the Gantt Chart as representing ‘project management’ is indicative of a very limited approach to the subject. The Gantt Chart alone is a blunt instrument. In this paper, the traditional view of projects will be compared with a new view — termed the Beyond the Gantt Chart approach. This is a hybrid approach, which combines best practices from practitioners with leading-edge management theory, with the objective of defining a way forward for the subject and the practice of project management. Specifically, this paper reviews the current state and potential future directions of project management


Is There a Problem? Whether there is a need for a new approach depends on establishing that there is indeed a problem with the existing approach. The existing or traditional approach is based on the computational planning and control models originating in large projects from the 1950s onwards, and used extensively by many traditional project industries, predominantly contractors to the aerospace, defence and large construction (Kerzner, 1998). The models are highly deterministic and based on techniques — notably PERT. Whilst these models have been refined significantly over the years, they are not considered useful by a large number of world-class organisations. For example, consider the approach taken by the Japanese automotive firms in their new product development projects and these methods and approaches are nowhere to be seen (e.g. Clark and Fujimoto, 1991). Whilst wholesale adoption of Japanese working practices is not being advocated here, the methods of Toyota (Sobek et al., 1998) in developing new vehicles in half the time of their western counterparts, are surely worthy of study, particularly when they are so different from more traditional project management. Given that many of the current business needs more closely resemble those of Toyota, operating in saturated, hyper-competitive fast-moving global markets rather than that of the cost-plus defence contractors of yore, it is only appropriate that project management be reconsidered. Firms such as Hewlett Packard and Motorola have done so with their practices making the traditional approach look anachronistic. Clearly, practice has moved ahead of the body of knowledge in many respects. In addition to the project context having radically changed, there is even some doubt as to whether the traditional methods are effective in many sectors. Collins and Bicknell (1997) showed that problems with IT projects were perennial. In the construction sector, various reports have highlighted systemic problems with the methods of management in the industry (Egan, 1998). Indeed, one interviewee during this work commented that, ‘The only way we hit targets is if we continuously “adjust” the baseline.’ Shoot first and whatever you hit, call it the target. Given that project managers usually have an input to the original baselines, how these were constructed is surely a topic for investigation. There are clearly problems with the traditional approach. The next question is whether other areas may provide ideas for improvement.

within a very limited time period, at a cost that decreases year by year, and with a level of quality that is expressed in Parts Per Million (PPM). Twenty years ago, deliveries were infrequent and often late, cost escalation was normal and quality levels were expressed in terms of % defective (or Acceptable Quality Levels — AQL). This change in operations practices and performance has been reflected in the literature. Starr’s operations text (Starr, 1972) ignores strategy, in favour of Operations Research (OR) with manpower management covered in reference to work study alone, and a heavy reliance on numerical methods. In modern texts, operations strategy is a key driver of the text and the role of OR has been significantly reduced. On the other hand, the chapters on project management have changed little over this 20-year period. Unlike operations’ rapid improvement, the problems of projects seem to be repetitive. ‘War stories’ of projects that have run over time, over budget or both are commonplace in the press. This apparent lag behind operations as a whole is considered further in the next section.

The Key Issues
Role of Strategy Buttrick’s (Buttrick, 2000) analysis of project failure shows that the lack of a clear strategy is a root cause of failure. I would go further and say that more than 80 per cent of all problems at the project level are caused by failures at a board level in firms to provide clear policy and priorities. This is consistent with Deming’s observation about product defects — that the vast majority are caused by ‘the system’ rather than by individual failure. The result of this at the project level is conflict and confusion and ongoing tension over resources — particularly where they have to be shared with other projects. The traditional approach to project management provides little help in this respect, putting the project manager in a firmly reactive position, with the causes of project failure already built into the project because of these conflicts. Many firms believe that it is vital to provide focus to the project resources through the prioritisation of project resources and an aggregate project plan (Wheelwright and Clark, 1992; Maylor, 1999). It would appear that as Wickham Skinner showed in manufacturing (Skinner, 1969), an organisation which attempts a limited number of projects at any one time is more likely to be successful than one that attempts many (due to the effects of queuing and bad multi-tasking — Goldratt, 1997). As with the development of manufacturing strategy (production management re-invented as a strategic competence), the same potential exists in project management. Cru93

Are Other Areas Doing Better? Many repetitive operations have improved their performance significantly over the past 20 years. In parts of the automotive supply, electronics and retail sectors, it is now common for deliveries to be demanded
European Management Journal Vol 19 No 1 February 2001


Figure 1 Approaches to Strategy

cially, the business imperative now exists in sufficient areas of business to warrant such development. The comparison of the traditional and the BTGC approach are shown in Figure 1. As shown in Figure 1, the two approaches are significantly different. Using a traditional approach, it is often found that rather than aiming to create competitive advantage through projects, project managers are forced into the mode of trying to ‘minimise the negative potential’ of projects (Hayes and Wheelwright, 1984).

formance measures in the basic project success criteria of time, cost and quality.

Manufacturing or Service Paradigms The manufacturing approach to quality championed conformance to specification as the metric for success. This relied on quality being definable through a precisely measurable set of characteristics. Whilst this may work well for large-scale engineering projects, the modern project environment requires a much higher degree of customer orientation, considering management of both perceptions and expectations. Furthermore, many modern projects do not have tangible outputs. Rather than applying productbased measures of quality in such instances, servicebased definitions and derived measures are far more appropriate. The contrast between the two is illustrated in Table 2.

Units of Assessment In the literature on the traditional approach to project management, it is striking that all of the project systems are geared towards assuring conformance to budget, scope and time constraints. Higher level considerations such as the need for excellence, continuous improvement and achieving customer delight are apparently outside the scope of the project manager. This is a major weakness and one that is similar to the manufacturing management approaches to quality management of the 1960s, where the emphasis was on quality control and conformance to standard/specification. The quality revolution in the 1980s and 1990s completely changed the agenda in manufacturing, but this paradigm shift seems to have passed project management by in both the literature and many instances of practice. Whilst project managers are judged by measures of conformance, the modern project requires real performance. The following discussion suggests further reasons for the current state and the gap between repetitive operations and project practices in this respect. Table 1 summarises the comparison between conformance and perTable 1

Focus of Project Management Activities Tatikonda and Rosenthal (1999) note that ‘Although there is a substantial Operations Management [sic] literature on the topic of project management the project execution phase has received little attention in this literature.’ Indeed, most texts implicitly suggest that planning and systems are everything, and that if plans and systems are put in place using the right procedures, then the project will succeed. As this literature appears to have been relatively stable over the past 20 years, an opportunity therefore also exists for a greater discussion of the role of managers in the execution of projects. Further consideration suggests another difference between the traditional approach and current practices, concerning the nature of the

Conformance and Performance Measures of Project Success Time Cost As budgeted As cheaply as possible Quality As specified Maximising customer delight

Conformance Performance

As planned As short as possible


European Management Journal Vol 19 No 1 February 2001


Table 2

Manufacturing and Service Approaches to Quality Manufacturing Service Based on stakeholders’ expectations and perceptions Access, communication, competence, courtesy, credibility, reliability, responsiveness, security, tangibles, understanding/knowing the customer (Parasuraman et al., 1985)

Definition Attributes

Product-based — a precise and measurable set of characteristics Performance, conformance, features, reliability, durability, serviceability, perceived quality and aesthetics (Garvin, 1984)

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

The Planning Process Scheduling and inventory control were key issues in the operations management texts of the 1970s and 1980s, necessitating a grasp of an ever-expanding array of numerical methods. Just-In-Time — and to a certain extent the Theory Of Constraints (TOC) — changed the underlying problem that these numerical methods had set out to solve. In project management, the traditional approach is focused primarily on detailed network scheduling approaches for project planning (Tatikonda and Rosenthal, 1999), which require increasingly complex tools and techniques to optimise. Quite how effective these techniques are is debatable given the number of high-profile failures where they have been used extensively. Recent developments in the literature (specifically Goldratt, 1997) may change the nature of the scheduling problem in the same manner as occurred with production planning. As previously discussed, project over-runs are considered the norm in many areas of commercial activity. Given the level of failure in projects where the classical techniques — particularly PERT — have been used, it is time to call them into question. Rand (2000, p. 175) speaks heresy in traditional terms by asking:
Why should there be need for other methods for Project Management to replace or maybe enhance CPM/PERT? Self-evidently, CPM/PERT frequently does not work.

2. The nature of the distributions used for planning are inherently flawed for two reasons: firstly whilst delays will accumulate, any benefits from an early finish in activities are rarely passed on; secondly, estimates are often sandbagged or include large amounts of slack time built in by individuals to protect themselves resulting in local time buffers, which do not benefit the project overall; Goldratt’s solution is sufficiently different from previous approaches to warrant some further attention, and uses the same logical basis — the Theory Of Constraints (TOC) that has been successfully applied in manufacturing. References to applications are currently limited (Barber et al., 1999; Newbold, 1999; Leach, 1999; Maylor, 2000), but as applications increase and software support improves ( this solution is likely to be more widely used and be open to further evaluation. Whilst there are clearly problems to be resolved here, further evaluation of the tools and techniques used by project managers is timely. The Gantt Chart is probably the most widely-used of these. Whilst computer-generated graphics and colour print-outs have given Henry Gantt’s production planning bar chart a perceived new lease of life by imbuing a sense of certainty and they have retained their credibility despite contrary evidence, particular problems arise here. Firstly, the Gantt Chart is a useful tool for the presentation of time information concerning plans. This can be a presentation of predictions of future timings or graphical representation of past achievements and disasters. It does not cover the reason why such planning is carried out — to enable modelling and analysis of project systems. Secondly, it encourages a one-step approach to planning. As a result of the presentation capabilities of modern planning packages, the visual quality of colour charts means that they gain an implicit credibility. This can result in staff being unwilling to challenge the charts, and so they gain a momentum all of their own. Thirdly, they encourage the project manager to over-control the project rather than devolve the responsibility for the time-plan to team members. With the increasing power and availability of the PC, and increased functionality and interfaceability of the software, there is the tendency for the project manager to become not just ‘keeper of the charts’ but also computer operator. This will often occur in a vain attempt to keep the

Goldratt (1997) questions our very understanding of the problem of project scheduling, rejecting traditional methods of project scheduling on the basis that: 1. There is too much uncertainty in plans — plans require (and indeed infer) a high degree of certainty in time estimates to be representative models. He contends that whilst it may be possible in the short-term to consider likely scenarios, longer term there are stronger factors coming into play — specifically uncertainty, which has to be managed as you progress (requiring flexibility) rather than pre-determined actions;
European Management Journal Vol 19 No 1 February 2001


computer version of the project plan up to date. Many consider the predominance of planning software not to be as helpful to the profession as the vendors of such systems would have us believe. Indeed as the projects director of a large construction company recently commented, ‘I believe that computer-based project management software has set the subject back 20 years.’ Many truly excellent organisations do not use the PERT approach to planning projects. One of Hewlett Packard’s UK plants uses whiteboards and Post-It notes for project planning at the top level with individual sub-project managers free to use computerised planning software at the task level. This approach is an adaptation of the principle so well demonstrated by Japanese manufacturers in planning and scheduling — that of ensuring visibility. To assist in moving towards more visual methods of planning, there are may tools and techniques available to the project manager. Deployment flow charts are just one such example, which allow whole processes to be mapped simply (Maylor, 1999; These are fundamentally different from the ubiquitous Gantt Chart — and are used for bringing the subject of project management to the boardroom, by providing better descriptions of project-based business processes. In addition, they facilitate communications and analysis appropriate at this level.

els of success comparable with the best in the world today. The difference between the two cases shows the benefits of treating projects as a business process, that can be improved and the learning managed from each time the project is run. Treating a project as a process, in the traditional operations sense of a conversion process, leads to a search for similarities rather than differences between processes. The underlying conversion process, and therefore the task for management, has strong similarities across many industries and many types of project activities. Firstly, at the individual task level, it is likely that there is little novelty. Indeed it is likely that there are many repetitive operations being conducted. Whether this is designing a new product or implementing an IT system, there are elements that are common to many activities. The conventional approaches of operations management to the design, analysis and improvement of these processes are indeed highly useful rather than inappropriate, as the conventional definition would have us believe. When the definition of the project is focused on the physical product, two other characteristics generally accompany it. The first concerns the view of what constitutes ‘project management.’ The second concerns the role of the project manager. On the first issue there has been much debate, though this appears to have missed the central point concerning organisational needs of project managers. Turner (1999) considers the need for project management to distinguish itself from general management for fear of losing its identity. The problem with this approach is that it is not backed by any level of professional uniqueness, rather than a jealous guarding of the ‘tools of the trade.’ Given the (lack of) success of these tools, as discussed in previous sections, there is surely room for a different approach. This comes when one considers the role of project managers in modern organisations. It is much wider than the conventional consideration of the subject leads us to believe. For example, Tatikonda and Rosenthal (1999) show project management as involving a large number of disciplines and draw upon the literature of organisational theory in particular to expand the discussion of issues faced by project managers. I suggest that this is a more generally applicable model and one that has been ignored for too long. A project can be redefined as a finite activity, which is a point of convergence for business functions, theoretical disciplines and all parts of the value-stream. Projects differ from repetitive operations in that they are more likely to involve inputs from other functions and this is a key to broadening the subject base. Maintaining project management as a specialism that ignores this unique requirement to integrate knowledge and resources will keep the subject irrelevant to both aspiring and high-performing organisations. The consideration of the role will be continued here, and the integration of academic disciplines discussed in the following section.
European Management Journal Vol 19 No 1 February 2001

Definition of Project and Project Management A project is often simply defined as ‘a one-off activity.’ This definition was applicable for large engineering projects taking carried out over long periods of time, but for today’s environment, causes some problems of its own. Firstly, it infers a degree of novelty that is often mis-placed. Today, project management is concerned with a much wider range of durations and levels of complexity. Secondly, it discourages the role of consideration of projects as a business process, focusing instead on the technical or physical aspects of the work involved. Projects today are a core business process for most organisations. The traditional view may still be current for some sectors, but it is argued that the business process view is superior. For example, during discussion of the role of the Deming Cycle (plan – do – check – act) as applied to project management, managers from a construction firm commented that ‘…our projects are unique, there is no role for review.’ Further investigation showed that the same mistakes were made over and over again in projects. This was predictable; like hedgehogs squashed on the road, the lack of evolutionary feedback in this system means mistakes will be repeated. Discussions with managers from a very different firm showed that most projects started with the consideration of the documented reviews from previous similar projects. The need to improve the process was paramount. This was reflected in lev96


Gray and Larson (2000), p. 13) contrast an integrated approach with that of the piecemeal approach to projects. ‘Piecemeal systems fail to tie projects to the overall strategies of the firm. Piecemeal project priority systems fail to prioritise project selection to resources and those projects that contribute most to the strategic plan. Piecemeal tools and techniques fail to be integrated throughout the project life cycle. Piecemeal approaches fail to balance the application of project planning and control methods with appropriate adjustments in the organisation’s culture to support project endeavours.’ They might usefully have added many more issues that are the victims of piecemeal approach to project management — more are covered in the following section. Evidence as to why there is such a piecemeal approach to project management must consider the element of management training and education. During a recent study of new product development managers, of 43 interviewed, none of them had had any training in the area of project management. It was clear that people were given projects to manage (generally a cross-functional task) as a reward for good functional performance. It was not generally recognised that the skill-set of a manager was anything other than that learned by experience. Given that the issue of ‘learning from experience’ has already been shown to be a weakness of the current approach, this is hardly a good basis for either individuals or organisations to be progressing from. The promotional issue has been noted previously, though appears not to have been resolved. It has resulted in many calling project management the accidental profession (Kerzner, 1998). Together with an apparent lack of training of project managers, it was recently reported that project management was an option on only two of the top 11 European MBA programmes (Goffin, 1998). As a core value-adding activity this seems out of step with the needs of practitioners and students, most of whom are/will be involved, if not full-time, then at least for part of their time, in project activities. Consideration of this particular problem shows that this could be due to a number of factors. Firstly, unlike operations management, the subject is still dominated by numerical ‘skill’ issues. Secondly, with the current literature available on project management, the literature is not sufficiently strategically relevant to encourage high-level debate.

derived, but more on conjecture. The Body of Knowledge is based more on empirical evidence than certain knowledge.’ If project management does indeed lack a strong theoretical base it is perhaps because it has been trying to establish its own domain within the management arena, but with little success. All the well-developed theories of management are within one or more specialisms that have many years of dedicated research and development behind them. The academic discipline of project management has so far missed the very point of its existence. It should not strive to become a specialism that develops its own grand theories (those concerning planning have already been questioned in this paper), but to echo the role that project managers take in practice and be the integrators of knowledge and theory from all the other disciplines. So what are the grand theories of integration and what are the great and the good in project management doing to promote them? Specifically — the academic discipline of project management should be aiming to be the point where all the relevant knowledge is brought to bear on the problems being faced. This is completely consistent with the nature of project management of being ‘where the rubber hits the road.’ Table 3 shows examples of these areas of contact with project management and some of the issues that are pertinent to the subject. This also shows that there is a significant body of theory to be drawn on for our purposes and it is not necessary to re-invent that particular wheel, but focus on the task of making project management the point of integration. Whilst this is achieved to a limited extent in the project management bodies of knowledge cited in the following section, there is significant potential for these interfaces to be developed and greater integration of the work of these specialists to take place. Other areas that have significant bodies of knowledge that are highly pertinent include quality management, information management (not just IT), performance measurement, organisational change, knowledge management, management science (though this has already been extensively used) and operations management. Within the project management arena there are a number of formalised ‘bodies of knowledge’ which are relevant to this discussion. These are reviewed in Turner (2000) and include those of the International Project Management Association (Caupin et al., 1999), the Project Management Institute (Duncan, 1996) and the Association for Project Management (Dixon, 2000). Firms from the ‘traditional projects’ sector heavily influence these documents and these formalised bodies of knowledge contrast markedly with the live, rapidly moving but often tacit bodies of knowledge that exist in many high-performing firms. With the change in the nature of project management to encompass a wider range of activities comes the need to re-invent the bodies of knowledge. In particular,

Project Management as an Integrative Academic Discipline Turner (1999, p. 329) notes that ‘Project management lacks a strong theoretical base. Yes, there is an extensive body of knowledge, including many familiar tools and techniques. However the Project Management Body of Knowledge [sic] is not based on a series of premises from which a strong, consistent theory is
European Management Journal Vol 19 No 1 February 2001


Table 3 Area Strategy

Issues for Integration Relevant issues Role of strategy in projects and projects in strategy; policy deployment; aggregate planning; policy and focus; creating competencies and competitive advantage; leveraging knowledge and capability. Selecting, managing and leading teams; motivation; empowerment; pay and control systems; skills development; job design. Work structures and systems; communications; systems of authority, responsibility and resource allocation. Customer and stakeholder needs analysis; expectations management; ongoing provision of cues; management of marketing communications; post-project perceptions management. The integration of suppliers and customers into project teams; establishing long-term relationships and developing networks of organisations (see following section). Systems for evaluation; systems for planning cost, credit and budgetary control; financial risk evaluation; auditing systems.

Human resources Organisational behaviour Marketing Supply-chain management Financial management

there is an opportunity to make application contingent on the type of project being undertaken.

Projects represent an economically important set of activities. In developing the argument for a forward move in the subject area, some underlying problems are identified with the universality of the traditional approach. High-performing firms, taking a radically
Table 4 Summary of Beyond the Gantt Chart Issues Traditional approach Role of strategy Unit of assessment Prevailing paradigm Projects are reactive Conformance to plan/schedule Manufacturing — quality is a definable and measurable set of characteristics Planning

different approach to strategy, assessment, planning and the subject of project management itself have solved many of these problems. These solutions have been synthesised into the Beyond the Gantt Chart approach. The comparisons between this approach and 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 should be carried out under the following headings:

BTGC approach Projects contribute to and form part of organisational strategy Performance/excellence; project success measured by appropriate process and outcome measures Service — quality is based on exceeding stakeholders’ expectations

Focus of project management activities The planning process View of project and project management

Role of academic subject

All activities from planning through to post project review and marketing of project performance Employs predominantly tactical Whole range of tools and approaches applied as and tools — typically CPA/PERT/Gantt when needed at strategic, systems and tactical levels Project is unique activity and project Project is a core business process which draws on management can only draw from similar processes for experience; project contains things directly concerned with many elements of repetitive work. The project is a project management convergence point for theoretical disciplines, business functions and all parts of the project value-stream. Project management is an integrative discipline Subject defined by formalised bodies Subject is a live and rapidly moving body of of knowledge, heavily reliant on knowledge updated by experience and regular testing; generic standards which assure regular trials of ideas from other sectors; recognition of conformance; driven by traditional content through achievement; driven by cross-sectoral project-based industries — in practices, generating new ideas and adding to the particular 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 from strategy, HRM, OB, marketing, SCM, operations and finance.


European Management Journal Vol 19 No 1 February 2001


1. Develop a set of normative models of practice and performance in project management representing current ‘best practice’ comparing this with the traditional models. This is necessary if there is major change to be made to the current bodies of knowledge, and to find in different business sectors, who are the leaders. As was expressed by a colleague of mine recently — ‘Every sector needs its Toyota’; 2. Better integrate project performance and business drivers — notably the role of policy deployment in business. Project performance management clearly needs development in the light of the move from conformance-based measures and the popularity of approaches such as the balanced scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1992); 3. Knowledge structuring — the knowledge-base at present is too wide and poorly structured resulting in confusion for practitioners. Benefit would be gained from some attempt to structure the knowledge available (e.g. on strategies, theories, conflicts, what has worked and what has not) and to represent projects in a more integrative and contingent manner, rather than the stepwise approach of current efforts; 4. Knowledge management — the implications for project management need to be addressed as there are many aspects of organisational learning where project managers have a unique contribution to make; 5. The role of TOC in projects — specifically an evaluation of TOC and whether the benefits are as widespread as claimed, or are more limited to particular contexts; 6. Stakeholder management and stakeholder marketing — the role of project managers in managing stakeholder expectations, perceptions and involvement in the project process is poorly understood and consequently ignored by many project managers. All of these are integrative areas, drawing further on the bodies of knowledge of established subjects and combining them with the needs of the various project management environments. The role of the project management academic is in this integration process. However, a critical approach to these developments is required. Promoting panacea after panacea will neither grow credibility for the academic subject nor improve the practitioner processes it purports to support. Both the current and future issues deserve serious consideration and the potential for this consideration to yield significant benefits is high. It is an opportunity that must be taken.

Atkinson, R. (1999) Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its [sic] time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management 17(6), 337–342. Barber, P., Tomkins, C. and Graves, A. (1999) Decentralised site management — a case study. International Journal of Project Management 17(2), 113–120. Buttrick, R. (2000) The Project Workout, 2nd edn. Financial Times 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 the World’s Worst Computer Disasters. Simon and Schuster, Basingstoke. Clark, K.B. and Fujimoto, T. (1991) Product Development Performance: Strategy, Organisation and Management in the World Automotive Industry. Harvard Business School Press, 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 Body of Knowledge. PMI, Upper Darby, PA. Egan, J. (1998) Rethinking Construction. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Garvin, D. (1984) What does product quality really mean. Sloan Management Review Fall, 25–36. Goffin, K. (1998) Operations management teaching on European MBA programmes. International Journal of Operations 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: The Managerial Process. McGraw Hill, Singapore. Hayes, R.H. and Wheelwright, S.C. (1984) Restoring Our Competitive Edge: Competing Through Manufacturing. Wiley, New York. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992) The balanced scorecard — measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review Jan–Feb, 71–79. Kerzner, H. (1998) In Search of Excellence in Project Management: Successful Practices in High-Performing Organisations. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Leach, L.P. (1999) Critical chain project management improves project performance. Project Management Journal 30(2), 39–51. Maylor, H. (1999) Project Management, 2nd edn. Financial Times Management, London. Maylor, H. (2000) Another silver bullet? A review of TOC in project management. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the European Operations Management Association, eds R. Van Dierdonck and A. Verbeke. Newbold, R. (1999) Project Management in the Fast Lane. St Lucie Press. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985) A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for further 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. Harvard Business 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 Execution of Product Development Projects: The Effects of Project Management 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

Dr Kate Blackmon at the University of Bath School of Management for her insightful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

European Management Journal Vol 19 No 1 February 2001



based on knowledge or faith?. International Journal of Project Management 17(6), 329–330. Turner, J.R. (2000) Editorial: the global body of knowledge…. International Journal of Project Management 18(1), 1–5.

Wheelwright, S.C. and Clark, K.B. (1992) Creating project plans to focus product development. Harvard Business Review Mar–Apr, 70–82.

HARVEY MAYLOR, School of Management, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK. E-mail: Dr Harvey Maylor is Lecturer in Operations and Project Management at the University of Bath School of Management and a Visiting Professor at Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand. Amongst his publications, Project Management (Financial Times, 1999) is the leading text in the area. He has worked with organisations from both public and private sectors as a trainer and consultant, and has received funding for his work in project management and new product development from industry, UK government and the European Commission.


European Management Journal Vol 19 No 1 February 2001

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful