51 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
51 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
title: Project Management™
|
|
tags:
|
|
- status/draft
|
|
- topic/ergonomics/organizational
|
|
- type/philosophy
|
|
---
|
|
# Project Management™
|
|
|
|
%%
|
|
|
|
## TALK
|
|
|
|
This note may include generic criticism,
|
|
but discussion of the applicability (or lack thereof)
|
|
of Project Management™ to construction specifically
|
|
should be relegated to [[project-management-tm-for-construction]]
|
|
|
|
%%
|
|
|
|
This note is distinguished from [[project-management]]
|
|
by referring specifically to doctrine/curriculum,
|
|
especially as documented by [[project-management-institute|PMI]].
|
|
I've opted to humorously style this concept as Project Management™ for clarity.
|
|
That is, "project management" could never be wrong or even misguided,
|
|
but Project Management™ can (and often is).
|
|
|
|
## Criticism
|
|
|
|
The term "Project Management" is deliberately vague,
|
|
in the hope that generalizing the terminology
|
|
maximizes its applicability across industries.
|
|
|
|
There are many core Project Management™ ideas
|
|
that have no parallel in other industries,
|
|
and industries often have problems of project management
|
|
that Project Management™ doctrine has no good solutions for.[^1]
|
|
|
|
[^1]: See [[project-management-tm-for-construction]].
|
|
|
|
I would posit that, despite its cross-discipline language,
|
|
Project Management™ practice is only _universally_ applicable
|
|
to _software_ project management.
|
|
|
|
> [!aside]
|
|
> _[[hubbard_2020_failure|The Failure of Risk Management]]_
|
|
> humorously points out
|
|
> that PMI may not be in touch with _any_ part of its audience
|
|
> if they are able to release a publication "3 years overdue"
|
|
> without embarrassment. (p. 103)
|