Project management is now in the midst of a paradigm shift. The prevailing paradigm is starting to crumble. Discussions are already arising at forums and conferences that challenge the very foundation and prevailing knowledge base of professional bodies in the discipline. Presentations and papers are increasingly charging that the prevailing paradigm is mechanistic, eclectic, analytical, descriptive, and deficient. In the Proceedings of the PMI Research Conference 2002, Lauri Koskela and Greg Howell stress that the shortcomings in the foundation of project management are becoming more and more apparent, creating a crisis that is gaining recognition. ^[8] Bruno Urli and Didier Urli also agree and compare project management to a toolbox of different instruments rather than a body of knowledge in the traditional sense. ^[9]

Yet, change is not easily forthcoming. Koskela and Howell further observe that the culprit behind the crisis is a lack of a theoretical foundation in project management. This circumstance has led to overlooking anomalies or misinterpreting their meaning and significance. ^[10]

To a large degree, the prevailing paradigm is dominated by its mathematical and scientific past. Urli and Urli note that what I refer to as the "mechanics" of project management have received the focus of attention. The areas have a strong management science and operations research flavor, represented by the topics covered, e.g., resource leveling and Gantt charts. ^[11]

In addition to finding its basis in tradition, the prevailing paradigm finds itself protected by an army of adherents...