The Evolution from “Geometric Order” to “Living Order”: Four Metaphors

By Alex Laufer and Jeff Russell

“He (or she) is the light of my life.” While you may have heard this before, you know that the person described is not generating real, physical light. You understand that this is an example of a metaphor; in this case, used to describe someone who is special; valuable; memorable.

Metaphors are used constantly in literature and in everyday conversation. According to the Macmillan Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, a metaphor is “a word or phrase that means one thing and is used for referring to another thing in order to emphasize their similar qualities.”

Why use metaphors? Metaphors often provide a compact vision of a phenomenon without the need to spell out all the details. They enable people to designate characteristics that are unnamable and direct attention to a certain interpretation of situations. Metaphors may also help create a new interpretation of experiences by asking the reader to see one thing in terms of something else.  

Following are four metaphors that were developed by Alex and his colleagues from Procter & Gamble (P&G), following a three-year consulting engagement. They used the metaphors to describe the evolution of project management models throughout the years, as the challenges faced by project managers evolved.

Coordination & Scheduling

One can identify four distinct generations of project management models. The first model noted as scheduling (see the table below) can be traced to the birth of the modern notion of project management during the 1950s and early 1960s when CPM and PERT techniques emerged. The model focuses on the coordination of sequential and parallel activities, just as seen with major airlines and flight scheduling problems. The scheduling model became an effective approach for managing simple projects which are devoid of high uncertainty.

Integration & Teamwork

A different approach evolved in the 1970s when organizations were faced with managing complex projects, consisting of many dissimilar, highly interdependent components, and requiring cooperation between individuals from different disciplines. The challenge here was to ensure integration and teamwork between participants. In this project management model, the project manager was expected to orchestrate the manifold, complex operations much like a conductor of a symphony orchestra.

The above two models fit squarely in a world of certainty, and can therefore function well in an environment dominated by “geometric order.”

Decision Making & Reducing Uncertainty

However, by the 1980s it became apparent that most projects suffer from changes and uncertainty throughout their lives. Thus, the third dominant project management model focused on reducing uncertainty and making stable decisions. The main tools employed to achieve this purpose were much like those used when exploring an unknown country. These included searching for as much relevant information as possible before and during the decision process, and selectively building in redundancy to buffer the unforeseen.

Integrating Tasks & People

In the 1990s, however, as time to market became the driving factor, a new project management model emerged, namely simultaneity. Effective project managers appeared to be working disjointedly, in paradoxically opposite directions. In reality their aim was to integrate tasks and people widely separated in space and time, in hierarchy and methods, in orientation and philosophy. Goals and means were not resolved sequentially and separately but rather simultaneously and interactively. Thus the simultaneous manager operated like the director of a three-ring circus, continuously switching acts based on audience response.

The last two models address a world of uncertainty, addressing the needs of an environment dominated by “living order”. 

In our next blog we will present a more up to date metaphor for projects operating in a “living order” environment.

Evolution of Models of Project Management

Central Concept	Era of Model	Dominant Project Characteristics	Main Thrust	Metaphor
Scheduling	1960s	Simple, Certain	Coordination	Scheduling regional airline flights
Teamwork	1970s	Complex, Certain	Cooperation between participants	Conducting a symphony orchestra
Reducing Uncertainty	1980s	Complex, Uncertain	Making stable decisions	Exploring an unknown country
Simultaneity	1990s	Complex, Uncertain, Quick	Orchestrating contending demands	Directing a three-ring circus continuously switching acts based on audience response

Reference

Laufer, A., Denker, G., and Shenhar, A.J., “Simultaneous Management:  The Key to Excellence in Capital Projects,” International Journal of Project Management, 14(4), 1996, 189-199.