project management methodology origin

Our content is reader-supported. Things you buy through links on our site may earn us a commission

Join our newsletter

Never miss out on well-researched articles in your field of interest with our weekly newsletter.

• Project Management
• Starting a business

Get the latest Business News

The history of project management: planning the 20th century.

In some ways, the history of project management is the history of the 20th century. It begins with Henry Gantt inventing his handy chart and continues through many of the most significant events in modern history. World wars, space shots, and the Internet all depended in some way on the development of project management.

Today, project managers may be more likely to be building a photo app than calculating ballistics. However, that may just be a testament to the ubiquitous usefulness of the techniques developed by past managers.

Try some of the best project management software for small businesses.

Key Takeaways: The History of Project Management

• There are four periods in project management history: Before 1958, 1958 to 1979, 1980 to 1994, 1995 to the present.
• Modern project management is considered to start in 1958, characterized by the development of CPM and PERT methods.
• Earlier project management innovations include the Gantt chart around 1910 and administrative work on the Manhattan Project.
• NASA and the Apollo programs contributed to the advancement of project management, mandating use of work breakdown structure, CPM, PERT, and other tools.
• Computer analysis was used in the 1970s, but became much more common in the 1980s and after.
• The first lightweight methodologies were developed in the 1980s in response to the growing needs of software developers. 
• Agile Manifesto defined the values and principles underlying modern Agile methodologies .

The Four Historical Stages of Modern Project Management

The history of project management is broken into four stages of advancement. A quick look reveals that it’s a fairly brief history, with the first stage including all of human history prior to 1958. It’s around that year that the term ‘project manager’ was first used as we now do. 

Before that, project managers couldn’t benefit from project management methodologies . Instead, it’s assumed the project’s success depended on random factors like the talent of individual project members or a particular project management style. Additionally, even large projects usually had one goal everyone focused on, making organization straightforward.

It’s safe to assume the areas project management focuses on have always been of interest, wherever or whenever you happen to be managing projects. However, it was the huge, multi-faceted projects of the cold war that first required modern methods.

Stage 1 (Prior to 1958)

While we could reach back to the projects which produced the Great Wall or the Pyramids, most histories look to the period around the two world wars for the first true project management techniques. 

Henry Gantt popularized the Gantt chart only a few decades earlier in about 1910, allowing a new way to visualize projects. Modern mass production and construction, particularly combined with war efforts, led to more ambitious projects. 

Throughout history, project management was considered just another skill, rather than its own discipline. However, historical projects like the Manhattan Project required a more organized approach for effective project management. Moreover, in many cases there was more depending on project success than a profit or deadline.

While there wasn’t anything we would consider a proper project management methodology, many tools we use were developed in this period. Innovators, both in government roles and private industry, created project management tools for their own use. They were then further tested and popularized in other projects.

Selected Key Advancements:

• Gantt Chart : A new way of visualizing tasks is by using Gantt charts which allowed project leadership to see relationships and project end dates. Introduced in the beginning of the 1900s, Gantt charts became popularized after use in the Hoover Dam and Interstate Highway projects. 
• Precedence Diagramming Method : A visual way to outline the connections between tasks. The term used today is more often ‘action-on-node’ (AON) network. This method allowed mapping of predecessor-successor relationships throughout a project.
• Critical Path Method (CPM) : One of several network analysis techniques, CPM is a ubiquitous project management tool. Using CPM, project leaders plan out the longest-duration path to estimate the project’s duration.
• Project Evaluation Review Technique (PERT) : Another tool often used to manage projects, it was developed for use in such projects as the Polaris project and the space program.

Defining Projects:

• Manhattan Project: An iconic and successful project, it required a sprawling, multifaceted approach but was nevertheless vital. Project leadership had a purely administrative role, separate from any engineering or research duties.
• Polaris Project : The first submarine-launched nuclear missiles were developed by the Navy Special Projects Office early in the Cold War. On this project, tools like PERT analysis were developed by project managers to help manage schedules.
• Interstate Highway System : Construction of the highway system was one of many capital projects, in the USA and elsewhere, that were begun around this time. Adequate project progress required work to happen in many places at once, requiring tight organization.

Stage 2 (1958 to 1979)

Most historians agree the modern project management era began around this time. In 1965, Europe’s overarching project management body, the International Project Management Association (IPMA), was founded. Shortly afterwards, in 1969, the Project Management Institute was founded in North America.

The role of project manager was becoming more important in itself, rather than as part of the chief engineer’s job. The space program, including the Apollo moon-shot, was at its peak activity. Due to those projects and others, techniques like CPM and PERT continued to be developed.

Until the early 70s, project management was still applied primarily in defense, construction, and aerospace industries. It wasn’t yet seen as vital to managing successful projects. However, throughout the 70s it began to be applied more widely in other areas. The heavy use of tools like CPM formed an association between project management and systems analysis.

The 70s also saw the development of some tools we now considered essential, such as the work breakdown structure (WBS). Some early inkling of Agile concepts, such as working iteratively, could also be seen.

• Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) : Another indispensable tool, the WBS is a step-by-step plan to achieving the project objectives. Its use was mandated for government projects over a certain size, which likely led to its popularization.
• Conflict Management : Managing conflicting interests is recognized as an important part of project management. The adoption of matrix organizational techniques, among other things, made conflict management essential for good project outcomes.
• Iterative Project Planning: A practice recognizable to any modern software development team, iterative planning and development was used in some projects, for example, in the space program’s Project Mercury.
• Space Program and Apollo: Including some of the most significant projects in history, the space program relied heavily on project scheduling models and other project planning tools. Refinements on CPM, PERT, and the WBS were all used.
• ARPANET : First coming online in 1971, this network linking various learning and research institutions would form the basis of the modern Internet. Without specific project leaders, it was a collaborative effort. 

Stage 3 (1980 to 1994)

In the 1980s, project managers began to develop new attitudes to project risk management. The methods used at that point usually referred to now as Waterfall methods often focused on resolving problems as they arose. That had led to project failures and increased cost, if not worse.

Instead, more time was spent planning complex projects from the start, using new methods to anticipate and avoid risks. At the same time, software engineering was becoming useful in every field. Software development projects might be very complex, but not have large administrative teams. Leaner methodologies started to be developed. 

In 1981, the Project Management Institute released the Ethics, Standards, and Accreditation project report. It offered the first few project management process groups. In 1986, PMI would go on to issue an expanded version in the first edition of the PMBOK in an international journal, the Project Management Journal.

• First ‘Lightweight’ Methodologies: While the term ‘Agile’ won’t be used for over a decade, early experiments were underway. For example, Scrum was introduced in 1986. Rapid Application Development was developed by 1991 and development of Crystal Methods began the same year.
• Risk Management: In 1987, a new version of the PMBOK first introduced the idea of managing risk as a business process and knowledge area. Focus on this area was prompted by the Challenger disaster and its design project failure.
• Widespread Use of PM Software: Large, mainframe computers were replaced by smaller personal models. With the help of powerful software, increasingly sophisticated techniques became common project management practices.
• Certification Programs for PM: The first certification test for project management was held by the PMI in 1984. Soon after, more stringent certifications were introduced internationally. Management science is formally recognized as a separate discipline, including sub-disciplines like program management.
• English-France Channel Tunnel: The Channel project was complex not only because of its international nature, requiring coordination of governments, financial institutions, and more. It also was complicated by multiple measuring systems, as well as the need to have two groups digging from opposite sides meet in the middle. 
• Challenger Investigation: A project in itself, the aftermath of the Challenger disaster was primarily an investigation of another project’s failure. A focus on managing risk and quality assurance followed.

Stage 4 (1995 to Present)

The modern age is defined by the Internet, as true in project management as anywhere. The access and connectivity it allows have transformed methods for organizing and performing work. The project manager role is filled by a project management professional, a career specialist. 

The demands of software development prompted the development of new ideas. As a result, in 2001 the Agile Manifesto was published, outlining a new philosophical approach. It brought earlier techniques together as the Agile project management method. 

On a wider scale, project management ideas are now applied in corporate management. As a result, concepts from project management have begun to shape business strategy overall, benefiting strategic management. Additionally, a globalized economy means projects have to take multi-cultural considerations into account.

• Agile Methodologies: Originally developed for software development, Agile methods emphasize collaboration and reiterative processes. Projects run using Agile methods are self-directed and deliver working products quickly. 
• Remote Work: Recently, remote work allowed a significant increase in the work-from-home rate. Before that, it played an important role in off-shoring tech work beyond local borders. In many ways, team location is no longer a constraint. 
• Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM): CCPM is a refinement of the ubiquitous CPM. Where CPM did not take resources into account, CCPM allows project managers to consider their availability. 
• Project Management Degrees: In addition to professional certifications, some universities now offer bachelor’s degrees in project management.
• Y2K: As the year 2000 approached, it was realized fundamental software architecture wouldn’t be able to process dates starting with a two. Rather than a single project, Y2K was a tremendous number of parallel software projects around the world that often required coordination, sharing talent and resources. 
• Panama Canal Expansion: As global trade increased, the Panama went from a vital passage to a chokepoint causing innumerable delays. The series of complex projects to widen and expand the canal, while simultaneously keeping it open to traffic, experienced delays and hiccups. Eventually costing over 5 billion dollars, it was finished over a year late.
• Large Hadron Collider: With a project lifecycle extending over half a century, LHC construction faced a number of challenges. Funding came from multiple governments. Gathering project requirements involved ongoing research. 

The Future of PM

The role of the project manager will continue to be redefined in future projects. Some predict that three trends will support more sophisticated use of PM methods in every aspect of life. Those trends are:

• Digitization.
• Employment.
• Better data analysis.

While the role of project manager tended toward increased specialization in the past, modern project management tools have become widely available. As a result, project management may become a universally integrated process once more, to some extent part of everyone’s job.

Digitization

The transition from a paper-based society to a digital one is going to continue. While that makes tremendous amounts of potentially useful information available, picking out only the useful bits can be very difficult. Storing and accessing all that information also becomes a challenge a successful project must address. 

Cloud storage allows for easily scalable IT infrastructure. Machine learning tools help manage that information, while modeling by artificial intelligence may aid in decision making.

Not only is the project manager’s role evolving, but the job of the project team is changing as well. AI, robotics, 3D printing, and other technological advances could perform a lot of repetitive, low-level tasks. Ideally, that would free people up to focus on the more creative aspects.

Additionally, work will become increasingly transnational. People in geographically distant locations can collaborate meaningfully in real-time. Management practices will have to take those changes into account. At the same time, local issues will always have an influence.

Better Data Analysis

Digitizing information means it can be analyzed and assessed easily using powerful computer tools. Study and statistics will reveal in more detail the factors that lead to projects failing and those that ensure project success.

Data analysis may also reveal ways to reduce project costs and more efficiently manage project activities. Doing so in earlier project management phases can help avoid problems later.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for The History of Project Management

The modern era of project management begins in the middle of the 20th century. To manage aspects of war, scientific research, and space travel that took place in that period, basic project management aids were developed. The Critical Path Method was developed by a team at DuPont Chemicals, while PERT was used by a US Navy project. These tools were used by early project managers to estimate when they could deliver projects.

The Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) defines five stages or process groups in the management of a project. They are: 1. Initiating. 2. Planning. 3. Executing. 4. Monitoring and Controlling. 5. Closing.

There are many different project management methodologies, some of them for specialized uses. However, they are generally divided into two types: 1. Traditional or Waterfall methods. 2. Agile Methods. Waterfall methods follow an intuitive process, with a complete plan to follow to the end. Agile uses reiterative processes, self-directing, and other principles in a more complex flow.

Final Thoughts on The History of Project Management

With its roots in the great events of the recent past, it seems likely project management will have a profound effect on how we live in the future. It turns out some of the same management tools used in building missiles can also help you write your next paper.

How Much Does it Cost to Form an LLC in Pennsylvania in 2024?

Setting up an LLC in Pennsylvania takes you down a road filled with financial hurdles and paperwork. It seems overwhelming when you first peek at it. Yet, diving deeper into the process opens up savvy ways to manage costs effectively. We’re here to provide you with nifty insights into the nuts and bolts of the …

Cost of Forming an LLC in Texas in 2024

Starting a Limited Liability Company (LLC) in Texas involves more than just completing forms and following rules. It’s also about entering the complex world of finance that comes with starting a business. The process includes various costs, from the initial setup fees to ongoing expenses, which all shape your LLC’s financial situation. This article explores …

New Mexico LLC Cost Guide for 2024

Setting out on the entrepreneur’s trail and starting a Limited Liability Company (LLC) in New Mexico involves several factors, with cost standing out as a pivotal one. Forming an LLC comes with upfront costs, but diving into business ownership in the Land of Enchantment needn’t empty your wallet. This article will detail the expenses linked …

What’s the Cost of Forming an LLC in Maryland in 2024?

Setting up your Limited Liability Company (LLC) in Maryland opens a road filled not just with forms but monetary decisions too. Yet, launching an LLC can feel more financially manageable initially. Armed with the proper insights and aid from trusted LLC service providers like Tailor Brands, you can tackle the complex aspects of this process …

How Much It Cost to Form an LLC in North Dakota: 2024 Guide

Starting an LLC in North Dakota involves more than just submitting the first set of papers. Despite what some might think, it doesn’t cost a lot. This article explains all the costs of creating an LLC in North Dakota. It also looks at budget-friendly options like Tailor Brands, which help keep costs down without cutting …

How Much Would It Cost to Form an LLC in Maine in 2024

Thinking about the money involved in setting up an LLC in Maine? Besides the forms, you also need to think about the costs. The good news is that it might not be as expensive as you think. We specialize in making the different starting and continuing costs of a Maine LLC clear. We can also …

How Much It Cost to Form an LLC in Kansas: 2024 Guide

Entering the business scene in Kansas by starting an LLC comes with its costs. These costs consist of application charges and continuous fees needed to maintain your Limited Liability Company. This guide aims to cover every expense you might face while setting up an LLC in Kansas. For those looking for help with documentation, LLC …

How to Start Your Ecommerce Business in 8 Simple Steps

Starting an Ecommerce business is a common dream, but creating an online store can seem overwhelming. To succeed in Ecommerce entrepreneurship, you need a clear understanding of the steps involved and when you’ll start making a profit. >> Start an Ecommerce Business With Tailor Brands >> What Is an Ecommerce Business? An Ecommerce business functions …

How to Start a Home Healthcare Business: 8 Simple Steps

Do you love to help people and want to have a positive effect on their lives? Starting a home care business might be a rewarding and profitable way to do that. This guide will show you how to begin your own home care business and give you important tips for success. It covers everything you …

How to Start a Delivery Business in 2024: 12 Simple Steps

The delivery services industry is experiencing a surge in demand due to increased orders for instant doorstep delivery. Consumers now enjoy simplified convenience through technology thanks to digitalization. Businesses, both global and local, are restructuring to improve. From 2017 to 2022, the US couriers and local delivery services market experienced an annual growth rate of …

10 Steps on How to Start a Consulting Business in 2024

The strategy consulting market is projected to expand by $70.08 billion from 2022 to 2027, presenting an excellent opportunity for launching a consulting business. A consulting career could suit you well if you excel in your field and are passionate about aiding others to succeed.  This guide explores the consulting industry and provides insights on …

How to Start a Cleaning Business in 8 Simple Steps

Starting a cleaning business offers a pathway to entrepreneurship with minimal initial expenses and steady demand. Unlike many other ventures, cleaning services entail relatively low upfront costs and can be launched swiftly with limited funds, provided you’re ready to put in hard work for modest returns and gradual growth. Apart from specialized cleaning supplies and …

How to Start a Vending Machine Business: Pros, Cons & Costs

Vending machines are common, but they offer appealing opportunities for business ventures. The vending industry in the U.S. alone boasts millions of machines and generated more than $8.6 billion in revenue in 2023. This industry attracts both newcomers and seasoned entrepreneurs due to its flexibility. Whether as a weekend endeavor, a low-cost startup, or a …

How to Start a Blogging Business in 2024 to Make Money

If you’re looking to start a blog, you’ve found the right resource. Blogging is a great way to improve your writing, explore new ideas, and establish an online presence based on your interests and expertise.  As your blog grows, you can even monetize it or use it to launch a business. Starting a blog is …

How to Start an Event Planning Business in 8 Simple Steps

Event planning focuses on making clients’ ideal events come to life, combining creativity and personalization. It includes a range of businesses, from full-service event coordinators to solo entrepreneurs operating from home.  Learning the steps to enter the event planning industry and start your own business is crucial in deciding if this career suits you. This …

Privacy Overview

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Acquisition
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music and Religion
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Games
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business Strategy
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Systems
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

1 A Brief History of Project Management

Peter W.G. Morris is Professor and Head of the School of Construction and Project Management at University College London (UCL). He is the author of over 110 papers and several books on the management of projects. A previous Chairman of the Association for Project Management, he was awarded the Project Management Institute's 2005 Research Achievement Award, IPMA's 2009 Research Award, and APM's 2008 Sir Monty Finniston Life-Time Achievement Award.

• Published: 02 May 2011
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Project Management is a social construct. Our understanding of what it entails has evolved over the years, and is continuing to do so. This article traces the history of this evolution. It does so from the perspective of the professional project management community. It argues that although there are several hundred thousand members of project management professional associations around the world, and many more who deploy tools, techniques, and concepts which they, and others, perceive to be “project management,” there are differing views of the scope of the subject, of its ontology and epistemologies. Maybe this is true of many subjects which are socially constructed, but in the real world of projects, where people are charged with spending significant resources, misapprehension can be serious.

Introduction

Project Management is a social construct. Our understanding of what it entails has evolved over the years, and is continuing to do so. This chapter traces the history of this evolution. It does so from the perspective of the professional project management community. It argues that although there are several hundred thousand members of project management professional associations around the world, and many more who deploy tools, techniques, and concepts which they, and others, perceive to be “project management,” there are differing views of the scope of the subject, of its ontology and epistemologies. Maybe this is true of many subjects which are socially constructed, but in the real world of projects, where people are charged with spending significant resources, misapprehension can be serious.

Later chapters in this book reflect aspects of this uncertainty and some indeed question whether project management is or should be a distinct domain or a profession—having a body of knowledge of its own—at all. Many certainly note the strains between its normative character as a professional discipline and the importance of understanding context when applying it. Nevertheless, despite this uncertainty the fact remains that many thousand people around the world see themselves as competent project professionals having shared “mental models” of what is meant by the discipline. But are these models fit-for-purpose? The chapter argues that in part at least some are, or were, too limited in scope to address the task of delivering projects successfully.

The account unavoidably draws on my personal engagement with, and reflection on, the field. (History is always seen through the eye of the historian.) It is an account of a “reflective practitioner.” Some commentators would doubtless tell the story differently, with different emphases. Hence, referring to the models again, a major theme running through the chapter is the danger of positioning project management with too narrow a focus—as an execution-only oriented discipline: “the application of knowledge, skills, tools and techniques…to meet project requirements” (PMI 2008: 8). (So, who sets the requirements? Isn't that part of the project?) Instead, the chapter argues the benefits of focusing on the management of the project as a whole, from its early stages of conception—to include the elicitation and definition of requirements—to its post-commissioning phases, emphasizing context, the front-end, stakeholders, the various measures of project success, technology and commercial issues, people, and the importance of value and of delivering benefit: what I have termed elsewhere “the management of projects” (Morris and Hough 1987 ; Morris 1994 ; Morris and Pinto 2004 )—as well of course as being master of the traditional core execution skills.

Early history

The word “project” means something thrown forth or out; an idea or conception ( Oxford English Dictionary ); “management” is “the art of arranging physical and human resources towards purposeful ends” (Wren 2005 : 12). “Project Management” means…? The term as such appears not to have been in much if any use before the early 1950s, though of course projects had been managed since the dawn of civilization: the ancient cities of Mesopotamia, the pyramids of Egypt, Stonehenge; history is full of examples of outstanding engineering feats, military campaigns, and other singular undertakings, all attesting to man's ability to accomplish complex, demanding projects. But, barring a few exceptions, it is not until the early 1950s that the language of contemporary project management begins to be invented.

There are several important precursors to this emergence, however. Adamiecki published his harmonogram (effectively a vertical bar chart) in 1903 (Marsh 1975 ). (Following Priestley's idea of putting lines to a horizontal timescale published in 1765 in his Chart of Biography. ) Gantt's bar chart followed in 1917. Formal project coordinator roles appear in the US Army Air Corps in the 1920s (Morris 1994 ), project engineers and project officers (Johnson 2002 ), and project engineers in Exxon and other process engineering companies in the 1930s. And in 1936 Gulick, in a theoretical paper, proposed the idea of the matrix organization (Gulick 1937 ).

There is surprisingly little evidence of the contemporary language and tools of project management to be seen in the Second World War, despite the emergence of Operations Research (OR). The Manhattan Project—the US program to develop the Atom Bomb—is often quoted as one of the earliest examples of modern project management. This may be over-cooking the case: we see in the project—the program—none of the tools or language of today's world of project management.

The 1950s and 1960s: systems development

Project management as a term seems to first appear in 1953, arising in the US defense-aerospace sector (Johnson 2002 ). The emerging advent of thermonuclear-armed ICBMs (InterContinental Ballistic Missiles), and in particular the threat from Russian ICBMs, became an increasingly severe US preoccupation from the early 1950s prompting the US Air Force (and Navy and Army) to look very seriously at how the development of their missiles could be accelerated. Under procurement processes developed by Brigadier Bernard Schriever for the US Air Force (USAF) in 1951, the USAF Air Research and Development and Air Material Commands were required to work together in “special project offices” under a “project manager” who would have full responsibility for the project, and contractors were required to consider the entire “weapons system” on a project basis (Johnson 2002 : 29–31). The Martin (Marietta) company is credited with having created “the first recognizable project management organization” in 1953—in effect a matrix (Johnson 1997 ).

The management of major systems programs

In 1954 Schriever was appointed to head the Atlas ICBM development where he continued his push for integration and urgency, proposing a more holistic approach involving greater use of contractors as system integrators to create the system's specifications and to oversee its development (Hughes 1998 ; Johnson 2002 ). As with Manhattan, Schriever concentrated on building an excellent team. To shorten development times, Schriever also aggressively promoted the practice of concurrency—the parallel planning of all system elements with many normally serial activities being run concurrently (lampooned as “design-as-you-go!”). Unfortunately, concurrency amplified technical problems, as was discovered when missile testing began in late 1956. As a result, Schriever developed rigorous “systems engineering” testing, tracking, and configuration management techniques on the next missile program, Minuteman, which were soon to be applied on the Apollo moon program.

Meanwhile the US Navy was developing its own project and program management practices. Following Teller's 1956 insight that the rate of missile technology development would enable ICBMs to fit in submarines by the early to mid 1960s, when the submarines would be ready (Sapolsky 1972 : 30), the Navy began work on Polaris. Admiral Raborn was appointed as head of the Polaris SPO (Special Projects Office) in 1955. Like Schriever, Raborn emphasized quality of people and team morale. Polaris's SPO exerted more hands-on management than the Air Force, one result of which was the development in 1957 of PERT as a planning and monitoring tool. PERT, the Planning and Evaluation Review Technique, never quite fulfilled its promise but, like Critical Path Method (CPM), invented by DuPont in 1957–9, became iconic as a symbol of the new discipline of project management. Raborn, cleverly and presciently, used PERT as a tool in stakeholder management (though the term was not used), publicizing it to Congress and the Press as the first management tool of the nuclear and computer age.

In 1960 the Air Force implemented Schriever's methods throughout its R&D organizations, documenting them as the “375-series” regulations: a phased life-cycle approach; planning for the entire system up front; project offices with the authority to manage the full development, assisted by systems support contractors (Morrison 1967 ). Essentially project and program management had become the fundamental means to organize complex systems development, and system engineering the engineering mechanism to coordinate them (Johnson 1997 ).

These principles were then given added weight, and thrust, first by the arrival of Robert McNamara as US Secretary of Defense in 1960 and second by NASA (specifically Apollo); from there they spread throughout the USA, and then NATO's, aerospace and electronics industries.

McNamara was an OR enthusiast and a great centralizer. The Program Planning and Budgeting System (PPBS) was his main centralizing tool but he introduced in addition several OR-based practices such as Life-Cycle Costing, Integrated Logistics Support, Quality Assurance, Value Engineering, Configuration Management, and the Work Breakdown Structure, the latter being promoted in 1962 in a joint Department of Defense (DoD)/NASA guide: “PERT/Cost Systems Design.” This “guide” generated a proliferation of systems and much attendant complaining from industry, so instead Earned Value (as an element of DoD's C/SCSC—Cost/Schedule Control Systems Criteria—requirements) was introduced in 1964 as a performance management approach (Morris 1994 ).

Meanwhile Sam Philips, recently a USAF brigadier managing Minuteman, was heading NASA's Apollo program “of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth,” in President Kennedy's historic words of 1961. Apollo brought systems (project) management squarely into the public gaze. Philips imposed configuration management as his core control discipline with rigorous design reviews and work package management—“the devil is in the interface” (Johnson 2002 ). Matrix structures were deployed to harness specialist resources while task forces addressed specific problems. Quality, reliability, and (“all-up”) testing became hugely important as phased testing became too time consuming and costly.

Back on earth, Precedence scheduling had been invented in 1962, by IBM; and in the late 1960s resource allocation scheduling techniques were developed (Morris 1994 ).

Organization and people management

Project management came to be seen, for many years, as epitomized by tools such as PERT and CPM, Work Breakdown Structures, and Earned Value. In reality, however, a more fundamental feature is integration around a clear objective: whether as “single point of integrative responsibility,” in Archibald's pithy phrase (Archibald 1976 ), project “task forces,” or the matrix. This integration should ideally, as per Schriever, be across the whole project life cycle. (Regarding which, it is salutary to note that in the “execution” delivery view of project (see below pp. 20–2), the project manager is generally not the single point of integrative responsibility for the overall project but only for the execution phase.) People skills are also important. As we have seen, Schriever, Raborn, and Philips all emphasized high-level leadership, teamwork, and task performance. Apollo sponsored several studies on team and individual skills (Baker and Wilemon 1974 ; Wilemon and Thamhain 1977 ).

In 1959 the Harvard Business Review published an article on the new integrator role, “the project manager” (Gaddis 1959 ), and by the late 1960s and early 1970s these ideas on organizational integration had begun to attract serious academic attention, for example Lawrence and Lorsch's 1967 study on integration and differentiation, Galbraith's on forms of integration ( 1973 ), and Davis and Lawrence's work on the matrix ( 1977 ). The intellectual environment meanwhile became increasingly attuned to “the systems approach” (Cleland and King 1968 ; Johnson, Kast, and Rosenzweig 1973 ).

As NASA reached (metaphorically and literally) its apogee, project management began now to be seen as a management approach which had potentially very widespread application and benefit. Society could address its major social challenges, NASA claimed, using the same systems approaches that had got man to the moon—employing “adaptive, problem-solving, temporary systems of diverse specialists, linked together by coordinating executives” (Webb 1969 : 23). But it was not going to be so easy, either in NASA, DoD, or the wider world. For, as Sayles and Chandler, two leading academics, pointed out in 1971, “NASA was a closed loop—it set its own schedule, designed its own hardware… As one moves into the (more political) socio-technical area, this luxury disappears” (Sayles and Chandler 1971 : 160).

The birth of the professional project management associations

Simultaneously, with the spread of the matrix and DoD project management techniques, many executives suddenly found themselves pitched into managing projects for the first time. Conferences and seminars on how to do so proliferated. The US Project Management Institute (PMI) was founded in 1969; the International Management Systems Association (also called INTERNET, now the International Project Management Association—IPMA) in 1972, with various European project management associations being formed contemporaneously. Crucially, however, the perspective was essentially a middle management, project execution one centered around the challenges of accomplishing the project goals that had been given, and on the tools and techniques for doing this; it was rarely the successful accomplishment of the project per se , which is after all what really matters. Worse, the performance of projects, already too often bad, was now beginning to deteriorate sharply.

The 1970s to the 1990s: wider application, new strands, and ontological divergence

In some cases, projects were failing precisely because they lacked project management—Concorde for example: an immense concatenation of technological challenges with no effective project management (Morris and Hough 1987 ). But in others, although “best practice” was being earnestly applied, the paradigm was wrong. Concorde's American rival for example was managed by two ex-USAF senior officers according to DoD principles but with no effective program for addressing stakeholder opposition (remember Raborn!)—which in fact led in 1970 to Congress refusing to fund the program and its cancellation (Horwitch 1982 ). The whole nuclear power industry throughout the 1970s and 1980s exhibited similar problems of massive stakeholder (environmentalist) opposition coupled with the challenges of introducing major technological developments during construction (concurrency again, with the concomitant challenge of “regulatory ratcheting” as authorities sought to codify and apply changing technical requirements on power plants already well under construction.) Exceptionally high cost inflation worldwide blew project estimates. The oil and gas industry faced additional costs as it moved into difficult new environments such as Alaska and the North Sea. Even the US weapons programs were not performing well, with problems of technology selection and proving, project definition, supplier selection, and above all concurrency, which DoD at times proscribed as costs grew and at others, chafing at the lack of speed, reluctantly allowed (Morris 1994 ).

Success and failure studies

The causes of project success and failure now began to receive serious attention. DoD had commissioned a number of studies on project performance concluding that technological uncertainty, scope changes, concurrency, and contractor engagement were major issues (Marshall and Meckling 1959 ; Peck and Scherer 1962 ; Summers 1965 ; Perry et al. 1969 ; Large 1971 ). Developing world aid projects were analyzed (Hirschman 1967 ), the World Bank in a major review of project lending between 1945 and 1985 concluding that more attention was needed to technological adequacy, project design, and institution-building (Baum and Tolbert 1985 ). The US General Accounting Office and the UK National Audit Office conducted several highly critical reviews of publicly funded projects. Various academic and other research bodies reported on energy and power plants, systems projects, R&D projects, autos, and airports (Morris 1994 ).

In fact, Morris and Hough in their 1987 study of project success and failure, The Anatomy of Major Projects , listed 34 studies covering 1,536 projects and programs of the 1960s and 1970s (and added a further 8 of their own). Typical sources of difficulty were: unclear success criteria, changing sponsor strategy, poor project definition, technology (fascination with; uncertainty of; design management), concurrency, poor quality assurance, poor linkage with sales and marketing, inappropriate contracting strategy, unsupportive political environment, lack of top management support, inflation, funding difficulties, poor control, inadequate manpower, and geophysical conditions. Most of these factors fell outside the standard project management rubric of the time, as expressed in the textbooks and conference hall floors and as would soon be formalized by PMI in its Body of Knowledge (PMI 2008).

Later studies of project success and failure, such as those by Miller and Lessard ( 2000 ) on very large engineering projects, Flyvbjerg, Bruzelius, and Rothengatter ( 2003 ) on road and rail projects, and Meier ( 2008 ) on US defense and intelligence projects, as well as the notorious CHAOS Reports by Standish ( 1994 and later) on software development projects, emphasized similar factors, namely:

the importance of managing the front-end project definition stages of a project. 1 (DoD had come to the same conclusion, following the US 1972 Commission on Government Procurement, with its creation of the front-end Milestone 0);

the pivotal role of the owner (or sponsor);

the need to manage in some way project “externalities”.

Miller and Lessard further made the critical distinction between projects' efficiency (on time, in budget, to scope) and effectiveness (achieving the sponsor's objectives) measures, showing that their projects generally did much worse on the latter (around 45 percent) than the former (around 75 percent). (Is it reasonable that effectiveness should be so much worse than efficiency?) But by the time of their report, the early 2000s, the project management community was becoming much more aware of the importance of business value, as we shall see.

These studies signposted a growing bifurcation in the way project management is perceived, with many taking the predominantly middle management, execution, delivery-oriented perspective, others taking a broader, more holistic view where the focus is on managing projects. The difference may at first seem slight but the latter involves managing the front-end development period; the former is focused on activity once requirements have been set. The unit of analysis moves from delivery management to the project as an organizational entity which has to be managed successfully. Both paradigms involve managing multiple elements but the “management of projects” is an immensely richer, more complex domain than execution management. This intellectual contrast was marked clearly in the publication of PMI's “Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge” (BoK) in 1983/7.

Project management Bodies of Knowledge

The drive behind the development of a project management Body of Knowledge (BoK) was the idea then gaining ground that if project management was to be a profession surely there should be some form of certification of competence (Cook 1977 ). This would then require some definition of the distinctive knowledge area that the professional is competent in. The initial 1983 PMI BoK (PMBoK®) identified six knowledge elements: scope, time, cost, quality, human resources, and communications management; the 1987 edition added risk and contract/procurement; the 1996 edition added integration. (There have since been several further updates.)

The UK's Association for Project Management (APM) followed a similar path a few years later but considered the PMI BoK too narrow in its definition of the subject. APM's model was strongly influenced by the “management of projects” paradigm: that managing scope, time, cost, resources, quality, risk, procurement, etc. alone is not enough to assure successful project outcomes. In 1991 APM thus produced a broader document which gave recognition to matters such as objectives, strategy, technology, environment, people, business and commercial issues, and so on. The APM BoK has gone to five revisions, Versions 3 and 5 being based on special research (Morris, Jamieson, and Shepherd 2006 ). In 1998 the IPMA (which today comprises 45 national project management associations representing more than 40,000 members) published its Competence Baseline to support its certification programme (Pannenbacker et al. 1998 ). In doing so it adopted the APM BoK almost wholly as its model of project management. In 2002 the Japanese project management associations, ENAA and EPMF, also produced a broadly based BoK: P2M (Project and Program Management) (ENAA 2002 ).

New product development

Meanwhile during the 1980s a stream of insights began appearing from the product development industries. Their influence was to prove significant. Again the initial impetus was studies of success and failure, notably by Kleinschmidt, Edgett, and Cooper, the result of which was to emphasize a staged approach to development, with strong scrutiny at stage gates where there is a predisposition not to proceed unless assured of the investment and management health of the development process (Cooper 1986 ).

These ideas were taken further in two research programs which were to have a strong influence on practice across project-based sectors—pharmaceuticals and other R&D industries, manufacturing, oil and gas, utilities, systems development: one based at Harvard (Clark and Fujimoto 1990 ; Wheelwright and Clark 1992 ); the other centered at MIT, the International Motor Vehicle Program (IMVP) (Womack, Jones, and Roos 1990 ). Both drew heavily on Japanese auto manufacturers' practices, particularly Toyota's. Clark et al. articulated many of the principles now underlying good project development practice: portfolio selection (in relation to market demands and technology strategy and the pace of scheme development); stage reviews; the “Shusa”—the “large project leader”; project teams representing all the functions critical to overall project success; and the importance of the sponsor. Critically, the Shusa—the “heavyweight project manager”—has as his first role “to provide for the direct interpretation of the market and customer needs” (Wheelwright and Clark 1992 : 33). The (heavyweight) project core team exists throughout the project duration but—reflecting the domain's dual paradigms—project management is positioned in project execution following approval of the project plan!

Supply chain management

Both programs dealt extensively with supply chain issues. The IMVP addressed “lean management”; Clark et al. introduced “alliance or partnered” projects. Lean emphasizes productivity improvements through reduced waste, shorter supply lines, lower inventory, and similar; partnering is about gaining productivity improvements through alignment of supply chain members. Partnering became extremely significant as a supply chain practice in the 1990s and beyond.

Traditional forms of contract had long frustrated project management's goal of achieving project-wide integration. The scope is supposed to be fixed by the tender documents but when changes occur, as they often do, the contractor may be highly motivated to claim for contract variations, particularly since the contract had been awarded to the cheapest bidder. This creates a disposition towards conflict. Further, the contractor only enters the project once the design is substantially complete; this meant that “buildability” inputs are often missed. The 1980s and 1990s saw substantial efforts across many sectors but particularly the whole construction spectrum to address these issues and improve project performance. Partnering, with its move from an essentially transactional to a relationship form of engagement of contractors, with the focus on alignment and performance improvement, was an important element of this move for change.

Concurrent engineering

Simultaneous development, or concurrent engineering, was a major theme of both the IMVP and Harvard auto programs. The new practice of concurrent engineering was a more successful, sophisticated version of concurrency, avoiding the problems which had so encumbered project management since the days of Schriever. Concurrent engineering comprises parallel working where possible (simultaneous engineering); integrated teams drawing on all the functional skills needed to develop and deliver the total product (marketing, design, production—hence design-for-manufacturability, design-to-cost, etc.); integrated data modeling; and a propensity to delay decision-taking for as long as possible (Gerwin and Susman 1996).

Concurrency was often really part of the broader issue of how to manage technical innovation in a project environment. Various solutions began to emerge in the 1980s: prototyping off-line so that only proven technology is used in commercially sensitive projects (compare the nuclear power story with its 330 mW prototype plants!); rapid prototyping where quick impressions could be gained by quasi-mock-ups; use of pre-planned product improvements (P 3 I), particularly on shared platforms—a form of program management (Wheelwright and Clark 1992 ).

Technology management

Slowly the projects world got better at managing technical uncertainty—but not always. Defense, and intelligence, continues as an exception: the case for technology push and urgency may simply be so great for national security that the rules have to be disregarded—with predictable consequences. Hence Meier in 2008 reporting on a CIA/DoD study: “most unsuccessful programs (studied) fail at the beginning. The principal causes of (cost and schedule) growth…can be traced to…immature technology, lack of corporate technology roadmaps, requirements instability, ineffective acquisition strategy, unrealistic program baselines, inadequate systems engineering” (Meier 2008 ).

At the heart of many project difficulties lies the crucial issue of requirements. For if one isn't clear on what is required, it shouldn't be a surprise if one doesn't get it. The only trouble is, it's often very hard to do this. In building, architects take “the brief” from their clients—usually followed by scheme designs, specifications, and detailed design. In software (and many systems) projects the product is less physically obvious and harder to visualize and articulate. Requirements management (engineering) rose into prominence in the late 1980s (Davis, Hickey, and Zweig 2004 ). Several systems development models were published in the 1980s and 1990s—the Waterfall, Spiral, and Vee (Forsberg, Mooz, and Cotterman 1996 )—all emphasizing a move from user, system, and business requirements (requirements being solution free), through specifications, systems design, and build, and then back through mirrored levels of testing (verification and validation).

The extent to which project management should be responsible for ensuring that requirements are adequately defined is typical of the conceptual problem of the discipline: should project management cover the management of the front-end, including development of the requirements; or just the realization of these requirements, once these are fixed? (The latter being the view of PMBoK® and many systems engineers, but not of the more holistic “management of projects” approach.)

Quality management

Quality is seen by many as a technology measure. The “House of Quality”/QFD (Quality Function Deployment), for example, which links critical customer attributes to design parameters, is of this school. But, as the Quality gurus—Deming, Crosby, Juran, Ishikawa—of the 1970s and 1980s insisted, quality relates to the total work effort. It is about more than just technical performance.

The 1980s and 1990s saw a marked impact of quality thinking on project management. Quality Assurance became a standard management practice in many project industries. More fundamental was the increasing popularity of Total Quality Management with its emphasis on performance metrics, stable supplier relationships, and putting the customer first. The former trickled into enterprise-wide project management and benchmarking in the late 1990s; the latter strengthened the philosophy of aligned supply chains (partnering). (Another influence was Deming's contention that improvement isn't possible without statistical stability, which led to the maturity model idea—see below.) An International Standard on Quality Management in Projects (ISO 10006) was even published, in 1997 (ISO 1997/2003).

Health, safety, and environment

A series of high-profile accidents, mostly in transport (shipping, rail) and energy (oil and gas, building construction), in the 1980s propelled Health and Safety to be seen as central project criteria not just as important as the traditional iron triangle trio but much more so. Legislation in the early 2000s strengthened this further.

“Environment,” which of course had become increasingly recognized in the 1980s and 1990s as an important dimension of project management responsibility, partly due to environmental opposition (the nuclear, oil, and transport sectors), sustainability (the Bruntland Commission of 1987), and legislation (such as Environmental Impact Assessments), became widely tagged to Health and Safety. HSE (Health, Safety, and Environment) became inescapably supremely important across a large swathe of project-based industries.

Risks and opportunities

Curiously, although most of the standard project management techniques had been identified by the mid 1960s, risk management does not appear to have been one of them. Probabilistic estimating was of course present in PERT from the outset (and was officially abandoned by 1963) but this is not the same as the formal project risk management process (of identification, assessment, mitigation strategy, and reporting) that was articulated in the 1987 edition of PMBoK®. By the mid 1980s, however, formal procedures of risk management had become a commonly used practice, with software packages available to model the cumulative effect of different probabilities. (Almost always this was assessed on predicted cost or schedule completion, rarely on business benefit).

In the late 1990s/early 2000s an important risk management conceptual development occurred: risk was now defined—for example in APM's PRAM Guide (Simon, Hillson, and Newland 1997 )—as uncertainty, rather than as the possibility of a negative event occurring, thereby bringing consideration of “opportunity” into the process (ICE 1998). The result was to reinforce a growing interest in looking at how project upsides—the positives: value, benefits, opportunities—could be better managed. This was to be a growing dimension of the subject in the early 2000s.

Value and benefits

Value is one of the richer, less explored, and promising topics in project management. Value Analysis (VA) had been developed by General Electric in the late 1940s and was one of the techniques ushered in to DoD by McNamara in 1960. Simply put, value can be defined as the quotient of function/cost or quality/cost, performance/resources or similar. The aim of VA, VE, and VM is to analyze, in a structured manner using a wide selection of different stakeholders, the project's requirements and ways of addressing these. Value Engineering (VE) focuses on the proposed engineering solution. Value Management (VM) looks at the more strategic questions of whether the project should be being done at all, and whether a scheme or its development strategy could be improved. “Optioneering” is a similar idea though it lacks the workshop basis. Common in construction, it is often still rare in IT projects.

Closely allied to opportunities and value is benefits, which too became an area of strong interest in the early 2000s. Arising out of the development of program(me) management in the mid 1990s (see below), benefits are “the measurable improvement resulting from an outcome” (OGC 2003). The focus is entirely right: a shifting from the preoccupation with efficiency (the iron triangle) to effectiveness (achieving business benefit).

New funding models

Another paradigm change was meanwhile at work moving project management towards a more holistic perspective: the funding of public sector projects by the private sector. The so-called BOT/BOOT (Build-Own-(Operate)-Transfer) method of project development was originally introduced in the Turkish power sector in 1984 (Morris 1994 ). The intent was—is—for private sector groupings to be given operational responsibility for the facility, generally only for a defined period, for which they receive an income. The cost of building the facility is borne by the private sector group on the basis of its future operating earnings. Following some early UK trial projects, the Channel Tunnel was financed and built on this basis in 1987–94.

The method is superficially attractive since it relieves governments from the pressures of capital expenditure (but at the expense of an enlarged operating budget). It requires very careful legal drafting however and often proved to be chronically slow and expensive to define and bid. Nevertheless, the prospect of getting benefits today and have someone else pay for them tomorrow proved irresistible to many governments and the idea soon morphed into PFI and PPP (Private Finance Initiative/Public–Private Partnership) projects for areas such as health, schools, and prisons.

There were two putative conceptual benefits to project management from this set of developments. One, a greater emphasis on Whole Life Costs, on operating efficiency, and on benefits and effectiveness; two, the development of project companies as deliverers of services as opposed simply to products. Similarly in IT services and Facilities Management; and in aero-engines the emphasis moved from capital cost to “power-by-the-hour.”

The 1990s and early twenty-first century: enterprise-wide project management

As we turn the century we see project management become increasingly popular, better enabled technologically, sometimes dangerously commodified, and more reflective. It becomes for many enterprises a core competence.

Information technology

Information and Communications Technology (ICT) has had a huge influence in promoting project management, particularly from the 1990s. Microsoft made an enormous contribution to the domain with its releases of MS Project during the 1990s. Personal computing brought project management tools directly to the user. Ten years previously, planners were only beginning to move away from punched cards and big main frames. Artificial Intelligence may not have fulfilled all that was hyped of it in the 1970s but mobile telecommunications, broadband, and the internet significantly increased project communications capabilities and project productivity. Modeling power too had improved greatly, whether through the humble potential of Excel or the broader efforts of CAD (CAM and CAE) and 4D simulation or asset configuration models.

The early 2000s saw the major project management software suppliers beginning to provide enterprise-level platforms for use on multiple projects by multiple users; meanwhile the major ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) suppliers (HP, Oracle, SAP) included project management modules and interfaces to specialist project management packages (Microsoft, PlanView, Primavera, etc.). Latterly there has been a move towards web-based project collaboration, communication, planning, and management tools offered as “software-as-a-service” resources.

Critical Chain

One genuinely new and original development in scheduling was Critical Chain, promoted by Goldratt from his “Theory of Constraints” around 1996–7 (Leach 2004 ). Key ideas include considering resource availability when deciding which is the real critical path; stripping contingencies from the activity level and managing them, as buffers, at the project level; and only working on one activity at a time, and doing so as fast as possible. (Ideas which require care in understanding: sometimes for example multi-tasking is unavoidable.) Implementation of these ideas generally requires behavioral changes and the motivational energy created can be real and substantial.

By the early 2000s another conceptual challenge was being put forward, again at quite a micro level of operations: Agile. Agile project management addresses the distinctive challenges of software development (Leffingwell 2007 ). In Agile, software project estimating is considered (by Agile proponents) as inherently unreliable. The Agile theory is therefore that cost may have to be sacrificed to ensure that some functionality at least can be developed within a given time; the iron triangle is abandoned! Requirements are elicited by close customer–programmer pairing with development then being over a very short time (e.g. ninety days maximum). Project management becomes in effect task management!

Enterprise-wide project management

The expansion of project management software from single project to enterprise-level applications paralleled a growing awareness that project management worked differently (a) for different types of projects and/or in different contexts, (b) at different levels in an organization. The former reflects the fundamental thesis of contingency theory: that organization and management will vary depending on context (environment) and technology (Burns and Stalker 1961 ; Shenhar and Dvir 2007 ) and is seen in the early 2000s with growing discussion of the special characteristics of different classes of projects—mega or complex for example—and even PMI sector-based qualifications. It is a major theme of this book. The latter, so-called “enterprise-wide project management,” has opened a large field of development ranging across program management, governance, training and career development, to organizational learning.

Program and portfolio management

Around the turn of the century program(me) management began receiving increased attention (Artto et al. 2009 ), but as a more “business-driven” discipline than project management—an emphasis different from the product development base of a decade earlier, as we saw above, where technology was the underlying issue (technology platforms in Wheelwright and Clark ( 1992 : 49 ), and from that of DoD in the 1950s and 1960s where it was more heavyweight project management (Baumgartner 1979 ; Sapolsky 1972 ). This conception, as promoted by PMI, APM, the UK Office of Government and Commerce (OGC), and others, reconfirms the view of project management as execution management: “the application of knowledge, skills, tools and techniques…to meet project requirements” and proposing that “programmes deal with outcomes, projects deal with outputs” (OGC 2003), a conception echoed in PMI's standard on Program Management (PMI 2006). But this is dangerous. Projects also produce outcomes and benefits. Is it not the job of project management to achieve benefits too? Once again we have the fundamental question lying at the heart of the subject: if project management is only about execution, what is the overall discipline?

Strategy and governance

The early 2000s saw a parallel growing interest in strategy in which the same issue arises (Artto et al. 2008 ). Does responsibility for aligning project strategy with the sponsor's strategy rest with project management, program management, or portfolio management, or all three? On projects, clearly it must be with those managing the project front end. But the implication of the OGC and PMI model is that project management doesn't operate at the front end but is, as we've seen, an execution-oriented, output-focused discipline. Why shouldn't project management also manage the front-end development stages? Who is responsible for the management of the project if not the project manager (or some version thereof, such as a Project Director)? The domain remained, and remains, confused, the strategy–development–definition stages—the project front-end—being balkanized amongst elements which are indeed different but which together represent the overall practice of managing projects within the enterprise. A view of the discipline “as a whole” had yet really to engage.

The role of the sponsor is generally key (Morris and Hough 1987 ; Miller and Lessard 2000 ). Often it can go wrong—gate reviews rushed, risks ignored—and affect project performance significantly. The early 2000s saw a growing recognition of the importance of project governance, not least as a result of instances of high-profile corporate malfeasance—the collapse of Enron and WorldCom in 2001–2—and the legislation and corporate action which followed (Sarbanes–Oxley etc.). APM explored the implications for project management in 2004 listing such principles as proper alignment between business strategy and the project plan; transparent reporting of status and risk; and periodic third party “assurance” reviews (APM 2004 ). The late 1990s and early 2000s in fact saw rising application of stage gate reviews, peer reviews, and peer assists as governance mechanisms. In many cases this was also combined with efforts to implement organizational learning.

Project-based learning, PMOs, and maturity

The 1990s saw a huge rise in interest in knowledge management and organizational learning. Projects were seen both as attractive vehicles for generating new knowledge, and simultaneously, given their unique, temporary nature, as especially difficult challenges for organizational learning. While tools and techniques might help, the consensus was that the real opportunity, and challenge, lies in leveraging tacit knowledge. Communities of Practice, peer assists and peer reviews, and project-based learning reviews became more common.

PMOs—Project/Program Management Offices—began to be seen in the late 1990s/early 2000s as important organizational mechanisms for addressing these issues: holders of best practice, organizers of training and support, recorders of project portfolio status, and initiators of project reviewers—the linchpin in building enterprise-wide project/program management capability (Hobbs and Aubry 2008 ). Maturity models, methodologies, and training, learning, and development became increasingly visible as means to assist in this endeavor.

The concept of project management maturity gained considerable traction in the early 2000s. Drawing on Carnegie-Mellon's Software Engineering Institute's Capability Maturity Model, first PMI with its OPM3® product and later OGC with its PMMM and P3M3 frameworks attempted to categorize levels of project management capability. OPM3® proved extremely complicated; PMMM and P3M3 unrealistically simple, missing completely several topics present in the APM BoK, not least nearly all the human skills such as leadership and teamwork as well as such important items as Quality Management, Information Management, and nearly everything to do with Procurement and Contracting (OGC 2008 ). No project management maturity model seems yet quite able to reflect the range and subtlety of topics and skills that organizations need in order to manage projects efficiently and effectively, however. The management of projects is, as a discipline, or a domain, much more complicated than software engineering.

OGC's guidance manuals (methodologies)— PRINCE2, Managing Successful Programmes , and the Management of Risk (OGC 2002a , 2002b , 2003 )—published across the turn of the century proved highly influential. These are excellent documents but, as thousands became certificated as “PRINCE2 Practitioners,” the danger grew of people believing that passing a test after a four-day course meant being qualified as a competent project manager. The net results were indeed to “spread the word” but also perhaps to commodify the discipline. The same criticism could be made of PMI's immensely popular, and influential, PMP (Project Management Professional) certification. Competency implies more than just knowledge. Skills and behaviors are also important. Experience develops competency. (Of the professional bodies' certification programmes, only IPMA's competency framework certificates more than knowledge.)

All these attempts to provide guidance through “one size fits all” normative standards perforce avoid the crucial point that a project management “best practice” standard model just may not fit or be appropriate in all circumstances. This insight, though obvious from contingency theory, means that care must be taken when benchmarking performance (another trend of the 2000s): in short, it demands a more sophisticated interpretation of application. Perhaps training and development could help?

Training, career development, and professionalism

From the 1990s there was an unprecedented rise in demand for project managers, particularly in construction and IT. Project management became increasingly seen as a core competency, recognized within, and across, institutions as a career track in its own right. Demand outstripped supply. Recruitment, career development, and competency uprating became more important. National vocational qualification programs were introduced in Australia and the UK in the mid 1990s. University degrees in project management sprang up in their dozens. Several companies and government agencies created university-based “Academy” programs. (DoD had established its Defense Systems Management College in 1971.)

Meanwhile PMI's membership continued to grow and grow (it had half a million members and credential holders in 185 countries by 2010), driven by good events, very professional communications and marketing, and the PMP certification program. In the UK, APM was the fastest growing of all the UK's professional institutions throughout the 1990s and 2000s and in 2008–9 applied for “chartered professional association” status to put it alongside such professions as engineering and medicine.

Academic research

Long seen as a subset of production scheduling, at the university level, teaching and research in project management grew strongly in the 1990s and early twenty-first century as its broader applicability became more recognized, and as academics became more aware of projects as special, and interesting, organizational phenomena. In 2000 PMI launched the first of its biannual Research Conferences; IRNOP—the International Research Network on Organizing by Projects—had been holding biannual conferences since 1994; EURAM (the European Academy of Management) found project management to be its most popular track at its annual conferences. By 2008 there were four or five academic journals in the area. Project management began, as a result, to get seriously self-reflective. The locus became increasingly the business schools, or in some instances technology departments, approached either from a social science or a technology perspective.

A major program, Rethinking Project Management , was conducted in 2004–6 representing leading academics and practitioners in Europe and North America to reflect on the project management research agenda. Themes arising out of the study (and suitably “problematizing” it) emphasized:

the complexity of projects and project management;

the importance of social interaction among people;

value creation (but noting that “value” and “benefit” have multiple meanings linked to different purposes);

seeing projects as “multidisciplinary, having multiple purposes, not always pre-defined”;

the development of “reflective practitioners who can learn, operate and adapt effectively in complex project environments, through experience, intuition and the pragmatic application of theory in practice” (Winter et al. 2006 ).

Concluding perspectives

And perhaps this is as good a point as any at which to draw to a close this history of the development, till now, of the domain—the discipline—of managing projects and programs. An account which acknowledges that everyone's experience of doing so is different and that all projects are indeed unique. A rendering which, while championing the existence and utility of good practices and sound principles for the management of projects and programs, recognizes that multiple agendas, the complexities and contingencies of context, and the sometime fuzziness of benefits can nevertheless distort the normative models proffered by many popular guides and texts. A telling which has shown that projects are “created not found”; whose realization therefore requires social skills as well as technical competencies. An account which, perhaps above all, has highlighted the distinction between the more straightforward world of project management seen as execution management, and the more complex but important one of managing projects as whole entities. This surely is what the domain—the discipline—should be about.

Aristotle noted 2,370 or so years ago that defining the question is half the answer ( Ethics : Book 1.C.4: literally: “For the beginning is thought to be more than half the whole”).

Archibald, R. ( 1976 , 1997). Managing High-Technology Programs and Projects. New York: Wiley.

Artto, K. , Martinsuo, M. , Dietrich, P. , and Kujala, J. ( 2008 ). “ Project strategy: strategy types and their contents in innovation projects, ” International Journal of Managing Projects in Business , 1/1: 49–70.

Google Scholar

—— ——  Gemünden, H. G. , and Murtoroa, J. ( 2009 ). “ Foundations of program management: a bibliometric view, ” International Journal of Project Management , 27/1: 1–18.

Association for Project Management ( 2004 ). Directing Change: A Guide to Governance of Project Management. High Wycombe: APM.

Google Preview

—— ( 2005 ). Body of Knowledge for Managing Projects and Programmes , 5th edn. High Wycombe: APM.

Baker, B. N. , and Wilemon, D. L. ( 1974 ). “ A summary of major research findings regarding the human element in project management, ” Project Management Journal , 5/2: 227–30.

Baker, N. R. , Murphy, D. C. , and Fisher, D. ( 1974 ). Determinants of Project Success . National Technical Information Services N-74-30392; see also “Factors affecting project success,” in Cleland and King 1988.

Baum, W. C. , and Tolbert, S. M. ( 1985 ). Investing in Development . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baumgartner, J. S. ( 1979 ). Systems Management. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.

Burns, T. , and Stalker, G. M. ( 1961 ). The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.

Clark, K. B. , and Fujimoto, T. ( 1990 ). Product Development Performance. Boston: Harvard Business School Press:

Cleland, D. I. , and King, W. R. ( 1968 ). Systems Analysis and Project Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cleland, D. I. , and King, W. R. (eds.) ( 1988 ). Project Management Handbook . New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Cook, D. L. ( 1977 ) “ Certification of project managers—fantasy or reality? ” Project Management Quarterly , 8/3.

Cooper, R. G. ( 1986 ). Winning at New Products. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Davis, A. M. , Hickey, A. M. , and Zweig, A. S. ( 2004 ). “Requirements management in a project management context,” in P. W. G. Morris and J. K. Pinto (eds.), The Wiley Guide to Managing Projects . Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, chapter 17.

Davis, S. M. , and Lawrence, P. R. ( 1977 ). Matrix Organizations . Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Enaa ( 2002 ). P2M: A Guidebook of Project & Program Management for Enterprise Innovation: Summary Translation. Tokyo: Project Management Professionals Certification Center (PMCC).

Flyvbjerg, B. , Bruzelius, N. , and Rothengatter, W. ( 2003 ). Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Forsberg, K. , Mooz, H. , and Cotterman, H. ( 1996 ). Visualizing Project Management. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Gaddis, P. O. ( 1959 ). “ The project manager, ” Harvard Business Review , May–June: 89–97.

Galbraith, J. ( 1973 ). Designing Complex Organisations . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Gerwin, D., and Susman, G. ( 1996 ). “ Special Issue on Concurrent Engineering, ” IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management , 43/2: 118–23.

Gulick, L. ( 1937 ). “Notes on the theory of organization,” in L. Urwick (ed.), Papers on the Science of Administration . New York: Columbia University Press, 1–46.

Hirschman, A. O. ( 1967 ). Development Projects Observed . Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.

Hobbs, B. , and Aubry, M. ( 2008 ). “ An empirically grounded search for a typology of project management offices, ” Project Management Journal , 39 Supplement: S69–S82.

Horwitch, M. ( 1982 ). Clipped Wings: The American SST Conflict. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hughes, T. P. ( 1998 ). Rescuing Prometheus. New York: Vintage.

Institution of Civil Engineers ( 1998 ). RAMP: Risk Analysis and Management for Projects. London: Institution of Civil Engineers and Institute of Actuaries.

ISO 10006 ( 2003 ), Quality management systems: guidelines for quality management in projects . British Standards Institute, London.

Johnson, R. A. , Kast, F. E. , and Rosenzweig, J. E. ( 1973 ). The Theory and Management of Systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Johnson, S. B. ( 1997 ). “ Three approaches to big technology: operations research, systems engineering, and project management, ” Technology and Culture , 38/4: 891–919.

—— ( 2002 ). The Secret of Apollo: Systems Management in American and European Space Programs. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Large, J. P. ( 1971 ). Bias in Initial Cost Estimates: How Low Estimates can Increase the Cost of Acquiring Weapons Systems. Rand, R-1467-PA&E, Santa Monica, CA.

Lawrence, P. , and Lorsch, J. ( 1967 ). Organisation and Environment: Managing Integration and Differentiation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Leach, L. P. ( 2004 ). “Critical chain project management,” in P. W. G. Morris and J. K. Pinto (eds.), The Wiley Guide to Managing Projects . Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, chapter 33.

Leffingwell, D. ( 2007 ). Scaling Software Agility. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison Wesley.

Marsh, E. R. ( 1975 ). “ The harmonogram of Karol Adamiecki ”, Academy of Management Journal , 18/2: 358–64.

Marshall, A. W. , and Meckling, W. H. ( 1959 ). Predictability of the Costs, Time and Success of Development. Rand Corporation, P-1821, Santa Monica, CA.

Meier, S. R. ( 2008 ). “Best project management and systems engineering practices in pre-acquisition practices in the federal intelligence and defense agencies,” Project Management Journal , 39/1: 59–71.

Miller, R. , and Lessard, D. R. (2000). The Strategic Management of Large Engineering Projects . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Morris, P. W. G. ( 1994 ). The Management of Projects . London: Thomas Telford.

—— and Hough, G. H. ( 1987 ). The Anatomy of Major Projects . Chichester: Wiley and Sons.

—— and Pinto, J. K. (eds.) ( 2004 ). The Wiley Guide to Managing Projects . Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

——  Jamieson, H. A. J. , and Shepherd, M. M. ( 2006 ). “ Research updating the APM Body of Knowledge 4th edition, ” International Journal of Project Management , 24: 461–73.

Morrison, E. J. ( 1967 ). “ Defense systems management: the 375 series, ” California Management Review , 9/4.

Office of Government Commerce ( 2002 a). Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE 2 . Norwich: The Stationery Office.

—— ( 2002 b). Management of Risk: Guidance for Practitioner s. Norwich: The Stationery Office .

—— ( 2003 ). Managing Successful Programmes . Norwich: The Stationery Office .

—— ( 2008 ). Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model . Norwich: The Stationery Office .

Pannenbacker, K. , Knopfel, H. , Morris, P. W. G. , and Caupin, G. ( 1998 ). IPMA and its Validated Four-Level Certification Programmes: Version 1.00 . Zurich: International Project Management Association.

Peck, M. J. , and Scherer, F. M. ( 1962 ). The Weapons Acquisition Process: An Economic Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Perry, R. L. , DiSalvo, D. , Hall, G. R. , Harman, A. L. , Levenson, G. S. , Smith, G. K. , and Stucker, J. P. ( 1969 ). System Acquisition Experience. Rand Corporation, RM-6072-PR, Santa Monica, CA.

Pinto, J. K. , and Slevin, D. P. ( 1988 ). “ Critical success factors across the project life cycle, ” Project Management Journal , 19/3: 67–75.

Project Management Institute (2006). The Standard for Program Management. Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

—— ( 2008 ). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge , 4th edn. Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

Sapolsky, H. ( 1972 ). The Polaris System Development: Bureaucratic and Programmatic Success in Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sayles, L. R. , and Chandler, M. K. ( 1971 ). Managing Large Systems: Organizations for the Future. New York: Harper and Row.

Shenhar, A. , and Dvir, D. ( 2007 ). Reinventing Project Management: The Diamond Approach to Successful Growth and Innovation . Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Simon, P. , Hillson, D. , and Newland, K. ( 1997 ). Project Risk Analysis and Management (PRAM) . High Wycombe: Association for Project Management.

Standish Group (1994). The CHAOS Report , http://www.standishgroup.com.

Summers, R. ( 1965 ). Cost Estimates as Predictors of Actual Weapons Costs. Rand Corporation, RM-3061-PR, Santa Monica, CA.

Webb, J. E. ( 1969 ). Space Age Management: The Large-Scale Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wheelwright, S. C. , and Clark, K. B. ( 1992 ). Revolutionizing Product Development. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Wilemon, D. L. , and Thamhain, H. J. ( 1977 ). “ Leadership effectiveness in program management, ” Project Management Quarterly , 8/2.

Winter, M. , Smith, C. , Morris, P. W. G. , and Cicmil, S. ( 2006 ). “Directions for future research in project management: the main findings of a UK government-funded research network,” International Journal of Project Management , 24/8: 638–49.

Womack, J. R. , Jones, D. T. , and Roos, D. ( 1990 ). The Machine that Changed the World. New York: Macmillan International.

Wren, D. A. ( 2005 ). The History of Management Thought. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

The History of Project Management and Predictions for the Future

Andrew Conrad

The history of project management through the ages, the future of project management, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Project management is all about change.

Think about it: scope changes, personnel changes, and budget changes are all part of the job.

The best project managers find a way to stay on top of change—not just within individual projects, but across the span of a career.

For all of the benefits of education and certifications, you can never replace the value of boots-on-the-ground project management experience .

With that in mind, we put out a call asking veteran project managers for their thoughts on how project management has changed over the past several decades—things like the Agile movement, remote teams, and the evolution of PM software tools —and what changes they think we'll see in the future. Most of those who responded have over a decade of experience managing formal projects.

While you could argue that project management concepts were used during the construction of ancient wonders like the Egyptian Pyramids and the Great Wall of China, modern project management really started to take shape in the early 1900s with the development of Gantt charts.

In the 1950s, project management methodology began to take form with the advent of critical path method (CPM), Lockheed's revolutionary Polaris missile project, and the U.S. Navy's development of the program evaluation and review technique (PERT).

In the 1960s, project management was largely based around Waterfall techniques. This was good enough to land men on the moon and bring them home safely.

But the world has only become more complex, and we've seen project management techniques adapt to those changes over the course of time.

1. The Agile revolution?

The first thing most project managers would think of if asked what has changed in project management over the last 30 years would be the emergence of Agile methodology .

"The more complex projects have become, the more the need to be flexible in project management activities," said long-time project manager Crystal Richards, principal and owner of Mosaic Resource Group. "With Agile, changes are welcomed, within the confines of a vision or road map (i.e. scope)."

But others suggest that people have been using Agile methodology to manage projects long before it had a name.

"While Agile is currently reshaping the face of software development, its roots and practices go back over 30 years," said Alan Zucker, founding principal of Project Management Essentials, LLC .

For example, W. Edward Deming's PDSA (Plan-Do-Study-Act) cycle dates all the way back to the 1950s.

Chuck Cobb, 15-year project management veteran and author of "The Project Manager's Guide to Mastering Agile," thinks that the fundamental approach to project management hasn't really changed since the space race.

"The way we do project management has gotten more sophisticated and we are able to do larger and more complex projects with more predictable results, but it is all based on a traditional plan-driven approach to project management," he said.

What has changed is the way we identify roles in project management.

Interested in leveraging agile project management tools ? Capterra's directory has many options to get you started.

2. Project manager became a recognized position

Zucker of Project Management Essentials recalls his start in project management, which had very little to do with becoming a designated project manager:

In 1987, I started what would become my career in project management...I was, what we would now call, the product owner, the business analyst, and the project manager.

But, as Zucker points out, project manager was still not a recognized career path.

In 1987, there were 'project managers,' but we did not have the systematized processes, procedures, and tools that we do today. Most of us were self-taught, having wandered into project management from another profession.

Now, there is an entire industry built around project manager training and certification. Why? Being a certified Project Management Professional (PMP) can be a lucrative and rewarding career .

According to Zucker:

Even though the Project Management Institute was founded in 1969, the first certification exam was given to 43 people in 1986. Now there are nearly 750,000 certified PMPs...PMI now offers 8 different types of project management credential, from risk to Agile to program management. There are also 136 graduate programs that confer a master's degree in project management.

As it turns out, all that training became important as the projects and people that PMs managed were altered by technological advances.

3. Teams became distributed

Thirty years ago, if a project manager wanted to check in on their team, they would do so face-to-face or, maybe, over the phone. Now, that same interaction often happens via video chat or messaging with dedicated collaboration tools .

According to Dmitriy Zaitsev of Devexperts :

Along with the new degree of flexibility and access to new talents in the distributed teams, a project manager also needs extended knowledge in a variety of collaboration tools, cross-border and cross-cultural communication, motivation, hiring and coaching techniques... The work with a distributed team also requires timezone-agnostic skills.

Even as teams spread out and communication became more digital, however, the importance of humanity in successful projects became more evident.

4. Projects became more about people than products

As projects have become less tactile and tangible and more digital and cerebral, the human element has proven vital.

According to Todd Williams, author of "Rescue the Problem Project: A Complete Guide to Identifying, Preventing, and Recovering from Project Failure":

Projects used to be focused primarily on physical results: buildings, roads, pyramids. Today more and more projects are about business process. These are not focused on paying customers but internal users: people that need to use a new process (in unanimous fashion) and can choose not to use it. Adoption, involvement, and motivation are key.

For that reason, Williams sees person-to-person communication and team buy-in as more important than ever before.

We do not live in a world where [CEOs] tell their employees what direction the company is going and the employees will follow so they can please the boss and make it to their gold watch at retirement. If we do not like a direction, we will advocate (or even sabotage) to get a new direction. Our projects have to accommodate whim, human nature, and willingness. This requires far more soft-skills, leadership, and an understanding of change management.

Rather than making project management more impersonal, some technological innovations have actually fostered better communication. And the "human" element—along with all the communication that goes with it—is the future of the project management industry .

5. Technology broke down barriers and removed inefficiencies

Phil Wolff, co-lead of Open Oakland with more than 20 years of industry experience, has keenly watched as computers and new technology have revolutionized project management by connecting people across traditional chasms and breaking through logjams:

Digital project modeling let us rapidly iterate and reshape project plans, squeezing out many project costs and risks. Before MS Project and Primavera, large scale meant slow coordination. [Computer-aided design] meant much less building-the-wrong-thing and better integration among project members. Internet and mobile communication broke distance as a barrier to partnering on projects. So much that time zones became a bigger problem.

As project management becomes more and more automated through dedicated PM tools and more general collaboration systems, the project manager position will also change. The veteran project managers we heard from predict that interpersonal skills will differentiate the elite from the crowd, as we'll discuss below, and new technology and innovation will force project managers to constantly adapt.

An example of a successful project on Mars?

1. Methodology labels will lose importance

Cobb predicts that as project management evolves, traditional methodology labels will become meaningless:

We live in a much more uncertain environment... that is beginning to severely strain a traditional plan-driven approach to project management. There have been many projects that may have successfully met their cost and schedule goals but failed to deliver an appropriate level of business value.

Cobb suggests that rather than getting bogged down by the tired Agile vs. Waterfall debate, project managers should look to apply their experiences to each individual project.

The project manager of the future needs to be able to blend these two approaches in the right proportions to fit any given situation. Any project manager who only knows how to do traditional plan-driven project management and attempts to force-fit all projects to that approach will be at a serious disadvantage.

As corporations grow, however, the tolerance for free-styling project managers may be limited, and that could be a dangerous path.

2. Big corporations aren't Agile

Williams has already watched as companies start off lean and agile, then grow to the point that their size stifles their own innovation.

Startups can move quickly because they are small, so we have seen changes in project management to meet those needs. But as [corporations] have gotten big and added overhead that comes with handling the complexities of meeting a diverse customer base, that agility decreases. So does the project management's agility.

Williams goes on to suggest that if the project management industry stays on this path, project managers risk getting chewed up and spit out by the corporate machine.

The company's situation drives project management, not the other way around. This combination of higher speed of delivery and the expectations of having it tomorrow is a huge change for projects. [Large corporations] burn out their PMs, throw them out, and just hire new ones. This is unsustainable.

In other words, for project managers to thrive in the future, they will need to think independently and creatively within their organizations to question inefficiencies while still serving stakeholders.

3. Project managers will give way to project leaders

Williams believes it will be necessary for project managers to evolve into project leaders, who can not only manage projects, but also influence organizational change when necessary:

Many of the responsive methodologies cannot scale to meet [the rapid growth of corporations]... That is where the landscape of project management will change—deploying completely re-architectured solutions that meet business needs better. Project management will also bifurcate between projects needing managers and those needing leaders.

Williams suggests the need for a new title with a new approach: the project leader.

Project managers will become a disposable commodity and project leaders will rise to the top. The latter will be the person who can manage and lead. One who knows organizational change management, is exquisite at negotiations, knows the business, and can motivate people.

Sandeep Srivastava, transition leader at Wipro BPS, agrees:

Emotional intelligence, especially conflict management and use of power in project management, will become the key skills needed for PMs.

What Srivastava is suggesting is that the project managers—or leaders—of the future will need to be more aware of what their people are doing and how they are feeling.

4. Time tracking will become more important

As teams become more distributed, and working remotely becomes the norm rather than the exception, Isaac Kohen of Teramind predicts that knowing how your employees spend their billable hours will be vital to a project's success or failure:

In order to increase company performance, you need to understand what projects your employees' time are being spent on—including how much time and how much money is being spent per task/project. Aggregated data per department that reveals anomalies in user behavior can be strong indicators of employees who are not focused on their role or are pulled away from doing their assignments because others are asking them to complete other tasks.

This doesn't just mean embarking on a witch hunt to find which employees are managing their fantasy baseball team instead of getting their work done. It means having a bird's eye view of your team so you can best allocate your most valuable resources.

5. The PMIAA Act will increase the need for certified PMs

In 2016, then-President Barack Obama signed the Program Management Improvement and Accountability Act , increasing the importance of certification and formal project management job titles in the government.

According to Richards:

There is an increasing need for professionals to understand the foundation of project management through formal training and develop their skill sets in communication, leadership, and stakeholder engagement. With the passage of [PMIAA] there is more emphasis to create competency models and have certified project managers working on U.S.-based government projects.

While experience remains the most important indicator of a capable project manager, those wishing to work on government projects will need formal training and certifications.

I think that Zucker summed it up best when he reflected back on his years as a project manager, and contemplated the future of the industry:

I was initially attracted to project management because you could see the tangible fruits of your labors—a completed and hopefully successful project. Over the years, the processes and techniques have changed some. But project management is still a dynamic and fascinating profession... it is great to be part of industry that is always striving for more.

Change can be scary. The future can be scary. But if you're a veteran project manager, or just getting your start in the industry, take solace. The world will always need project managers—whether it's for building railroads or spaceships—and project managers will always find a way to adapt, because that's what you do.

What are your thoughts on the future of project management?

Are you a veteran project manager? If so, what are the biggest changes that you've seen since you started your career and what did we miss while covering the history of project management? And, based on your experience, what changes do you anticipate coming to the industry over the next 30 years.

Was this article helpful?

About the author.

Andrew Conrad is a senior content writer at Capterra, covering business intelligence, retail, and construction, among other markets. As a seven-time award winner in the Maryland, Delaware, D.C. and Suburban Newspapers of America editorial contests, Andrew’s work has been featured in the Baltimore Sun and PSFK. He lives in Austin with his wife, son, and their rescue dog, Piper.

Related Reading

5 key task management software features and top products that offer them, 5 key time tracking software features and top products that offer them, what is a project timeline and how to make one, how to use analogous estimating for quick and effective budget forecasts, 6 top-rated ai-enabled tools for workflow management, the ultimate review of construction project management methodologies, key qualities of a successful project leader, according to award-winning leadership coach, what is project risk management everything you need to know, 4 risk management strategies for successful project execution.

Not recorded

The Evolution of Project Management

History of Project Management | By Sandro Azzopardi | Read time minutes

The importance of Project Management is an important topic because all organisations, be they small or large, at one time or other, are involved in implementing new undertakings. These undertakings may be diverse, such as, the development of a new product or service; the establishment of a new production line in a manufacturing enterprise; a public relations promotion campaign; or a major building programme. Whilst the 1980s were about quality and the 1990s were all about globalisation, the 2000s are about velocity. That is, to keep ahead of their competitors, organisations are continually faced with the development of complex products, services and processes with very short time-to-market windows combined with the need for cross-functional expertise. In this scenario, project management becomes a very important and powerful tool in the hands of organisations that understand its use and have the competencies to apply it.

The development of project management capabilities in organisations, simultaneously with the application of information management systems, allow enterprise teams to work in partnership in defining plans and managing take-to-market projects by synchronising team-oriented tasks, schedules, and resource allocations. This allows cross-functional teams to create and share project information. However, this is not sufficient, information management systems have the potential to allow project management practices to take place in a real-time environment. As a consequence of this potential project management proficiency, locally, nationally or globally dispersed users are able to concurrently view and interact with the same updated project information immediately, including project schedules, threaded discussions, and other relevant documentation. In this scenario the term dispersed user takes on a wider meaning. It not only includes the cross-functional management teams but also experts drawn from the organisation's supply chain, and business partners.

On a macro level organisations are motivated to implement project management techniques to ensure that their undertakings (small or major) are delivered on time, within the cost budget and to the stipulated quality. On a micro level, project management combined with an appropriate information management system has the objectives of: (a) reducing project overhead costs; (b) customising the project workplace to fit the operational style of the project teams and respective team members; (c) proactively informing the executive management strata of the strategic projects on a real-time basis; (d) ensuring that project team members share accurate, meaningful and timely project documents; and (e) ensuring that critical task deadlines are met. Whilst the motivation and objectives to apply project management in organisations is commendable, they do not assure project success.

However, before discussing the meaning and achievement of project success it is appropriate at this stage to provide a brief history of project management.

Brief History of Project Management

Project management has been practiced for thousands of years dating back to the Egyptian epoch, but it was in the mid-1950s that organisations commenced applying formal project management tools and techniques to complex projects. Modern project management methods had their origins in two parallel but different problems of planning and control in projects in the United States. The first case involved the U.S Navy, which at that time was concerned with the control of contracts for its Polaris Missile project. These contracts consisted of research, development work and manufacturing of parts that were unique and had never been previously undertaken.

This particular project was characterised by high uncertainty, since neither cost nor time could be accurately estimated. Hence, completion times were based on probabilities. Time estimates were based on optimistic, pessimistic and most likely. These three time scenarios were mathematically assessed to determine the probable completion date. This procedure was called program evaluation review technique (PERT). Initially, the PERT technique did not take into consideration cost. However, the cost feature was later included using the same estimating approach as with time. Due to the three estimation scenarios, PERT was found (and still is) to be best suited for projects with a high degree of uncertainty reflecting their level of uniqueness. The second case, involved the private sector, namely, E.I du Pont de Nemours Company, which had undertaken to construct major chemical plants in U.S. Unlike the Navy Polaris project, these construction undertakings required accurate time and cost estimates. The methodology developed by this company was originally referred to as project planning and scheduling (PPS). PPS required realistic estimates of cost and time, and is thus a more definitive approach than PERT. The PPS technique was later developed into the critical path method (CPM) that became very popular with the construction industry.

During the 1960s and 1970s, both PERT and CPM increased their popularity within the private and public sectors. Defence Departments of various countries, NASA, and large engineering and construction companies world wide applied project management principles and tools to manage large budget, schedule-driven projects. The popularity in the use of these project management tools during this period coincided with the development of computers and the associated packages that specialised in project management. However, initially these computer packages were very costly and were executed only on mainframe or mini computers. The use of project management techniques in the 1980s was facilitated with the advent of the personal computer and associated low cost project management software. Hence, during this period, the manufacturing and software development sectors commenced to adopt and implement sophisticated project management practices as well. By the 1990s, project management theories, tools and techniques were widely received by different industries and organisations.

Four Periods in the Development of Modern Project Management

[1] Prior to 1958: Craft system to human relations. During this time, the evolution of technology, such as, automobiles and telecommunications shortened the project schedule. For instance, automobiles allowed effective resource allocation and mobility, whilst the telecommunication system increased the speed of communication. Furthermore, the job specification which later became the basis of developing the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) was widely used and Henry Gantt invented the Gantt chart. Examples of projects undertaken during this period as supported by documented evidence include: (a) Building the Pacific Railroad in 1850s; (b) Construction of the Hoover Dam in 1931-1936, that employed approximately 5,200 workers and is still one of the highest gravity dams in the U.S. generating about four billion kilowatt hours a year; and (c) The Manhattan Project in 1942-1945 that was the pioneer research and development project for producing the atomic bomb, involving 125,000 workers and costing nearly $2 billion.

[2] 1958-1979: Application of Management Science. Significant technology advancement took place between 1958 and 1979, such as, the first automatic plain-paper copier by Xerox in 1959. Between 1956 and 1958 several core project management tools including CPM and PERT were introduced. However, this period was characterised by the rapid development of computer technology. The progression from the mainframe to the mini-computer in the 1970s made computers affordable to medium size companies. In 1975, Bill Gates and Paul Allen founded Microsoft. Furthermore, the evolution of computer technology facilitated the emergence of several project management software companies, including, Artemis (1977), Oracle (1977), and Scitor Corporation (1979). In the 1970s other project management tools such as Material Requirements Planning (MRP) were also introduced.

Examples of projects undertaken during this period and which influenced the development of modem project management as we know it today include: (a) Polaris missile project initiated in 1956 that had the objective of delivering nuclear missiles carried by submarines, known as Fleet Ballistic Missile for the U.S Navy. The project successfully launched its first Polaris missile in 1961; (b) Apollo project initiated in 1960 with the objective of sending man to the moon; and (c) E.I du Pont de Nemours chemical plant project commencing in 1958, that had the objective of building major chemical production plants across the U.S.

[3] 1980-1994: Production Centre Human Resources. The 1980s and 1990s are characterised by the revolutionary development in the information management sector with the introduction of the personal computer (PC) and associated computer communications networking facilities. This development resulted in having low cost multitasking PCs that had high efficiency in managing and controlling complex project schedules. During this period low cost project management software for PCs became widely available that made project management techniques more easily accessible.

Examples of major projects undertaken during this period that illustrate the application of high technology, and project management tools and practices include: (a) England France Channel project, 1989 to1991. This project was an international project that involved two governments, several financial institutions, engineering construction companies, and other various organisations from the two countries. The language, use of standard metrics, and other communication differences needed to be closely coordinated; (b) Space Shuttle Challenger project, 1983 to 1986. The disaster of the Challenger space shuttle focused attention on risk management, group dynamics, and quality management; and (c) xv Calgary Winter Olympic of 1988, which successfully applied project management practices to event management.

[4] 1995-Present: Creating a New Environment. This period is dominated by the developments related to the Internet that changed dramatically business practices in the mid 1990s. The Internet has provided fast, interactive, and customised new medium that allows people to browse, purchase, and track products and services online instantly. This has resulted in making firms more productive, more efficient, and more client oriented. Furthermore, many of today's project management software have an Internet connectivity feature. This allows automatic uploading of data so that anyone around the globe with a standard browser can: (a) input the most recent status of their assigned tasks; (b) find out how the overall project is doing; (c) be informed of any delays or advances in the schedule; and (d) stay "in the loop" for their project role, while working independently at a remote site.

An example of a major project undertaken during this period is the Year 2000 (Y2K) project. The Y2K Project, known as the millennium bug referred to the problem that computers may not function correctly on January 1st, 2000 at 12 AM. This was a global phenomenon and was highly problematic because resolving the problem at one's organisation did not guarantee immunity, since a breakdown in the organisation's supply chain could affect the organisation's operating capability. Many organisations set up a project office to control and comply with their stakeholders regarding the Y2K issue. Furthermore, use of the Internet was common practice that led to the establishment of the virtual project office. The goal of this virtual project office was: (a) to deliver uninterrupted turn-of-the-century; (b) monitor Y2K project efforts; (c) provide coordination; (d) develop a risk management plan; and (e) communicate Y2K compliance efforts with various stakeholders. Thus, the virtual project office was a focal point for all the project works, and it increased the awareness and importance of risk management practices to numerous organisations.

Why Project Management?

There is no doubt that organisations today face more aggressive competition than in the past and the business environment they operate in is a highly turbulent one. This scenario has increased the need for organisational accountability for the private and public sectors, leading to a greater focus and demand for operational effectiveness and efficiency.

Effectiveness and efficiency may be facilitated through the introduction of best practices that are able to optimise the management of organisational resources. It has been shown that operations and projects are dissimilar with each requiring different management techniques. Hence, in a project environment, project management can: (a) support the achievement of project and organisational goals; and (b) provide a greater assurance to stakeholders that resources are being managed effectively.

Research by Roberts and Furlonger in a study of information systems projects show that using a reasonably detailed project management methodology, as compared to a loose methodology, improves productivity by 20 to 30 percent. Furthermore, the use of a formalised project management structure to projects can facilitate: (a) the clarification of project scope; (b) agreement of objectives and goals; (c) identifying resources needed; (d) ensuring accountability for results and performance; (e) and encouraging the project team to focus on the final benefits to be achieved. Moreover, the research indicates that 85-90% of projects fail to deliver on time, on budget and to the quality of performance expected. The major causes identified for this situation include:

• Lack of a valid business case justifying the project;
• Objectives not properly defined and agreed;
• Lack of communication and stakeholder management;
• Outcomes and/or benefits not properly defined in measurable terms;
• Lack of quality control;
• Poor estimation of duration and cost;
• Inadequate definition and acceptance of roles (governance);
• Insufficient planning and coordination of resources.

It should be emphasised that the causes for the failure to deliver on time, on budget and to the quality of performance expected could be addressed by the application of project management practices. Furthermore, the failure to deliver on time, on budget and to the quality of performance expected does not necessarily mean that the project was itself a failure. At this stage what is being discussed is the effectiveness and efficiency of project execution and not whether a project is a success or failure.

Project management should be viewed as a tool that helps organisations to execute designated projects effectively and efficiently. The use of this tool does not automatically guarantee project success. (project success will be discussed in a subsequent issue). However, in preparation for the next issue, I would like you to think about the distinction between project success and project management success. This distinction will provide further insight to the questions: Why are some projects perceived as failures when they have met all the traditional standards of success, namely, completed on time, completed within budget, and meeting all the technical specifications? Why are some projects perceived to be successful when they have failed to meet two important criteria that are traditionally associated with success, namely, not completed on time and not completed within budget?

Sandro Azzopardi is a professional author who writes articles on various subjects on his web site and local newspapers and magazines.

Recommended read: A Brief History of Project Management by Duncan Haughey.

Advertisment

What's Next?

You may also be interested in, top 10 qualities of an excellent manager.

• What are the most important qualities of an excellent manager that allows them to tap into talents and resources in order to support and bring out the best in others.

Seven Habits of Failing Managers

• Do you recognise any of these traits in yourself or your colleagues? I have met people who do exactly as I describe and, in the process, have damaged their teams and themselves.

Top 5 Things to Leave Off Your Resume as a Project Manager

• Find out the top 5 things that don't belong in your resume as a project manager.

Carrying Out a Feasibility Study: How to Make a Smart Decision

• A project starts with an idea, but how do we know whether it is possible or reasonable? Conducting a feasibility study will tell us whether the idea is viable.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 1 – Introduction to Project Management for Human Resources

1.3. In-depth Look: History and Evolution of Project Management

In-depth look.

Between the 1900s and the 1950s, the contemporary Project Management paradigm emerged. The project timeframe was shortened, at this time, due to technological advancements. Automobiles made resource allocation and movement more efficient. Communication sped up thanks to telecommunication technology. The job description was extensively utilized, and Henry Gantt is credited with inventing the Gantt chart that is an element of Project Management. The task specification was eventually used to create the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) (Kwak, 2003).

Hoover Dam (1931 – 1936) Example

Utah Construction, Pacific Bridge, H.J. Kaiser, W.A MacDonald and Kahn, Morrison-Knudsen, and J. H. Shea established a partnership to operate as general contractors when Congress enacted the Boulder Canyon Act in 1928, allocating $175 million to the Hoover Dam. Because the project encompassed six different organizations, it was critical for the companies to establish a clear project plan. The building location was in the middle of nowhere, with no access to water or electricity. Boulder City was built to house 5,200 people and a considerable amount of construction equipment. The project was successfully completed on time and under budget. The Hoover dam project, which generates more than four billion kilowatt-hours per year, is still one of the highest gravity dams in the United States (Kwak, 2003).

1956: The American Association of Cost Engineers (now AACE International) Formed

Early practitioners of Project Management and the associated specialties of planning and scheduling, cost estimating, and cost and schedule control formed the AACE in 1956. It has remained the leading professional society for cost estimators, cost engineers, schedulers, project managers and project control specialists since. AACE continued its pioneering work in 2006, releasing the first integrated process for portfolio, programme, and Project Management with their Total Cost Management Framework (Haughey, 2021).

1957: The Critical Path Method (CPM) Invented by the Dupont Corporation

Developed by Dupont, CPM is a technique used to predict project duration by analyzing which sequence of activities has the least amount of scheduling flexibility. Dupont designed it to address the complex process of shutting down chemical plants for maintenance, and then with the maintenance completed, restarting them. The technique was so successful it saved the corporation $1 million in the first year of its implementation (Haughey, 2021).

1958: The Program Evaluation Review Technique (PERT) Invented for the U.S. Navy’s Polaris Project

During the Cold War, the United States Department of Defense’s US Navy Special Projects Office developed PERT as part of the Polaris mobile submarine-launched ballistic missile project. PERT is a method for analyzing the tasks involved in completing a project, especially the time needed to complete each task and identifying the minimum time required to complete the total project  (Haughey, 2021).

1958: The Apollo Project

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was established in 1958. NASA successfully conducted six lunar exploration missions between 1969 and 1972. NASA established the Apollo programme office in 1960 to monitor and schedule Apollo flights using PERT, acquire and contract with suppliers like GE, construct a management system to assess performance, and establish a focal point for the Apollo programme   (Kwak, 2003).

1962: United States Department of Defense Mandate and the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) Approach

The United States Department of Defense (DOD) created the WBS concept as part of the Polaris mobile submarine-launched ballistic missile project. After completing the project, the DOD published the work breakdown structure it used and mandated following this procedure in future projects of this scope and size. WBS is an exhaustive, hierarchical tree structure of deliverables and tasks that need to be performed to complete a project. Later adopted by the private sector, the WBS remains one of the most common and valuable Project Management tools (Haughey, 2021).

1965: The International Project Management Association (IPMA) Founded

IPMA was the world’s first Project Management association, started in Vienna by a group as a forum for project managers to network and share information. Registered in Switzerland, the association is a federation of about 50 national and internationally oriented Project Management associations. Its vision is to promote Project Management and to lead the development of the profession. Since 1965, IPMA has grown and spread worldwide, with over 120,000 members in 2012 (Haughey, 2021).

1986: The Challenger Accident at NASA (PPMI was founded)

The Challenger accident that happened in NASA was a “watershed” event and a great deal went into understanding what had gone wrong. That is when NASA moved from learning on-the-job to professional training approaches where it introduced PPMI – Program and Project Management Institute which is now called as Academy of Program/Project and Engineering Leadership (APPEL) (Hoffman, 2008).

1980s: Rise of Computers, Software and Project Management

In the history of Project Management, the emergence of the computer had a significant influence. In the 1980s, computers pushed connection and communication to the centre of Project Management. As technology advanced in the 1990s, dial-up Internet access became more commonly available. Some Project Management organizations developed Project Management systems, although the new era of computers and Project Management did not begin until the late nineteenth century (Somerville, n.d.).

1998-2000: The Iridium Project

Iridium, Motorola’s $5 billion global communication project, promised to deliver global communication service practically everywhere, at any time. The Iridium network was launched in November 1998 and began providing worldwide network services. Iridium went bankrupt in March 2000, and its services were terminated. The project was originally regarded as a technical achievement, but it came to an abrupt and inexplicable end. Full-time project control managers were hired, and software engineers and analysts were transferred to the programme office. In addition, the project control managers used Primavera Project Planner, a sophisticated project management software, to manage complicated and interrelated project schedules (Kwak, 2003).

2000-present: The Y2K Project and Today

The Year 2000 (Y2K) “Millennium Bug “was a possible issue of computers failing to work properly on January 1, 2000. In February 1998, USA, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13073. The directive was issued to provide a consolidated focal point for all Y2K operations to be monitored. The Y2K project had a clear goal and a tight timeline (on January 1st, 2000, at midnight). Almost every organisation in the world that used computers was involved in the initiative, which was undertaken internationally and independently. To address the difficulties of the computer era, various techniques and technologies were developed (Kwak, 2003).

Many firms adopted Project Management principles, tools, and methodologies because of the Y2K crisis. Many businesses established a project office to keep track of and comply with its stakeholders. The Y2K office served as a focal point for all project activities, and its functions were prominently displayed (Kwak, 2003).

Today, organizations are highly competitive, and they operate in constant change. Organizational accountability demands effectiveness and efficiency. Companies rely on Project Management to advance the management and focus of their operations to get the results of effectiveness and efficiency.  It helps organizations meet goals, and provide confidence to stakeholders that all resources are being managed responsibly. Following Project Management methods and techniques according to Azzopardi (2022), improves productivity by 20-30 percent, clarifies the project scope, objectives and scope, identifies needed resources, and guarantees accountability of results and performance, and helps the project team focus on success.

Class of 2022 contribution:  Mariefer Atienza, Keziah Butal, Nagambika Kumar, Teajuk Seok, Jan Villaruz

Strategic Project Management: Theory and Practice for Human Resource Professionals Copyright © 2022 by Debra Patterson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

The History of Project Management

The Neolithic Revolution was the period when humans transitioned from hunters and gatherers to agricultural society, which was made possible by the development of project management skills. The ability to conceive and execute plans that defer short-term gratification for greater gains in the long run has allowed humans to separate themselves as the most complex and dynamic species on the planet.

From the ancient wonders of the world like the Great Pyramids of Egypt, through the modern wonders of the world like the Great Wall of China, and through this past century that saw us put a man on the moon, all of humanity’s greatest accomplishments have prospered because of highly evolved organizational skills.

Those skills have created the foundation for the theories which have created the modern field of Project Management. For a great reference on some of the theories that inform the decisions of modern Project Managers, check out this Guide to Project Management Methodologies . Let’s take a closer look at the history of Project Management, which includes some of the historical projects that have raised humanity’s expectations for itself, and the theories that have evolved as a result of our accomplishments.

Project Management in the City of Rome

The City of Rome was perhaps the first modern city, with many of its greatest projects still standing today. The Romans were the practically minded inheritors of Greek philosophy, and were able to take many of the esoteric concepts of physics and mathematics that were conceived by the Greeks, like the Pythagorean Theory, and put them to use with superior project management to create the first city that reached a population of one million citizens . Rome developed the infrastructure that allowed for some of the first urban amenities like concrete homes and communal buildings (such as the Pantheon), grain distribution to all citizens, and most famously, a plumbing system that brought running water to every home. The Roman Aqueduct was their crowning achievement of engineering. By using a slight downward gradient, the Roman aqueducts allowed gravity to let water flow from distant sources into the city, and then into the homes of private citizens. Some of their aqueducts are still in partial use today.

The Roman architect and military engineer Vitruvius recorded his observations of the Aqueducts in his book De Architectura , which had a major impact on Classical Architecture, and is considered the first text on architectural theory. The understanding of advanced project management allowed Rome to become the dominant power in the Mediterranean Sea for many centuries.

Fayolism and Project Management

Henri Fayol was a French philosopher whose work brought about the modern era of Project Management. Observing French factories and companies after the Industrial Revolution, Fayol was inspired to create a theory which improved project management and created a more efficient workforce. His theory, called Fayolism, encouraged administration to use forecasting and planning to minimizing misunderstandings in the workplace. His theory was flexible, and can be applied not only to industrial settings, but also in the home, and the government.

Fayol wanted management and workers to use verbal forms of communication instead of written forms to increase empathetic relationships in the work place, encouraging heart to heart talks over workplace memos.

His ideas are still taught in Project Management curriculum at all levels of higher education.

• For reference to some of top graduate programs for Project Management, check out our list of The 25 Best Online Project Management MBA Degree Programs .

The Gantt Chart

When the United States Navy was developing the Polaris nuclear submarine project, they created the PERT technique , in order to elaborate on the Gantt chart, and allow for further optimization. A PERT network chart allows organizers to break down tasks into smaller sub-tasks, placing an emphasis on identifying the minimum amount of time that it will take to complete each task. The PERT chart allows organizations to create an educated guess for the duration of a given project by using four different types of time allotments which allow uncertainty to factor into the estimation. The four types of time are: optimistic time , which is the minimum amount of time in which a task could be possibly completed; pessimistic time, which is the maximum amount of time that could be allowed to complete a task; most likely time , which is the best estimate of the time required to complete a task; and expected time , which is the best estimate of how long it will take to complete a task with possible delays included. PERT management tools typically come in the form of arrow and node diagrams that correspond to tasks and events, respectively.

Project Management Becomes a Profession in the 1960’s

Capitalizing on some of the discoveries and practices implemented by the military that related to project management, it developed as a profession, with the creation of the The International Project Management Association (IPMA) in 1965, and then the Project Management Institute (PMI) in 1969. These organizations:

• Allowed project managers to network and share information
• Offered certifications that were created from professional experience.
• Accumulated hundreds of thousands of members as the field blossomed throughout the world
• Continued to innovate, organize and bolster a community of project managers that is rapidly growing while producing updated information leading to better results for themselves, their peers and their organizations

Building a Project Management Career

Now that you know a little bit about the history of project management, you might be asking, what can I do to apply its principles and methodologies to my life, and my work? Is it right for me? As with any undertaking, reading, studying, working and learning in structured environments or programs will be the most effective ways to gain an understanding, potential mastery, and employment within project management.

• When you’re going through this decision making process, consider the options based on your goals, experience, and ability to commit time and effort. Reading up on project management can help you decide if it’s right for you.
• Whether you’re working in project management, studying it, or aspiring to do both, you will benefit from our list of the 20 Best Books on Project Management .
• If you already have some understanding of project management, and know you’re ready to begin a formal education in it, check out our rankings of top undergraduate and graduate programs in the discipline here .

Getting a Project Management Degree Today

Things have come a long way since the days of the Romans. Today we use digitalized charts and archives to organize large projects, and interview for specific project management job positions.

Before you can interview for a position in the field, you’ll likely need a degree in Project Management. The history of project management is centuries old, but modern, common practices, methodologies and terminology are essential to securing a job as a project manager, or even just using its principles to your benefit in whatever you do. One of the best things about PM is that it can apply to just about anything that you, or a team or likeminded people are working on. While other degree programs put you on a specific track, project management degrees are often more versatile and multi-faceted.

Interviewing for a Project Management Position

Most interviewers for Project Management Positions focus on areas such as:

• Planning and Organizational Skills make sure you know what’s expected for proper time management practices, team-building, resource allocation, all of which can rub off on the employees that you are managing
• Communication Skills let you get your point across to professors, classmates, coworkers, interviewers, fellow project managers and eventually your employees.
• Team Management Skills let you figure out the strengths and weaknesses of those you work with, and how to put them in the best positions to meet and exceed organizational goals.
• Risk Calculation lets you decide where opportunity and disaster lie, and steer your team and organization’s course towards one and away from the other. Remember the aqueducts!
• Goals and Outcome Foresight gives you an opportunity to demonstrate to an interviewer that you understand how to interpret, understand and meet goals, set them, and predict what strategies, resources and efforts can produce.
• To prepare for your next job interview for a Project Manager position, check out our list of the The 20 Most Common Project Manager Interview Questions .

What’s Next in Project Management?

So where is the future of Project Management? It’s furthering its integration and efficiency in technology, healthcare, education, government, budgeting, wealth distribution, and everywhere else. As the global economy creates redundancies and mutates traditional issues of risk, resources, labor, desire, service and the possibilities of meeting or grappling with them all, an up-to-date education is one of your best weapons in keeping ahead of the curve. Understanding human need, changing circumstances and how they create ripple effects will also be instrumental in keeping up with the evolution of project management. Earning a degree, or using independent study to keep current on project management’s accomplishments and techniques will give you a look at what’s coming, and of course, by monitoring the information published by organizations like PMI and IPMA on developments within the field. While the field is immensely complex, in many ways it’s based on discoveries and practices made long ago, and rediscovered throughout human history. It is within every development made in the modern world, and you can help shape that.

“I don’t know of any other profession that crosses all job functions, all industries, all geographies,” Brian Weiss, vice president of practitioner career development at PMI.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

History of project management

It is tempting to think of project management as a modern discipline, but its major concepts have their roots in the late nineteenth century. Read this article to learn the story of how modern management theory was influenced by over a century's worth of scientific, social, and business methodologies.

In this article

The early years: late nineteenth century, early twentieth century, mid-twentieth century.

Project management, in its modern form, began to take root only a few decades ago. Starting in the early 1960s, businesses and other organizations began to see the benefit of organizing work around projects. This project-centric view of the organization evolved further as organizations began to understand the critical need for their employees to communicate and collaborate while integrating their work across multiple departments and professions and, in some cases, whole industries.

Today, the basic precepts of project management are represented by the project triangle, a symbol popularized by Harold Kerzner in his landmark work, Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling .

Top of Page

We can travel back even further, to the latter half of the nineteenth century, when the business world was becoming increasingly complex, to see how project management evolved from basic management principles. Large-scale government projects were the impetus for making important decisions that became the basis for project management methodology. In the United States, for example, the first truly large government project was the transcontinental railroad, which began construction in the 1860s. Suddenly, business leaders found themselves faced with the daunting task of organizing the manual labor of thousands of workers and the processing and assembly of unprecedented quantities of raw material.

Near the turn of the century, Frederick Taylor (1856–1915) began his detailed studies of work. He applied scientific reasoning to work by showing that labor can be analyzed and improved by focusing on its elementary parts. He applied his thinking to tasks found in steel mills, such as shoveling sand and lifting and moving parts. Before then, the only way to improve productivity was to demand harder work and longer hours from workers. Taylor introduced the concept of working more efficiently, rather than working harder and longer. The inscription on Taylor's tomb in Philadelphia attests to his place in the history of management: "The father of scientific management."

Taylor's associate, Henry Gantt (1861–1919), studied in great detail the order of operations in work. His studies of management focused on navy ship construction during World War I. His Gantt Charts, complete with task bars and milestone markers, outline the sequence and duration of all tasks in a process. Gantt Chart diagrams proved to be such a powerful analytical tool for managers that they remained virtually unchanged for almost a hundred years. It wasn't until the early 1990s that Microsoft Office Project first added link lines to these task bars, depicting more precise dependencies between tasks.

Over the years, Microsoft Office Project packed even more information into the lines, such as progress lines against a baseline, variances, and lines depicting status progress at a particular point in time.

Today, Henry Gantt's legacy is remembered by a medal given out in his name by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

Taylor, Gantt, and others helped make project management a distinct business function that requires study and discipline. In the decades leading up to World War II, marketing approaches, industrial psychology, and human relations began to take hold as integral parts of project management.

During World War II, complex government and military projects and a shrinking war-time labor supply demanded new organizational structures. Complex network diagrams, called PERT charts and the critical path method were introduced, giving managers more control over massively engineered and very complex projects (such as military weapon systems with their huge variety of tasks and numerous interactions at many points in time).

Soon, these techniques spread to all kinds of industries as business leaders sought new management strategies and tools to handle their growth in a quickly changing and competitive world. In the early 1960s, businesses began to apply general system theories to business interactions. In their book, The Theory and Management of Systems , Richard Johnson, Fremont Kast, and James Rosenzweig described how a modern business is like a human organism, with a skeletal system, a muscular system, circulatory system, nervous system, and so on.

This view of business as a human organism implies that for a business to survive and prosper, all its functional parts must work in concert toward specific goals, or projects. In decades since the 1960s, this approach toward project management began to take root in its modern forms. While various business models evolved during this period, they all shared a common underlying structure: a project manager manages the project, puts together a team, and ensures the integration and communication of the workflow horizontally across different departments.

Within the last ten years, project management has continued to evolve. Two significant trends are emerging:

Bottom-up planning      This trend emphasizes simpler project designs, shorter project cycles, efficient collaboration among team members, stronger team member involvement and decision making. This trend is broadly known as agile project management, and includes a number or related methodologies, such as Scrum, Crystal, Extreme Programming, Unified Process, and many others.

Top-down planning and reviewing      This trend is characterized by enterprise-wide decision making about the portfolio of projects that an organization should have, as well as by enabling data-mining technologies to make information in the portfolio more transparent.

Need more help?

Want more options.

Explore subscription benefits, browse training courses, learn how to secure your device, and more.

Microsoft 365 subscription benefits

Microsoft 365 training

Microsoft security

Accessibility center

Communities help you ask and answer questions, give feedback, and hear from experts with rich knowledge.

Ask the Microsoft Community

Microsoft Tech Community

Windows Insiders

Microsoft 365 Insiders

Was this information helpful?

Thank you for your feedback.

• United States
• United Kingdom

A brief history of the agile methodology

Most organizations today practice some form of agile development, but it wasn't always so. to understand agile's success, it helps to look back to the heyday of the waterfall methodology and the birth of the agile manifesto..

Contributor, InfoWorld |

Before agile: The waterfall methodology

The pivot to agile methods, why agile development delivers better software.

Every technology organization these days seems to practice some version of agile methodology. Or at least they believe they do. Whether you are new to software development or you started decades ago, your work today is at least influenced by agile methods.

But what is agile , and how do developers and organizations incorporate agile methodologies? This article is a brief history of agile development and how it differs from the classic waterfall methodology. I'll discuss the differences between agile and waterfall methods in practice, and explain why agile is so much better suited to how developers and teams actually work, especially in today's development environments.

Old hands like me remember when the waterfall methodology was the gold standard for software development. Using the waterfall method required a ton of documentation up front, before any coding started. Usually, the process started with a business analyst writing a business requirements document that captured what the business needed from the application. These documents were long and detailed, containing everything from overall strategy to comprehensive functional specifications and visual user interface designs.

Technologists used the business requirements document to develop a technical requirements document. This document defined the application’s architecture, data structures, object-oriented functional designs, user interfaces, and other nonfunctional requirements.

Once the business and technical requirements documents were complete, developers would kick off coding, then integration, and finally testing. All of this had to be done before an application was deemed production-ready. The whole process could easily take a couple of years.

The waterfall methodology in practice

The documentation used for the waterfall methodology was called "the spec," and developers were expected to know it just as well as its authors did. You could be chastised for failing to properly implement a key detail, say, outlined on page 77 of a 200-page document.

Software development tools also required specialized training, and there weren't anywhere near as many tools to choose from. We developed all the low-level stuff ourselves, such as opening database connections and multithreading our data processing.

For even basic applications, teams were large and communication tools were limited. Our technical specifications aligned us, and we leveraged them like the Bible. If a requirement changed, we’d put the business leaders through a long review-and-sign-off process. Communicating changes across the team and fixing code were expensive procedures.

Because software was developed based on the technical architecture, lower-level artifacts were developed first and dependent artifacts came next. Tasks were assigned by skill, and it was common for database engineers to construct tables and other database artifacts first. Application developers coded the functionality and business logic next, and the user interface was overlaid last. It took months before anyone saw the application working. By then, stakeholders were usually getting antsy—and often smarter about what they really wanted. No wonder implementing changes was so expensive!

In the end, not everything you put in front of users worked as expected. Sometimes, they wouldn’t use a feature at all. Other times, a capability was widely successful but required re-engineering to support scalability and performance. In the waterfall world, you only learned these things after the software was deployed, following a long development cycle.

Pros and cons of the waterfall methodology

Invented in 1970, the waterfall methodology was revolutionary because it brought discipline to software development and ensured there was a clear spec to follow. It was based on the waterfall manufacturing method derived from Henry Ford’s 1913 assembly line innovations, which provided certainty about each step in the production process. The waterfall method was intended to ensure that the final product matched what was specified in the first place.

When software teams started adopting the waterfall methodology, computing systems and their applications were typically complex and monolithic, requiring discipline and clear outcomes to deliver. Requirements also changed slowly compared to today, so large-scale efforts were less problematic. In fact, systems were built assuming they would not change but would be perpetual battleships. Multiyear timeframes were common not only in software development but also in manufacturing and other enterprise activities. But waterfall’s rigidity became its downfall as we entered the internet era, and speed and flexibility were more prized.

Software development started to change when developers began working on internet applications. A lot of the early work was done at startups where teams were smaller, were colocated, and often did not have traditional computer science backgrounds. There were financial and competitive pressures to bring websites, applications, and new capabilities to market faster. Development tools and platforms changed rapidly in response.

This led many of us working in startups to question the waterfall methodology and look for ways to be more efficient. We couldn’t afford to do all the detailed documentation up front, and we needed a more iterative and collaborative process. We still debated changes to the requirements, but we were more open to experimentation and adapting our software based on user feedback. Our organizations were less structured, and our applications were less complex than enterprise legacy systems, so we were more open to building versus buying applications. More importantly, we were trying to grow businesses, so when users told us something wasn’t working, we usually listened to them.

Having the skills and abilities to innovate became strategically important. You could raise all the money you wanted, but you couldn’t attract talented software developers, able to work with rapidly changing internet technologies, and then force them to follow “the spec.” Developers rejected project managers who led with end-to-end schedules describing what we should develop, when applications should ship, and sometimes even how to structure the code. We were terrible at hitting the three-month and six-month schedules that our project managers drafted and unceasingly updated.

Instead, we started telling them how internet applications needed to be engineered, and we delivered results on a schedule that we drew up iteratively. It turns out we weren’t that bad at delivering what we said we would when we committed to it in one-week to four-week intervals.

In 2001, a group of experienced software developers realized that they were collectively practicing software development differently from the classic waterfall methodology. Not all of them were in startups, either. This group—which included technology luminaries Kent Beck, Martin Fowler, Ron Jeffries, Ken Schwaber, and Jeff Sutherland—came up with the Agile Manifesto that documented their shared beliefs about how a modern software development process should operate. They stressed collaboration over documentation, self-organization rather than rigid management practices, and the ability to manage constant change rather than being locked into a rigid waterfall development process.

From those principles the agile methodology for software development was born.

When you take the aggregate of agile principles, implement them in an agile framework, leverage collaboration tools, and adopt agile development practices, you usually get applications that are better quality and faster to develop. You also get better technical methods,  aka   hygiene .

The main reason is that agile is designed for flexibility and adaptability. You don’t need to define all the answers up front, as you do in the waterfall method. Instead, you break the problem into digestible components that you then develop and test with users. If something isn’t working well or as expected, or if the effort reveals something that you hadn’t considered, you can adapt the effort and get back on track quickly—or even change tracks if that’s what’s needed. Agile lets each team member contribute to the solution, and it requires that each member assumes personal responsibility for their work.

Agile principles, frameworks, and practices are designed for today’s operating conditions. Agile typically prioritizes iterative development and leveraging feedback to improve the application and the development process. Both iteration and feedback are well suited to today’s world of operating smarter and faster .

Agile development also encourages ongoing improvement. Imagine if Microsoft ended Windows development after version 3.1, or Google stopped improving its search algorithms in 2002. Software is in constant need of being updated, supported, and enhanced; agile methodology establishes both a mindset and process for that continuous improvement.

Finally, agile development leads to better software because people on agile teams are typically more productive and happier. Engineers have a say in how much work they take on, and they are proud to show their results. Product owners like seeing their vision expressed in software sooner and being able to change priorities based on the latest insights. Users like getting software that does what they actually need it to do.

Today, enterprises need a high level of software competency to deliver exceptional digital experiences in a hypercompetitive world. And they need to attract and keep great talent to build great software. Agile development helps enterprises do both.

Next read this:

• Why companies are leaving the cloud
• 5 easy ways to run an LLM locally
• Coding with AI: Tips and best practices from developers
• Meet Zig: The modern alternative to C
• What is generative AI? Artificial intelligence that creates
• The best open source software of 2023
• Software Development
• Agile Development

Isaac Sacolick is president of StarCIO and the author of the Amazon bestseller Driving Digital: The Leader’s Guide to Business Transformation through Technology and Digital Trailblazer: Essential Lessons to Jumpstart Transformation and Accelerate Your Technology Leadership . He covers agile planning , devops, data science, product management, and other digital transformation best practices. Sacolick is a recognized top social CIO and digital transformation influencer. He has published more than 900 articles at InfoWorld.com , CIO.com , his blog Social, Agile, and Transformation , and other sites.

Copyright © 2022 IDG Communications, Inc.

• Online Degree Explore Bachelor’s & Master’s degrees
• MasterTrack™ Earn credit towards a Master’s degree
• University Certificates Advance your career with graduate-level learning
• Top Courses
• Join for Free

12 Project Management Methodologies: Your Guide

Set your project up for success by choosing the right project management methodology.

Your choice of project management methodology defines how you manage a project. Learn about some common options (and how to choose the right one for your project).

Start advancing your skills today

If you're ready to embark on a career as a project manager, or simply to add project management to your current skill set, you may want to enroll in the Google Project Management Professional Certificate . This comprehensive course takes you through methodologies like Agile, Scrum, Kanban, and more.

What is a project management methodology?

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines ‘methodology' as “a body of methods, rules, and postulates employed by a discipline” or “a particular procedure or set of procedures” [ 1 ]. In the field of project management, this would be a set of rules and processes that define how you manage a project.

When discussing project management methodologies (PMMs), you’ll likely encounter a variety of terms—some of them are true methodologies and others would be more accurately described as principles or philosophies. For the purposes of this discussion, we’ll consider a variety of terms often referred to as PMMs, even if they don’t technically satisfy the definition.

12 popular project management methodologies

Often one of the first decisions you’ll make as a project manager involves which methodology to follow. As the industry has evolved over the years, so to have the PM methodology options. Keep in mind that there isn’t one best option—the best methodology is the one (or combination) that best fits your project, team, and company. 

Before we discuss how to choose a methodology, let’s take a look at some common options in project management.

Read more: What is a Project Manager? A Career Guide

1. Waterfall

The Waterfall method, first designed by Winston W. Royce in 1970 for software development, is a traditional approach to project management. With the Waterfall methodology, a project flows through a series of steps or phases. Generally, each phase of the project life cycle must be completed before the next can begin. 

Stages of the waterfall model

1. Requirements: In this first phase, you’ll work with stakeholders to clearly define the project scope and requirements.

2. Design: The critical design phase is when you’ll plan what the final product will look like and what steps your team needs to take to get there. 

3. Implementation: This is where all your planning gets put into action. For software projects, this is when programmers will write the actual code. 

4. Verification: During verification, you team tests the product to ensure it meets the requirements laid out in the first phase.

5. Maintenance: After the project is complete, the development team responds to feedback and makes any necessary modifications. 

When to use waterfall

The logical flow of waterfall makes it an excellent option for short, predictable projects where you have a clear vision of the finished product and fixed project requirements that are not likely to change. It’s best suited for teams and PMs that excel at planning and documentation. 

2. Agile methodology

Agile approaches are iterative, meaning they work to continuously improve a product by returning to or repeating as many steps as necessary. The Agile Manifesto was created by several software development industry leaders as a way to adapt to quickly changing technology at the time. 

While not technically a full methodology — adopting Agile won’t give you a comprehensive plan for how to manage your projects — Agile does offer a series of values and principles to promote agility and efficiency in the development process. 

Read more: What Is Agile? And When to Use It

Four foundational values of Agile project management methodology

1. Individuals and interactions over processes and tools: Managing a project around your agile team rather than your tools can help make your team more responsive and adaptable.

2. Working software over comprehensive documentation: Robust documentation involved in older software development techniques often led to long delays. You’ll still produce documentation in Agile, but the focus shifts to functionality.

3. Customer collaboration over contract negotiation: Instead of working out every detail of a project at the beginning, this method keeps project stakeholders and customers engaged in every stage of the collaborative development process. This is particularly helpful when a customer has unclear or changing requirements.

4. Responding to change over following a plan: Instead of front loading all the planning of a project, Agile encourages short iterations that help make changes an improvement rather than an expense.

When to use Agile

An Agile approach works well on creative projects where requirements might change along the way and the final details of the product are not yet established. It’s also a good option for projects where clients or stakeholders prefer to offer feedback regularly, rather than only when the final product is delivered.

Learn more about PM methodologies in this lecture video from the Google course and enroll today:

Scrum is a lightweight Agile framework designed to help self-organizing teams develop more complex projects. The framework includes a set of roles and meetings centered on the values of commitment, courage, focus, openness, and respect.

To better understand Scrum, let’s take a look at some of its roles and practices.

Sprint: Short (usually one month or less) development cycle where a team creates a useable and (hopefully) releasable product increment

Scrum master : Team leader responsible for coaching the team in the Scrum method, organizing Scrum meetings and events, and ensuring team members have the support they need to succeed

Daily Scrum: 15-minute stand-up meeting held each day of a sprint where the team plans work for the next 24 hours

Product backlog: Prioritized list of work still to be done on a product

Product owner: Person responsible for maximizing the value of the product by managing the product backlog

Development team: Roles responsible for the actual development work of a project

Sprint review: Informal session where the development team presents their finished iterations to stakeholders for feedback

When to use Scrum

The Scrum method, best for self-managing teams and a culture open to innovation, can help bring products to market more quickly. The short development cycles and frequent stakeholder involvement can often lead to a better-quality product.

Read more: Agile vs. Scrum: Which Should You Use, and Why?

Kanban is an Agile method of project management that helps visualize workflow to improve efficiency. The method got its start in the Japanese manufacturing industry before gaining popularity across many fields.

At the center of the Kanban method is a Kanban board—a physical or digital tool that divides workflow into columns organized by development stage, such as to-do, in-progress, and completed tasks. This helps eliminate multitasking by encouraging teams to focus on only a few tasks at a time. It also makes it easy for both the team and stakeholders to quickly see where the team is in the development process.

Did you know? The word ‘kanban’ means ‘billboard’ in Japanese. The method was developed by Toyota in the 1940s. 

Six kanban practices

1. Visualize the workflow. The Kanban board visualizes a team’s workload in a way that’s easy to understand and execute.

2. Limit work in progress. Restricting the number of tasks a team is working on at any given time helps maintain focus.

3. Manage flow. This method switches the focus from managing people to managing a smooth flow of work.

4. Make policies explicit. Keep them simple, visible, and easy to understand.

5. Use feedback loops. Revisiting project goals regularly helps the team respond to changes and take advantage of new opportunities.

6. Improve collaboratively. Teams with a shared vision can work together to achieve continuous improvement. These evolutions should be based on metrics and experimentation.

Read more: Kanban vs. Scrum: What's the Difference?

When to use kanban

If you want to limit planning and meetings and focus on continuous improvement, kanban could be a good choice. It’s particularly effective in helping teams work through big backlogs or deal with frequent requests from stakeholders.

The Lean methodology focuses on maximizing value by reducing waste and improving efficiency. It’s another method that came from Toyota and has expanded in popularity well beyond manufacturing. 

Five core principles of lean

The Lean methodology centers on five principles, outlined in the book The Machine that Changed the World and Lean Thinking .

1. Understand value. Think about value from the customer’s perspective. What are they willing to pay?

2. Identify the value stream. Use visual techniques to map out the actions required to develop and launch a product. Use this map to identify areas of waste.

3. Create value flow. You can achieve this by eliminating waste due to things like excess inventory, time spent waiting, or performing more work than is necessary.

4. Use a pull approach. Deliver value as the customer requests it. This keeps the focus on delivering what the customer actually wants while eliminating time spent on features that might not be wanted or needed.

5. Continuously improve. Always be seeking perfection by assessing the project regularly for ways to reduce waste and enhance value.

When to use Lean

The focus on waste elimination makes Lean a natural fit for more traditional manufacturing projects. But it can also be effective in other industries, particularly when you want to keep the focus of development on the customer first.

6. Critical Path Method (CPM)

The Critical Path Method defines the longest sequence of tasks that must be completed to successfully complete a project. These are the tasks that, if stalled, could cause delays in the entire project. The method also maps out the dependencies between tasks and an estimate of how long each task will take to complete.

Mapping out these elements can help establish important project deadlines and define a more accurate project schedule.  

When to use CPM

CPM is best for projects with a well-defined series of tasks that need to be performed in a set order (construction projects, for example). It’s a good option to keep projects with a fixed deadline on schedule.

7. Critical Chain Management (CCM)

Where CPM focuses on time, the Critical Chain Method (CCM) shifts the focus to the supply chain. This method is used to map out a critical path based on resource availability. These resources could include people, physical space, equipment, or other physical components. Unlike a CPM map, a critical chain project management map includes scheduled “buffers” to remind a project team that a certain resource is necessary to finish a critical task. 

When to use CCM

CCM is well-suited for projects that rely on limited or time-sensitive resources to complete. Overestimating task durations by building in buffers helps teams meet deadlines even in the face of unforeseen circumstances.

PRINCE2 stands for Projects in Controlled Environments. It’s a process-based project management methodology used to answer certain basic questions in product development:

What are you trying to achieve?

When will you start?

What do you need to complete it?

Do you need help?

How long will it take?

How much will it cost?

While used primarily by the British government, the PRINCE2 method has been applied to projects in a variety of industries around the world. The method is designed to be scalable to fit a variety of projects.

When to use PRINCE2

PRINCE2 is particularly popular outside the US — it’s used in more than 150 different countries. If your project involves multinational stakeholders, it might be worth considering this method. The focus on robust organization makes it more appropriate for complex yet predictable projects.

The Project Management Body of Knowledge, or PMBOK for short, isn’t so much a methodology as a collection of best practices and guidelines outlined by the Project Management Institute (PMI). 

Did you know? The PMBOK Guide is currently in its seventh edition, published in 2021. This edition reflects the full range of development approaches and the evolving profession of project management.

The book, regularly updated by PMI, breaks down projects into the following stages, often referred to as the lifecycle of a project:

Introduction

Decline / Retirement

For large companies managing multiple projects, PMBOK can help standardize terminology and practices across different departments.

When to use PMBOK

Just about every company and project can benefit from the standardized practices outlined in PMBOK. Project managers who pursue the Project Management Professional (PMP) certification will want to be familiar with the material.

The Projects Integrating Sustainable Methods (PRiSM) model of project management places an emphasis on environmental sustainability. Specifically, the method focuses on minimizing the ecological risks and increasing benefits that may impact the five Ps: people, planet, prosperity, process, and products.

Unlike other methodologies, PRiSM looks at projects beyond the scope of development to consider their impact beyond delivery.

Six principles of PRiSM

1. Commitment and accountability: Organizations should take responsibility for a clean environment, employee well-being, and equal opportunities. 

2. Ethics and decision-making: All decisions should take into account the short and long-term impacts on both society and the environment.

3. Integrated and transparent: Projects should promote financial, environmental, and social benefits at all policy levels.

4. Principal and values based: Projects should use technology to use resources more efficiently.

5. Social and ecological equity: Project managers should evaluate any impact a project many have on vulnerable populations or environmentally sensitive areas using demographic data.

6. Economic prosperity: Fiscal planning should balance the needs of company stakeholders and future generations.

When to use PRiSM

This approach is best for projects with an established environmental impact, such as real estate and industrial projects. It’s not as useful for things like software development, where environmental impact is less of a concern.

11. Six Sigma

Six Sigma, a quality management process developed at Motorola in the 1980s, comprises a set of tools and techniques to eliminate errors in development. This can help reduce costs and customer complaints stemming from errors.

The method generally takes a five-phase approach to improving existing processes:

Define: Analyze a business problem from a customer perspective.

Measure: Measure the problem in terms of data and define a performance metric.

Analyze: Quantify your goals and determine if your process is efficient and effective.

Improve: Find ways to improve process implementation.

Control: Implement and maintain the solution.

When to use Six Sigma

Six Sigma tends to be most effective in large organizations with several hundred or more employees. 

12. Extreme Project Management (XPM)

Doug DeCarlo, the creator of Extreme Project Management (XPM) defines it as “the art and science of facilitating and managing the flow of thoughts, emotions, and interactions in a way that produces valued outcomes under turbulent and complex conditions.”

This flexible approach helps teams adapt to the unknowns that pop up during a project, including frequent changes to requirements and complex project needs. For software development projects, this is sometimes referred to as extreme programming.

When to use XPM

XPM works best for short development cycles with less-defined product specifications. Teams that like to experiment to see what works could thrive with this method.

Hybrid Methodologies

Just as there’s no single “best” method for managing a project, you also don’t have to limit yourself to just one option. Project managers have mixed and matched to come up with new hybrid approaches, such as Lean Six Sigma or Scrumban (Scrum and Kanban).

How to choose a project management methodology

The best project management method for you will depend on your project, team, organization, and tools. Let’s take a quick look at some things to consider and questions you should ask yourself when choosing a PM methodology.

1. Evaluate the project. Does your project have fixed or flexible requirements? Is the finished product well-defined, or will the team take a creative approach to defining it? How complex is it, and how long will it take to complete? What physical resources are involved? Will the stakeholders or clients be readily available, and how involved would they like to be?

2. Consider your team. Some methods work well with small, self-managing teams. Others lend structure to larger cross-functional teams. Also take into account what method your team might already be used to. Would the benefits of implementing a new method outweigh the time cost of teaching it?

3. Look at the organization. What are your company’s goals and values? You’ll want to choose a methodology that aligns with these elements. Some companies may prefer and employ a particular approach that you’ll need to adapt to.

4. Think about your tools. Some project management tools are flexible enough to work with various different methodologies. Others might be more specific to a particular approach. Make sure the tools and project management software you’re proficient in are a good match for whatever methodology you select.

Start advancing your project management skills today

Taking online courses can be a great way to gain job-ready skills and get hands-on experience with different project management methodologies. Start learning today with one of Coursera's top-rated courses:

To build foundational knowledge in this field , consider the University of Virginia's Fundamentals of Project Planning and Management course. This course takes about nine hours to complete and covers how to sequence project tasks, determining a critical path, address risks, and execute a project.

To learn Six Sigma and Lean approaches , consider the University System of Georgia's Six Sigma Yellow Belt Specialization . In about a month, you'll learn methods that help improve business processes and performance and apply these methods to a course project.

To explore project management more broadly and earn a credential , consider the Google Project Management Professional Certificate . In as little as six months, you'll learn about traditional and Agile methods, access career resources, and get connected with top employers through the Google hiring consortium.

Article sources

Merriam-Webster. " Definition of methodology , https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/methodology." Accessed March 29, 2024.

Keep reading

Coursera staff.

Editorial Team

Coursera’s editorial team is comprised of highly experienced professional editors, writers, and fact...

This content has been made available for informational purposes only. Learners are advised to conduct additional research to ensure that courses and other credentials pursued meet their personal, professional, and financial goals.

Members-only Content

• Monthly Member Events
• Event Session Videos
• Experience Reports
• Research Papers
• Share a Community Event
• Submit an Article to the Blog
• Submit a Member Initiative
• Promote a Training Event

Become an Agile Alliance member!

Your membership enables us to offer a wealth of resources, present renowned international events, support global community groups, and so much more! And, while you’re supporting our non-profit mission, you’ll also gain access to a range of valuable member benefits. Learn more

• Join Us Today
• Member Portal
• Membership FAQs
• Terms and Conditions
• Corporate Members

Agile Conferences

• XP 2024 in Bolzano
• Agile Executive Forum
• Agile2024 European Experience
• All Agile Alliance Events
• Past Conferences
• Become an Event Sponsor

Virtual Events

• Member Events Calendar
• Agile MiniCon
• BYOC Lean Coffee
• Agile Tech Talks
• Member Meet & Greet
• Agile Coaching Network
• Full Events Calendar
• Community Events
• Community Events Calendar
• Agile Training Calendar
• Sponsored Meetup Groups
• Submit a Non-profit Event
• Submit a For-profit Training
• Event Funding Request
• Global Events Calendars

• Events Calendar
• BYOC – Lean Coffee
• Member Meet & Greet
• Agile Training
• View All Events
• Submit an Event
• Meetup Groups
• Past Conferences & Events

Agile Essentials is designed to bring you up to speed on the basic concepts and principles of Agile with articles, videos, glossary terms, and more.

Agile Essentials

Download the Agile Manifesto

To download a free PDF copy of the Agile Manifesto and 12 Principles of Agile, simply sign-up for our newsletter. Agile Alliance members can download it for free.

• Agile Essentials Overview
• Agile Manifesto
• 12 Principles Behind the Manifesto
• A Short History of Agile
• Subway Map to Agile Practices
• Agile Glossary
• Introductory Videos

Recent Blog Posts

Navigating the ethical waters of Agile coaching with Alex Sloley

Agile – 1 conversation, 2 views

Agile Coach Camp Worldwide is going to Costa Rica

View all blog posts

Agile Resources

The new agile resource guide.

Find Agile services and products from our member companies in our new Agile Resource Guide . Many listings in the guide feature exclusive offers just for Agile Alliance members. View the guide 

• Remote Working Guide
• Event Sessions
• Content Library

Sustainability Manifesto

The  Agile Sustainability Initiative has created the Agile Sustainability Manifesto in an effort to grow awareness about sustainability within the Agile community and inspire a more sustainable way of working. Read and sign now

MEMBER INITIATIVES

• Agile Sustainability Initiative
• Principle 12 Initiative
• Agile in Color Initiative
• Agile Coach Camp Worldwide
• Agile Coaching Ethics

View all initiatives

Your Community

Global development.

• LATAM Community
• India Community

Global Affiliates

• Community Groups
• Community Services
• Member Initiatives
• LATAM Community Development
• India Community Development
• Volunteer Signup

OUR POLICIES

Become a sponsor.

Being an Agile Alliance sponsor is a great way to introduce your company to our members to build awareness around your products and services. The Call for Agile2024 Sponsorships is now open, and there are great options and opportunities still available! Learn more >

• About Agile Alliance
• Code of Conduct
• Board of Directors
• Agile Alliance Brazil
• Agile Alliance New Zealand
• Policies, Reports & Bylaws
• Logo and Media Files
• Become a Sponsor

AGILE RESOURCES

Here is a look at how Agile emerged, how it acquired the Agile label, and where it went from there. It’s important to take a look at where Agile software development came from to get an understanding of where things are at today in the world of Agile.

Pre 2001 – Practices and methods develop independently through experience

Many people peg the start of Agile software development, and to some extent Agile in general, to a meeting that occurred in 2001 when the term Agile software development was coined.

However, people started working in an Agile fashion before that 2001 meeting. Starting in the mid-nineties, there were various practitioners, either people working inside organizations developing software products or consultants helping organizations build software who thought, “You know what? The way we’ve been building software just isn’t working for us. We’ve got to come up with something different.”

“You know what? The way we’ve been building software just isn't working for us. We've got to come up with something different.”

These software developers started mixing old and new ideas, and when they found a combination that worked, they created a methodology for their team to help them remember the combination of ideas that worked in a given situation.

These methodologies emphasized close collaboration between the development team and business stakeholders; frequent delivery of business value, tight, self-organizing teams; and smart ways to craft, confirm, and deliver code.

The people who created those methodologies figured that others might be interested in getting some of the same benefits they were experiencing, so they created frameworks to spread the ideas to other teams in other organizations and contexts. This is where frameworks such as Scrum, Extreme Programming, Feature-Driven Development (FDD), and Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM), among others, started to appear.

The spread of the ideas at this time was very organic, and all of those different approaches started to grow in a very grassroots manner. People borrowed the original frameworks and tweaked them with different practices to make them appropriate for their own contexts.

When most teams and organizations start doing Agile development, they focus on the practices that help with collaboration and organizing the work, which is great. However, another key set of practices that are not as frequently followed but should be are specific technical practices that directly deal with developing software in a way that helps your team deal with uncertainty. Those technical practices are essential and something you shouldn’t overlook.

There wasn’t a consistent way of describing these different ways to develop software until a group of 17 people thought, “We’re all doing these different approaches to developing software. We ought to get together and see where there are commonalities in what we’re thinking about.” The result was a meeting at a ski resort in Snowbird, Utah in 2001.

When they got together, they did some skiing and also discussed where their approaches to software development had commonalities and differences.

2001 – Agile Manifesto authored

“We ought to get together and see where there are commonalities in what we’re thinking about.”

They didn’t agree upon a lot of things, but there were a few things that they were able to agree upon, and that ended up becoming the Manifesto for Agile Software Development. The two main things the Agile Manifesto did was to provide a set of value statements that form the foundation for Agile software development and to coin the term Agile software development itself.

In the months afterward, the authors expanded on the ideas of the Agile Manifesto with the 12 Principles Behind the Agile Manifesto.

Some of the authors, including Martin Fowler , Dave Thomas , Jim Highsmith , and Bob Martin , wrote up their recollections of writing the Agile Manifesto. 16 of the 17 authors met at Agile2011 and shared their recollections of the event and their views on the state of Agile up to that point.

Post-2001 – adoption started grassroots, became mainstream

After the authors got back from Snowbird, Ward Cunningham posted the Agile Manifesto, and later the 12 Principles online at AgileManifesto.org . People could go online and sign it to show their support.

Agile Alliance was officially formed in late 2001 as a place for people who are developing software and helping others develop software to explore and share ideas and experiences.

Teams and organizations started to adopt Agile, led primarily by people doing the development work in the teams. Gradually, managers of those teams also started introducing Agile approaches in their organizations.

Agile Alliance was officially formed in 2001 as a place for people who are developing software and helping others develop software to explore and share ideas and experiences.

As Agile became more widely known, an ecosystem formed that included the people who were doing Agile software development and the people and organizations who helped them through consulting, training, frameworks, and tools.

As the ecosystem began to grow and Agile ideas began to spread, some adopters lost sight of the values and principles espoused in the manifesto and corresponding principles. Instead of following an “Agile” mindset, they instead began insisting that certain practices be done exactly in a certain way.

Organizations that focus solely on the practices and the rituals experience difficulties working in an Agile fashion. Organizations that are serious about living up to the Agile values and principles tend to realize the benefits they sought and find that working in an Agile fashion is no longer something that’s new and different. Instead, it simply becomes the way they approach work.

Agile Alliance continues to curate resources to help you adopt Agile practices and improve your ability to develop software with agility. The Agile Alliance website provides access to those resources including videos and presentations from our conferences , experience reports , an Agile Glossary , a directory of local community groups , and several other resources .

Discover the many benefits of membership

Your membership enables Agile Alliance to offer a wealth of first-rate resources, present renowned international events, support global community groups, and more — all geared toward helping Agile practitioners reach their full potential and deliver innovative, Agile solutions.

Thank you to our valued Agile Alliance Annual Partners

Our new Annual Partner Program offers a new and exciting level of engagement beyond event sponsorship.

Our Cornerstone Corporate Supporting Members

Our Corporate Supporting Members are vital to the mission of Agile Alliance.  Click here to view all corporate members.

©2024 Agile Alliance  |  All Rights Reserved  |  Privacy Policy

©2024 Agile Alliance All Rights Reserved  |  Privacy Policy

• Welcome back!

Not yet a member? Sign up now

• Renew Membership
• Agile Alliance Events
• Agile en Español
• Agile en Chile
• Resources Overview
• Agile Books
• Content Library by Category
• Content Standards
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy

Privacy Overview

• Contact sales

Start free trial

A History of PMI & Its Role in Project Management

Every trade has its trade association, an organization that represents the industry and offers training or networking. Project management is no different.

The Project Management Institute (PMI) is a nonprofit organization for those working in project management across the globe. If you have even a passing interest in the field, then you’ve bumped up against PMI. After all, it does have millions of members throughout the world.

As an organization, it offers training and certification in project management , and it reports regularly on industry trends. The Project Management Institute also sets the standard for ethics in the field. Given its vast influence, it’s important to have a basic understanding of PMI and its history.

Quick Facts About PMI

The PMI footprint is huge. The organization serves over 2.9 million professionals in the industry and has over 500,000 members in 208 locations around the world, with 300 chapters and 10,000 volunteers.

It researches, educates, develops industry standards, publishes a journal, hosts conferences and offers globally recognized project management certifications.

The Project Management Institute periodically updates its  A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge , which is informed by industry volunteers and recognized by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).

A History of PMI

But where did PMI start? What are the roots that uphold this giant in project management? It goes back to the 1960s when project management became a discipline in aerospace, construction and defense industries. It was from these industries that the PMI seed was planted.

In 1969, in Philadelphia, Jim Snyder, of Smith, Kline & French Laboratories, and Gordon Davis, of the Georgia Institute of Technology, were having dinner and decided there was a need for an organization that offered project managers a forum to share information and discuss their industry.

Later that year, the first formal meeting of the burgeoning organization took place at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. Afterward, articles of incorporation were filed in Pennsylvania and signed by the five founders of PMI.

The Goals & Standards of PMI

The nonprofit outlined its goals in 1975: “Foster recognition of the need for professionalism in project management; provide a forum for the free exchange of project management challenges , solutions and applications; coordinate industrial and academic research efforts; develop common terminology and techniques to improve communications; provide an interface between users and suppliers of hardware and software systems, and to provide guidelines for instruction and career development in the field of project management.”

Around that same time, PMI devoted some of its resources to developing standards for the industry. This was done through a Professional Liaison Committee, which worked with the Technology, Research Policy and Education Committees. It also worked with the American National Standards Committee and Europe’s International Project Management Association. By 1980, those efforts were standardized into project management procedures and approaches. By 1996, PMI produced the first Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK).

During the 1990s, PMI tripled its membership to 90,000 in 120 countries, under the leadership of then-president Virgil R. Carter. Following Carter, Gregory Balestrero directed PMI for a decade, starting in 2002. Currently, Mark Langley is the president of PMI.

PMI Founders

• James R. Snyder: Founder, fellow and past volunteer executive director, president and chairman of the board, Snyder is currently a member of the Board of Directors of the PMI Education Foundation, Treasurer of the Delaware Valley Chapter and the Editorial Review Board. He was awarded PMI Man of the Year and is an Honorary Life Member. He was the project manager for the construction of PMI’s World Headquarters in Newtown Square, Pennsylvania.
• Eric Jenett, PMP:  Jenett was the first to gain Project Management Professional (PMP) certification. He’s also a PMI fellow and was president of the organization in 1971, chairman in 1972 and its secretary from 1975 to 1976. A founding member of the Houston Chapter, in 1975, he was honored for his distinguished contribution to PMI.
• Gordon Davis, Ph.D.: Davis helped coordinate PMI’s early engagement with academic partners and was a former vice president. He was also a former PMI College of Scheduling board of directors. He has received nearly all the honors bestowed by the organization.
• E.A. “Ned” Engman: As the national representative of CPM Marketing for the automation company McDonnell, he sent letters in 1968 inviting people to become part of the organization that would become PMI.
• Susan Gallagher: A project manager, she was part of that first meeting of what would become PMI in Atlanta, and has served as treasurer, vice-president of technical services and director, as well as a presenter of articles in annual meetings. She played an essential role in the conception of PMI Seminars and Symposiums in 1977.

Certification

PMI developed a certification program to acknowledge skills and experience in project management. The Project Management Professional (PMP) was launched in 1984 and has since become an industry standard. In 2007, PMP was accredited by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and as of July 2018, over 876,000 people hold this certification.

PMI certification requires that a person meet domain experience levels, educational levels or both to apply. To qualify a candidate must have three years of project management experience, 4,500 hours of leading and directing projects and 35 hours of project management education with a four-year degree.

If the candidate has a secondary degree, as in a high school diploma, associate degree or equivalent, then they need to have five years of project management experience, 7,500 hours of leading and directing projects and 35 hours of project management education.

To earn PMP certification, there is a 200-question, multiple-choice test that requires reviewing the PMP handbook which covers important project management topics such as project documentation , methodologies and techniques. Candidates can look at exam content online and get familiar with sample questions. There are also formal study courses offered by PMI chapters or accredited Registered Education Providers (REPs). Self-study books published by REPs and other reputable training organizations are also available. Additionally, it’s crucial to know A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide).

Other Types of Certification Besides PMP

PMP is but one of many certifications that are offered by PMI. There is a Certified Associate in Project Management (CAPM), which is an entry-level certification that requires less project experience than PMP to qualify.

There are also credentials available in Program Management Professional (PgMP), Portfolio Management Professional (PfMP), PMI Agile Certified Practitioner (PMI-ACP), PMI Risk Management Professional (PMI-RMP), PMI Scheduling Professional (PMI-SP) and PMI Professional in Business Analysis (PMI-PBA).

Looking for ideas for your Project Management Dissertation?

There’s also a certification as an OPM3 Professional, standing for Organizational Project Management Maturity Model, which is a best-practice standard for assessing and developing capabilities in executing strategy in projects through portfolio management, program management and project management.

Ethics in Project Management

PMI understands that a project manager is a decision-maker, and by making decisions they are impacting people, resources and environments. Therefore, their choices are not strictly business-oriented but often bleed into the ethical territory. Decisions like these can lead to dilemmas and even risks, which can leave a project manager puzzled over the right course of action. This becomes especially problematic when project managers find themselves at odds with stakeholders.

PMI attempts to wade into these ethical waters and offers some direction with its Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct and ethical decision-making framework. They have many articles, papers and webinars on the subject. The organization also offers an ethics complaint and review process as a resource to project managers. A PMI Ethics Member Advisory Group member can be contacted with questions, concerns or ideas.

As with most trade organizations, PMI produces a series of events for the industry. The PMI EMEA Congress 2019 takes place in mid-May in Dublin, Ireland. Over three days, there are keynote speeches, global perspectives on project management and an opportunity to network with peers in the industry.

There are also regional SeminarsWorld events given throughout the year that provide in-depth multi-day training on a specific topic. They offer practical applications and real-life solutions from experienced experts in a small group setting with hands-on instruction and individualized attention.

A Mega SeminarsWorld is like the above only with a larger selection of popular SeminarsWorld courses and featuring morning keynote speeches and organized receptions.

The organization also produces the PMI Global Conference, which attracts thousands of project management professionals from all over the world. It’s a three-day event of diversified education that covers all practices, approaches and tools in the industry. There are keynote speeches and curated breakout sessions to leading solutions and networking opportunities.

The PMO Symposium is a place to exchange best practices and new insights into the strategies and practices in project management. It also provides networking opportunities and workshops. The event is made for leaders and executives who deal with a portfolio of projects , programs and initiatives.

The organization awards professionals in the industry who exhibit passion, talent and expertise in their field. Some of these awards include the PMI Fellows Award, which is the most prestigious individual award given by PMI, which recognizes service to the organization and profession.

The PMI Eric Jenett Project Management Excellence Award recognizes people who make an outstanding contribution to project management through leadership, technical project management and strategic and business management acumen.

The PMI Young Professional Award is for young project management individuals who are making a significant impact in advancing project management within an organization, advancing knowledge and understanding of project management, and showing outstanding PMI standards, practices and ethics.

There are also awards for projects, such as the PMI Project of the Year, PMI Project Excellence Award and the PMO of the Year Award.

PMI Resources

One of the founding principles of PMI is to offer resources for project management professionals. There are many, such as certification and training programs and the various events they produce, but they also have an online site.

ProjectManagement.com is a knowledge portal offering project managers a place to create and explore articles and participate in a diverse community.  There are virtual research sessions, known as the PMchallenge, to help you hone your project management knowledge and skills and, when you answer correctly, it’s reflected on your profile.

The site also has tools to help you with categories such as Agile, application lifecycle management, budgeting and forecasting, change management and more. There are also sections to help with career development, project management standards, project management in academia and assistance for new practitioners.

There are webinars on popular topics such as project planning , scheduling and reporting available on the site, both live and on-demand. They also present PDU qualifying activities that, for PMI members, can be directly reported to PMI towards remaining up-to-date on the certification.

That, templates and a rich library of industry-related articles, make PMI online a great resource and one more aspect of how this organization gives back to the industry that has given so much to them.

PMI is a great resource, one that in congress with ProjectManager is a winning hand for any project manager. Both sites provide a wealth of useful information on the industry and its practices. ProjectManager also offers a project management tool with features such as a real-time dashboard and online Gantt charts to help you take knowledge and apply it practically to your project. See how it can help your career today by taking this free 30-day trial.

Deliver your projects on time and under budget

Start planning your projects.

ALA User Menu

• ALA Websites

Breadcrumb navigation

• Submit News Items
• Contact Congress

Core Webinar Series: Project Management

• Share This Page

For Immediate Release Thu, 04/25/2024

Mia Blixt-Shehan

Continuing Education Assistant

Core: Leadership, Infrastructure, Futures

American Library Association

[email protected]

CHICAGO — Core: Leadership, Infrastructure, Futures is pleased to present the two-part webinar series “Project Management” in June 2024. Can a more agile leadership approach cultivate motivation and improve your team's and community's collaborations and outcomes? From "failing fast" and "defining done" to increased transparency and earlier stakeholder feedback, agile project management strategies can help us build trust, encourage growth, and create more collaborative and effective teams and community relationships. Attendees will learn the differences between agile and more traditional project management approaches and be introduced to popular agile methods, including Kanban boards and sprints.

Core Webinar Series: Project Management Presenter: Jami Yazdani, Yazdani Consulting, Boulder, CO

The series consists of the following two live webinar presentations:

Project Management Essentials Tuesday, June 4, 2024, 1 - 2 p.m. CT More Agile Teams and Collaborations Tuesday, June 18, 2024, 1 - 2 p.m. CT

Register for the full two-part series on its registration page .

Two-Part Series Registration Fees:

$94.17 - Core Member $116.10 - ALA member $129.00 - Non-member

Individual Webinar Registration Fees:

Core Member: $57.67 ALA Member: $71.10 Nonmember: $79.00

How Do I Purchase Group Registration?

You can register a group by specifying the number of people who will be accessing the webinar during checkout. We offer discounts for webinar based on the number of registrations you specify in checkout. If you are a Core member, you can purchase seats for yourself and your colleagues at the Core discount rate; ALA's new e-Learning store allows you to extend the Core member savings with colleagues at your institution.

Can't attend the live event? No problem! All registrants will receive a link to the recorded session for later viewing at their convenience.

Register online or by phone at 1-800-545-2433 (press 1 to reach our customer service representatives).

For questions or comments related to Core webinars, please contact Core CE staff at [email protected] .

Core: Leadership, Infrastructure, Futures is the national association that advances the profession of librarians and information providers in central roles of leadership and management, collections and technical services, and technology. Our mission is to cultivate and amplify the collective expertise of library workers in core functions through community building, advocacy, and learning. Core is a division of the American Library Association. Follow us on our Blog , Twitter , Instagram , or LinkedIn .