Stop Transferring Knowledge!

 

In 1962, Thomas Kuhn wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a truly insightful book on science philosophy, and the source of the term “paradigm shift.” Kuhn theorized that, while scientific advances appear to assume a steady upward trajectory, the truth is that science advances in fits and starts, and tends to assume a certain pattern that reflects somewhat poorly on human nature.

This pattern roughly follows the following steps:

·         New data is discovered that challenges the currently-accepted theory.

·         Cycles and epicycles – essentially, addendum – are added to the current theory in an attempt to accommodate the new, challenging data.

·         Someone comes up with a new theory, which tends to explain the new data better than the old theory.

·         This someone is subjected to criticism, often very aggressive (if not out-and-out abusive).

·         As more and more data is made available, the newer theory begins to attract advocates, and defenders of the old theory become less vocal, or switch sides altogether.

·         Once a preponderance of self-proclaimed experts has accepted the new theory, the notorious paradigm shift has occurred, and the new theory becomes the most widely-accepted one – until new discoveries uncover facts that challenge it, and the cycle begins again.

Of course, Kuhn was writing about the hard sciences – his primary examples included cosmology – but I believe that his insights have bearing in the world of the management sciences. Yes, I know that real scientists scoff or cringe at the term “management science,” and they probably have good reason to do so. After all, when one of them comes up with a theory, say, of the best solvent to extract aminobenzoate, she can verify and repeat her theory’s application in an experimental setting. While project management aficionados can point to one project disaster after another when leaders eschew basic PM techniques, such as the creation of scope, cost, and schedule baselines, there are far too many other factors in play. The necessary conditions to test for just baseline utilization are far too difficult to isolate in our laboratory, since our laboratory is the world of business, which is to say the free enterprise marketplace. And, just to make the experimental verification of management science theories even more difficult, elements of topics ranging from organizational behavior and performance to management information system architecture come in to play, resulting in a hopelessly complex, if not out-and-out chaotic, experimental environment.

So, what happens when someone has an idea, a hypothesis that they genuinely believe is a useful managerial insight, but runs counter to existing, widely-accepted practice?  Well, academics and real scientists publish their ideas in peer-reviewed journals, hoping to persuade their colleagues to at least evaluate the efficacy of the new theory, while documenting the experimental data that supports the new idea. So-called management scientists tend to be either primarily managers themselves, or business owners (academics belong to a separate category). These peoples’ insights are usually the only thing that keeps their organizations competitive, because, if they do have a genuinely paradigm-shifting insight on how to manage much more effectively or efficiently, they actually have a disincentive to have that idea widely-disseminated. It’s far better for them to try out their idea in the business world, to see if it attracts profits or accomplishes scope objectives at a greater rate than the others’ ideas on how a company or project ought to be run. If it works, they will stick with it. If it doesn’t, they will abandon it. In either instance, shouting the idea from the published management sciences rooftops is contra-indicated (to borrow a real scientific term).

In fact, if a large project were to be concluded successfully while indulging some management pathologies, its principals would be rewarded if they could make the case that that success was because of those suspect tactics. Kind of makes me wonder about those who are eager to “transfer” their “knowledge.”

Ultimately, as a project management practitioner, if you are privy to truly usable knowledge, knowledge that makes your organization or project team better, you might want to think twice before you transfer it, and to whom.