Management Science Diversity? Don’t Look To Academia.

 

GTIM Nation knows of my fondness for Thomas Kuhn’s seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, 1962), where he points out that our perception that science advances rather evenly is misguided. Kuhn writes that, rather than a steady progression towards more and more sophisticated levels of reliable theories, that scientific advancement typically follows these Phases:

• Phase 1 is indicated by a state of competing theories, none of which appears to explain all of the available data.
• Phase 2 is characterized by the conduct of experiments, typically to test various aspects of the existing paradigm. As more data is accumulated, certain results will present as being difficult (or even impossible) to explain in the current paradigm, necessitating the creation of cycles and epicycles (addendum or adjustments to the current theory) in order to maintain the consensus theory’s place.
• When enough anomalies to overwhelm the adjusted paradigm are documented, a somewhat chaotic environment ensues, where alternatives vie for preeminence.
• When an alternative appears to explain the anomalies, as well as a predominance of the data used to support the previous theory, a paradigm shift occurs (as often as this term is thrown around in business settings, it’s noteworthy that it was first coined in this work).
• Phase 5 is characterized by scientists solving problems within the context of the new paradigm, until the anomalies start to mount up.

Of course, the term “management science” is something of a misnomer, since few theories under this category can be empirically tested in an experimental setting, which is why such clearly flawed theories such as “the point of all management is to maximize shareholder wealth” are taught in supposedly top-tier business schools to this day. Indeed, in the management world, while the final arbiter of success is whether or not the organization continues to exist as an economic entity, there are a multitude of other measures that indicate just how much of a success or failure the organization enjoys or suffers. In my previous writings I have theorized that these parameters fall under the categories of Asset, Project, and Strategic Management, with the measures of success quantified so:

• Asset Management is based on the performance of the organization’s assets, and has many measures of success, perhaps none as succinct as the Profit-and-Loss statement.
• So too does Project Management, which focuses on delivering on the customers’ expectations of Scope, Cost, and Schedule. My favorite is the Cost Performance Index.
• Strategic Management is all about market share. Accuracy of this figure is somewhat difficult to attain, since its denominator is the total size of the industry or market where the organization does its business.

While an indication that an organization has absolutely cratered in any one of these three is almost always fatal (in a non-monopolistic or government-influenced industry), I think it’s fascinating that, should any one of these three management arenas indicate distress, the other two can be leveraged to compensate. For example,

• If the org’s assets are performing poorly, the organization may be delivering a higher quality product/service at that price point than appropriate, or making it more immediately available than the existing price structure would support.
• If the project teams are failing to deliver on-time, on-budget scope, then spending more for better performing assets may be in order.
• If the organization’s market share is too low, better project delivery or advertising – both of which cost money – may be the solution.

This is where the diversity-crushing aspects of the management science world come in to play. Which canned strategies lead to “success” or “failure,” besides being highly contingent on the very definitions of those words, will also turn on the particulars of a myriad of different configurations, placements, times, and situations. Spending money on better PM performance will work in many situations, while in others a concentration in Strategic Management would be a better choice, and the number of parameters that would go in to informing such decisions is flat-out unknowable, much less quantifiable. Sure, many scenarios can be safely assumed to call for specific techniques, such as the need for a Work Breakdown Structure for medium-to-large projects. But, other than the commodities/stock traders’ mantra of “Buy low, sell high,” the number of axiomatic, canned strategies that can be reliably employed across a broad swath of industries is next to nil.

Meanwhile, Far Away From The Project Management World…

This is not the management world described in most business schools, where professors tend to posit a whole host of analytical techniques and management strategies as broadly, if not universally, applicable. As in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the commonly-held paradigm attracts almost all of the analysis data to support its core, or its cycles and epicycles. Unlike TSOSR, when observable management phenomena, both successes and failures, seem to challenge if not overturn aspects of the commonly-accepted paradigm (cough, maximize shareholder wealth, cough), these are largely ignored, and the common paradigm remains intact – the very definition of a monolithic, non-diverse body of knowledge.

If only someone with academic standing could develop a rival body of knowledge, based on Project Management…