One of my favorite pundits used the word “anodyne” the other day and, not being quite familiar with it, looked it up. Merriam-Webster defines it as “something that soothes, calms, or comforts.” Then I began my review of articles and seminar session summaries in the project management arena (gotta stay current, right?), and you’ll never guess which word kept popping to mind. And, no, it wasn’t “anodyne.” It was “jejune,” which is defined as “without interest or significance; dull; insipid.” And these two words have spurred me on to this week’s rant.
Thomas Kuhn published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962, to considerable success. In it, he posits that people have a tendency to view scientific advances as occurring steadily; however, such advances virtually never do so. They advance by fits, starts, and leaps, usually along the lines of the following steps:
· The widely-held theory sees new data challenging its validity.
· In response, scientists invent cycles and epicycles, added on to the existing theory, in order to explain the new data.
· Eventually, the new data drives the need for so many added cycles and epicycles that parts of the prevailing theory begin to unravel.
· Someone comes up with a new theory that explains the new data, and most of the existing knowledge, in a structured manner. This person is ridiculed or ignored.
· As the new theory is explored and expanded, it not only explains new observations in a way that the previous orthodoxy could not, it actually does a better job of explaining the data that had previously supported the conventional.
· Finally, a preponderance of scientists embrace the new theory, until…
· …new data is documented that seemingly can’t be explained by the now-commonly-held theory.
Of course, Kuhn was addressing the so-called hard sciences, but I believe that his insights can have a profound impact in the arena of management science.
Now, think back: other than at ProjectManagement.com, when was the last time you read an article that directly challenged some aspect – any aspect – of commonly-held PM principles? One seminar advertisement I received recently boasted of a session on the implementation of earned value at a large, government-run agency. This agency had long been an embracer and promoter of earned value management systems. I’m sure it’s a lovely presentation, but how much cutting edge management science does anyone expect to be introduced when discussing projects at an agency that was already disposed towards using such systems?
After reading about several other, similar sessions, I was reminded of the news stories about the U.S. Department of the Interior declaring silver and largescale silver Asian Carp to be injurious and invasive species along the Mississippi River and Great Lakes. I mean, just look at them – they appear to be extremely benign to me. It’s not as if they have the appearance of, say, Piranha. I happen to have a pet carp, myself (also known as a “goldfish”). But environmentalists believe them to be hazardous to the waterways, and not just because they leap in the air and collide with jetski operators. They displace other, more beneficial species – kind of like how the jejune topics replace edgier ones on the seminar docket, time and time again.
Now for the “anodyne” part. These articles, these sessions – are they not, essentially, efforts to make those who embrace the commonly-held ideas about project management feel better, more confident about themselves? It’s almost as if any deviation from the conventional is automatically tamped down, to never see the refereed journal/seminar presentation light-of-day.
So, what’s in the mainstream of PM thought? That stream is chocked full of anodyne carp, displacing other species in the Great Lake of management science theory, alarming those in the know, and drawing big yawns from those who believe that PM, as an established science, has little more advancement in front of it.
And that, dear readers, is a very dangerous environment indeed.



