Will Project Management ever stop evolving?

I was under the school of thought that project management is an original practice rather than derived from something else. Especially with risk management being a knowledge area. So how did project management evolve from risk management and how will it evolve back? As this sounds like retrogression.

Thought-provoking points Peter. In the case of developing to the point where there is a formula and checklist for every eventuality sounds feasible on paper until applied to real life. From my perspective, the reality is far too complex to account for every factor and in more circumstances, than you think, there are no solutions, only trade-offs. Although this won't stop people from trying as I see this situation where it is aiming for the stars and fall on the treetops type scenario.

I share the sentiment of the back-to-basics. I believe the tools, techniques, and methodologies have become more complicated but the fundamentals haven't changed. I firmly believe those who excel at the fundamentals of project management would be more effective rather than those who find the need to grab something from the project management toolbox for every course of action. The tools are meant to assist in performance rather than replace it.


Furthermore, I am pretty open to the conversation of the prospect of regression in humanity. I say will are still evolving but what changes there would be regress in some areas. Look at the fact that many are incapable of functioning without their mobile device or the studies that showed the average attention span has decreased over the years. Moreover how many can survive in the wild like our ancestors? So in many cases, we win and lose.

At the same time, project management is expected to continuously evolve and grow without regression. This brings the train of thought, do you think there are any real threats to project management's evolution?

An excellent take on the subject matter Aaron. There has been an explosion in new tools, techniques, and methodologies, which will continue to happen as the world changes. When people speak of evolution we assume a dramatic shift that is completely unrecognizable. The thing is, does evolution have to be completely unrecognizable from what was in the past? There will be permanent changes but some aspects will never change with time (Eg Triple constraint). Some distinct traits will always be there and change for the sake of change can lead to complications.

Similarly, the evolution of apes to modern-day humans supposedly took millions of years. It could take a couple more decades before we see a remolding of the core of project management and its expansion.

I do agree with the point on the focus on adaptation as in any project, change is inevitable so project managers will adjust to suit. This is reflected in many tools and techniques in the practice that is made to accommodate internal and external changes.

Although I believe there is duality in the mix as I see two forms. The first being adaptive and the second being evolutionary.

Adaptive- the primary driver of project management and is constant
Evolutionary- extremely slow and incremental in nature

Therefore the time it takes project management to adapt versus the time it would take to evolve differs greatly. It is unlikely it will adapt and evolve at the same rate and frequency due to its nature. So want can be presented as evolution is actually adaptation and vice versa.

What do you think?

Stephen wrote: "does evolution have to be completely unrecognizable from what was in the past?"

Isn't that the definition of evolution? If project management is evolving, it's becoming something else, not just a refactored approach to produce a unique product or service.

Are there any project management approaches, currently in use, that aren't refactorings of earlier approaches combined with more modern tools? Disciplined Agile, SAFe, Scrum, etc... - variations on a theme that have been adapted to address certain perceived deficiencies of earlier approaches (often because somebody was selling something).

Maybe I'm just arguing semantics. If you were to say that the role of the project manager is evolving, I might be more inclined to agree, but given how different the expectations of project managers are between companies, I'd probably lean more toward localized adaptation. Some project managers might be doing more than just project management, but the project management function hasn't changed significantly.

A thought just came to mind. Perhaps it's the generally accepted definition of project management, or the generally accepted definition of the role of the project manager (if either could be said to exist - maybe locally accepted?), that is evolving. When it comes to what I do as a project manager, it hasn't changed much in 20 years, but what I was doing 20 years ago was often more than the PMBOK definition of a project manager.

In the end, I think it's just words. Think about some of Al Shalloway's posts about Scrum on LinkedIn over the last few months. He's come across as anti-scrum. Why? One reason is that Scrum doesn't solve some of the problems he's trying to solve. Another is that he's selling a "new" approach, that's not really new but it might offer some new perspectives. Is he right? Does Scrum not work? It has worked well for some companies, and others have struggled with it and moved on. In spite of his approach, what he's doing is something we should all be doing, regardless of the approach we're using - inspect and adapt.

I've always found project management to be a specific application of general management concepts and techniques. For example, managing people or resources within or outside a project are pretty similar in approaches.

In my personal opinion, project management has not evolved in the core. What has evolved are the techniques and tools project managers can use to perform project management. In fact, in my humble opinion, the last version of PMBOK is an intent to show that the project management has evolved in the core and it is a failed attempt. So, my recommendation is to stay clear on the core and with that to use tools and techniques that best fit for the current situation you are trying to create a solution thinking in the future situation to achieve. Nothing new below the sun.

Dear Mr. Conte, I respectfully disagree.
Extrapolating Heraclitus "the only constant in life is change" to Project Management, evolution is not reactionary, it is a mandatory survival. You see, everything evolves. For example, the Internal Audit profession, which is my main specialty, has evolved from the witch hunting style to the risk partnership mindset. Now, I'll kindly suggest to see Mr. Jesse Fewell's presentation "The state of PM Practice - One Year after PMBOK Guide 7th Edition". Hopefully, you would find interesting perspectives on PM evolution, changes and the two approaches to PM, the "Mechanical" and the " Mindset". Please, if possible, after you see this presentation, we could exchange opinions on it or even contact Mr. Fewell directly for a practical discussion! Muchas gracias caballero. Regards.

No problem. I am here to learn from people comments and improve myself. Let me say that, what PMI created in PMBOK V7 is not an evolution. It is an involution in my opinion. No matter that, I sustain: what could evolve are techniques and tools but not the core. I think the core has not to much to evolve. But, just in case we take the actual definition of project management "Project management is the use of specific knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to deliver something of value to people." which includes tools and techniques then you can argue that my comment is not valid and project management evolves. No matter that I sustain: the core, the essence of project management do not evolve from long time ago. You have the same functions/process from long time ago and those are the same that each human being in this world use each day to survive, growth and develop. In fact, in my opinion, because the PMI saw this created the PMBOK version 7 with the aim to keep the business alive. At the end of the day, just my opinion.