Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 365Construction Project Management and PerformanceManagement Theory and PracticeManagement and Organizational Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Lost Roots: How Project Management Came to Emphasize Control over Flexibility and Novelty

Lenfle, Sylvain, Loch, Christoph·2010·California Management Review
DOI 10.1525/cmr.2010.53.1.32
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The discipline of project management (PM) adheres to the dominant model of the project life cycle or phased stage-gate approach to executing projects. This implies a clear definition of mission and system are given at the outset (to reduce uncertainty), and subsequent execution in phases with decision gates. It contrasts with approach applied in the seminal projects that are credited with establishing the foundation of the discipline in the 1940s and 50s. Those projects started out with missions that were beyond the currently possible; any solutions had to emerge over time. They succeeded by a combination of parallel trials (from which the best would then be selected) and trial-and-error iteration (allowing for the modification of solutions pursued over a period of time). Although the success of these approaches was well documented and explained by scientific study in the 1950s, today they seem to fly in the face of accepted professional standards, making managers uncomfortable when they are encountered. The explanation for this contradiction has its roots in the 1960s, when the so-called McNamara revolution at the Department of Defense (DoD) gave a control orientation to the PM discipline. This shift was cemented by the codes and practices of the DoD and NASA, contemporary scientific writing, and the foundation of the Project Management Institute, a professional organization that translated the standard into the educational norm for a generation of project managers. The proj…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1525/cmr.2010.53.1.32

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Lenfle, S., & Loch, C.
ORCID
Venue
California Management Review
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2010-11
Volume
53
Issue
1
Pages
32-55
ISSN
  • 0008-1256 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-8564
DOI
10.1525/cmr.2010.53.1.32
OpenAlex
W2054262764
Cited by
348
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 15
FWCI
18.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • California Management Review (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Construction Project Management and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management Theory and Practice
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
Keywords
project management, control, flexibility, novelty, organizational change

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.