Traditional project management theories used to be rather successful and effective decades ago. At that time, managing the triangular constraints of scope, time, and budget was enough to help companies implement changes to ongoing operations (Song, 2011). However, considering the fact that people and the global economy continued to become more integrated and concentrated on knowledge, this model became inadequate, and systemic project management was created to replace it. The purpose of this paper is to compare the two approaches and evaluate the newest one.
To begin with, the two types of project management are useful in particular cases, and the necessity of a systemic approach is not due to the initial inefficiency of the first method but to the passage of time and various changes. Therefore, the significant difference between systemic and traditional project management is that the latter always deals with objective facts in a repeatable and mechanical way (Song, 2011). At the same time, in the systemic approach, the practitioner, the responsibilities, and the social environment are perceived as one integrated system, and each case is solved in a unique way (Song, 2011, p. 67). Precisely these relationships drive the success and health of all components and the ongoing changes.
Further, another difference lies in the perception of facts and objectiveness. Compared to the traditional, systemic project management does not recognize these concepts and believes that change management is always biased by the ideas and assumptions of various human systems (Song, 2011, pp. 75-76). Overall, even though systemic project management can require more time and resources, it is necessary to recognize the value and effectiveness of this approach. Since it extends and adds to the traditional theories, and precisely because of its focus on people’s different perceptions, it is a rather promising method, and modern companies should choose it when planning and executing changes.
Reference
Song, Y. (2011). Systemic project management. Journal of Project, Program & Portfolio Management, 2(1), 67-82. Web.