Abstract
In this essay, I engage in ontological analysis beginning with questions like “What is a project?”, “What is a process?”, and “What is project failure?” In search of a basic ontology of projects, primarily critiquing and expanding on parts of Frame (2006), I propose a novel theory of projects as sets of propositions, contrast it with a current (albeit informal) theory of projects, and suggest that a project is best understood as a sort of propositional entity, a particular set of statements that stand in logical relation to one another. I then go on to discuss the philosophical distinction between “projects” and “processes” and suggest that the most common reason for project failures (“scope creep”) arises from a specific and persistent logical error relative to the propositions which make up a project. Accounting for the ontology of the basic components of projects, logically speaking, makes those components more amenable to practical analysis, empowering the project manager to successfully navigate the often-difficult landscape of daily decision-making in their particular role. This exercise in not only an example of how philosophy (and metaphysics/ontology in particular) can inform managerial practices but how it might positively advance the intersection of philosophy and project management.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of Data and Material
N/A
Code availability
N/A
Notes
This is not to imply the necessary adoption of an object metaphysics over a process metaphysics. As a kind of pragmatic ontological relativist, I see merits in both approaches, depending on the purpose(s) or goal(s) which a conceptual schema is intended to facilitate. However, the reason that I generally view “thing” or “object” as the maximal kind is because even processes, when considered logically, end up within the context of cognition as “things.” Though I do think it is logically possible for these terms to be essentially interchangeable, I do prefer a broad metaphysics of “things” (as opposed to “objects”) and agree with Miller (2008) that “while things are ontologically innocent, objects are not” (pp. 69 & 88, italics mine).
The overall approach taken here is similar to that of da Costa Junior, et al. (2021) in examining the underlying logical assumptions of the Resource-Based View (RBV) managerial framework.
Cf. Lecture VII of James’s Pragmatism (1907).
For example, it is not as if project managers overseeing a market research project are blindly taking random action toward a goal. Rather, there are procedures and methods for conducting market research already in place. Perhaps a particular product or service has not yet had the benefit of market research, but the uncertainty is only in how all the details will play out, not in the project qua a project.
The wording “expression” and “signification” here is drawn from Englebretsen (2017).
The availability of published materials on this distinction is limited, but one such example is a paper presented at a PMI conference in 2010 entitled “Project and process integration: how to usefully combine two work management models” presented by Stefano Setti—who cites his own work five separate times. Most of what is available in the way of material discussing the project/process distinction consists in unofficial publications on blogs and marketing websites. A simple Google search for “projects vs processes” will yield numerous such examples.
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 5.61.
Targama and Rang (2011), though they do not explicitly use the term “scope creep,” nevertheless define project failure as “deviation from initial project plan or design” (p. 44) and present a list of possible “occurrences” that would constitute such failure, each of which arises from a basic fact of scope creep.
References
Abbasi, et al. 2014. Project failure case studies and suggestion. International Journal of Computer Applications 86 (6): 0975–8887.
Bunge, Mario. 1999. Dictionary of philosophy. New York: Prometheus Books.
da Costa Júnior, J.C., da Silva Nascimento, L., de Barros Jerônimo, T. et al. 2022. Reflections on Epistemic-Ontological Alignment in Theorizing Process: the Case of RBV. Philosophy of Management 21:179–198.
Englebretsen, George. 2012. Robust reality: An essay in formal ontology. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Books.
Englebretsen, George. 2017. Bare facts and naked truths. New York: Taylor and Francis Group.
Frame, J. Davidson. Philosophy of project management: Lessons from the philosophy of science. Project Management Journal 47 (3): 35–47.
Ika, Lavagnon A., and Christophe N. Bredillet. 2016. The metaphysical questions every project practitioner should ask. Project Management Journal 47 (3): 86–100.
James, William. 1907, 1981. Pragmatism. Edited by Bruce Kuklick. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
Kerzner, Harold. 2017. Project management. 12th ed. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Matitz, Q.R.S., Chaerki, K.F. & Chaerki, S.F. 2021. Theorizing relations between past, present and future: Interactions between process and historical organizational studies through whitehead’s process philosophy. Philosophy of Management 20:201–217.
Miller, Kristie. 2008. Thing and object. Acta Analytica 23 (1): 69–89.
Popper, Karl. 1959. The logic of scientific discovery. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.
Richardson, Gary L., and Brad M. Jackson. 2019. Project management theory and practice. 3rd ed. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Targama, Katri, and Patrick Rang. Exploring schumacher and popper: A quest for the philosophical foundations of project cycle management. Philosophy of Management 10 (1): 41–52.
Thompson, Mark. 2011. Ontological shift or ontological drift? Reality claims, epistemological frameworks, and theory generation in organizational studies. Academy of Management Review 36 (4): 754–773.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1999. Tractatus logico-philosophicus. New York: Dover.
Funding
No funding was received to assist in the production of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest/Competing interests
The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Ethics approval
N/A
Consent to participate
N/A
Consent for publication
Yes
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Tebbitt, B. A Consideration of Project Ontology. Philosophy of Management 22, 505–520 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-022-00218-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-022-00218-z