Mastering Complex Projects Msaynisch

SPM
CONSULT
FOUNDATION
ICCPM Research Prize 2010 - Awarded research papers

Part: 2
Mastering Complex Projects

by radical Rethinking of PM
Part 2
Mastering Complex Projects

by radical Rethinking of PM:
The vital Importance and stringent necessity
of
Project Management 2nd Order (PM-2)
Project 7 of research program
"Beyond Frontiers of Traditional Project Management"
by
Manfred Saynisch,
MSPM-Foundation and SPM-CONSULT, Munich, Germany
Revision and completion of the paper, presented at:

IRNOP IX Research Conference on Organizing by Projects
October 11.-13. 2009, TU Berlin, Germany
Published in: Congress documentation IRNOP IX (CD-ROM)
International Research Network on Organizing by Projects (IRNOP)
http://www.irnop2009.org - http://www.irnop.org
Most of the completions were take over by the paper:
Saynisch, M.: Mastering Complexity and Changes in Projects, Economy, and Society via
Project Management Second Order (PM-2).
Published in: Project Management Journal PMJ, Vol. 41, Nr.5, Dec 2010, Wiley/PMI, US
Dipl.-Ing. Manfred Saynisch
SPM-CONSULT - Systeme und Service im Projektmanagement
Dppeler-Str. 19, 81929 Mnchen / Germany
Tel: ++49-(0)89-93 93 09 51;
E-Mail: saynisch@spm-consult.de info@mspm-stiftung.de
http://www.mspm-stiftung.de
2010 Copyright by SPM-CONSULT M. Saynisch, Munich.

Part: 2
Preliminary remark
This theme
.The vital Importance and stringent Necessity of
describes part 2 of the label
Mastering Complex Projects by radical Rethinking of PM
which cluster the 3 themes (research projects), awarded by ICCPM Research Prize 2010.
Simultaneously these 3 research projects are part of the research program (Saynisch 2010)
"Beyond Frontiers of Traditional Project Management",
founded and directed by Manfred Saynisch
This documentation of the label Mastering Complex Projects by radical Rethinking of

PM in this website of ICCPM includes the following papers:
Part 1: General View and Common Theme of ICCPM-Research-Pize-2010 awarded Work
by Manfred Saynisch
Part 2 Mastering Complex Projects by radical Rethinking of PM: The vital Importance
and stringent necessity of Project Management 2nd Order (PM-2)
by M: Saynisch
(Project 7 of the research program)
This paper will in the following described!
Part 3 Impact of neuroscience to complex projects: Managing the complexity of humans
in complex projects and environment
by Th. Baumann and M. Saynisch
Part 4 Designing Social Complexity -Towards a next practice of complex project
management based on a comprehensive Theory of Social Systems
by L. Klein
Part 1 of this documentation give you an overview about the label Mastering Complex
Projects by radical Rethinking of PM, explain the context of the 3 projects and exhibit the
research program "Beyond Frontiers of Traditional Project Management" at a glance.
References:
Saynisch, M. (2010): Beyond Frontiers of Traditional Project Management: An Approach to
Evolutionary, Self-Organizational Principles and the Complexity TheoryResults of the Research
Program. Project Management Journal PMJ, Vol. 41, Nr.2, 21-37, April 2010, Wiley/PMI USA.
You can read and download this important paper at ICCPM website /Publications / Other
Resources / Articles and Resources / Complexity in PM.

Part: 2
Mastering Complex Projects by radical Rethinking of PM:

The vital Importance and stringent Necessity of
by
Manfred Saynisch
CONTENTS
Abstract Summary
1.
1.1
1.2.
Introduction:
The Challenge for an Advanced Understanding of Project Management
Aim of this paper
2.
2.1
2.2
The nature of Complexity and Characteristics of Complex Projects

The nature of Complexity
Complexity in Context to Project Management
3.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
The Research Programme Beyond Frontiers of Traditional Project Management at a glance

General
Objectives, Methodology and literature review
Scope of the Research Programme
Results of the research projects 1-4 at a glance
The emergence of Project Management 2nd Order (PM-2)
4.
Limits of Traditional Project Management
5.
5.1
5.2.
5.3.
Fundamentals of Project Management 2nd Order (PM-2)

Methodology and literature review
The Research Results for the Basic Concept of PM-2
The Creation of a Systemic Architecture- and Process Model of PM-2
6.
Implementation in Different Project Types Adaption of PM-2
7.
7.1
7.2
7.3
Principles, Methods and Processes in PM-2 for Project Management Practice

General
Selected concepts of action in WORLD 2 , the Management of Complexity
Detailed descriptions of selected elements of acting concepts in chapter 7.2
8.
8.1
8.2
8.3
Demonstration, Verification and Similarities of PM-2 today

The New Evolutionary Acquisition Model of DoD
PM-2 vs. Complex Project Managers Competency Standard CPMCS
PM-2 vs. project oriented company - multi-project firms at the edge of chaos (MUPEC)
The Future - Integration Aspects of PM-2, CPMCS, MUPEC, ICB3 and PMI-Standards (PMBoK
etc.)
10.
Perspectives and Future Developments
11.
References, Acknowledgements and Biography
12.
Annex:
Detailed description of the Research Programme Beyond Frontiers of Traditional Project
Management and Project Management 2nd Order (PM-2)

Part: 2
Abstract Summary
Purposes and features:
PM-2 is based on new insights and perception in natural and social science (evolutionary and chaos
theory, self-organization, synergetic, brain-research, social systems theory, theory of complex systems, etc.). This has been analysed in the Research Programme Beyond Frontiers of Traditional
Project Management.
Project Management Second Order (PM-2) is the highlighted result of the research programme,
as a new paradigm in project management for mastering complex projects. PM-2 gives an answer
of the challenge for an advanced understanding and radical redefinition of Project Management.
The performance and processes, of PM-2, described in this article, has been priced with the "IPMA
Research Award 2007"
The overall systemic aim of this paper is to initiate rethinking of PM as a new paradigm, as an
answer of todays and tomorrows challenges.
Scope:
PM-2 is an integrated approach of the two cybernetic cycles with several processes and techniques.
The architecture of the systemic structure consists of four WORLDs. The model represents a reference model, a conceptual framework.
First of all, the nature of complexity as well as characteristics of complex projects and the research
programme Beyond Frontiers of Traditional Project Management will outlined at a glance.
Analysis of scientific theories as well as scope and results of the research program will draft. Limits of Traditional Project Management will analyse. Subsequently fundamentals of PM-2 will demonstrate in detail. Adaption of PM-2 for implementation in different project types will study. Then,
principles, methods and processes in PM-2 will explain.
Conclusions:
Real examples of transfer evolutionary and self-organizational management principles in a real
project life will demonstrate. An adjustment to the Competency Standard for Complex Project
Managers CPMCS of ICCPM, Australia, as well as multi-project firms at the edge of chaos
(MUPEC) will discuss. Finally, Integration aspects of PM-2, CPMCS, MUPEC, IPMA-ICB3, and
PMI-Standards as a future view will exhibit. Perspectives and future developments conclude the
paper
Keywords:
Advanced Project Management, Complexity Edge of Chaos, Evolutionary Management, SelfOrganization, Project Management 1st and 2nd Order (PM-2), cybernetic 1st and 2nd order, Management of Complex Projects.
1.
Introduction:
1.1
The Challenge for an Advanced Understanding of Project Management
Our world and society with their markets, people and organisations do not develop in a predictable
way (continuous, stable, linear) but unpredictable (discontinuous, unstable, non-linear). This is
situated in a crucial phase with totally new challenges leading to an increased complexity (fig. 1,
left above). Parallel to those changes a rapid growth of complex new technologies and innovations

Part: 2
in industrial and social products can be noticed (fig. 1 right above). Highly complex situations
(fig. 1 middle) which have to be mastered by management are the result (Saynisch 2005/7).
Traditional Project Management (now named Project Management 1st Order (PM-1)) hit the
wall! It lose their efficiency. (fig. 1 left middle)
The keys to a new management understanding are new insights and perception in natural and
social science (evolutionary and chaos theory, self-organization, synergetic, brain-research, social
systems theory, theory of complex systems, etc.) offering new ways for project management (fig. 1
right middle). How can these theories be applied or put into practice in concrete projects? This was
the task of the research programme Beyond Frontiers of Traditional PM (Saynisch 2002/3).
Project Management 2nd Order (PM-2) integrates the former traditional approach in PM (PM
1.Order) with the results of the research programme (fig. 1 below).
1.2. Aim of this paper

The aim of this paper is for one thing
the discussion of the theoretical fundamentals and principles of the Project Management 2nd
Order (PM-2) as a highlighted result of the Research Program
and for another thing
the demonstration of implementation aspects for usefulness and practicability of the PM-2 concept.
Fig. 1: Efficiency model on the way to Project Management 2nd Order. (Saynisch 2005a/05b)
The overall systemic aim is to initiate rethinking of PM as a new paradigm, as an answer of
todays and tomorrows challenges.
Therefore, in the following it will outline the nature of complexity, draft the research programme
Beyond Frontiers of Traditional PM at a glance and as the main part describe detailed explana 2010 Copyright by SPM-CONSULT M. Saynisch, Munich.

Part: 2
tions of PM-2. Finally, future development aspects will demonstrate for assurance of redefining of
Project Management. The methodologies and literature reviews for the results of the research program and the PM-2 concept will also exhibit.
2.
The nature of Complexity and Characteristics of Complex Projects
2.1
The nature of Complexity
In the meantime, Complexity has developed itself to a buzzword. Often as overused term with
restricted, foozled and trivial extension a source of misunderstandings. Therefore as inauguration
a rough survey of explanations, based on reputable current publications.
Complexity theory can be defined broadly as the study of how order, structure, pattern and novelty
arise from extremely complicated, apparently chaotic systems and conversely, how complex
behaviour and structure emerges from simple underlying rules (Cooke-Davies et. al., 2007). Complexity theory is based on the historical first running theories of chaos, evolution, self-organisation,
cybernetic and systems by integrating elements of these.
The term Complexity is emerged since 1990 as an umbrella of these historical running theories, mainly initiated and popularised by the Santa-Fe-Institute (Waldrop 1992). Outstanding
researchers as Murray Gell-Mann, Chris Langton, Phil Anderson or Stuart Kauffmann has acted as
protagonists. Stacey (1997) has taken up the thoughts of the Santa-Fe-Institute, especially of
Gell-Mann for transformations into management aspects. Common understanding today is that
complexity represents the characteristic of the edge of chaos, the interface-field of order and chaos.
At the start of the research programme Beyond Frontiers of Traditional PM twenty years
ago (see chapter 3.1, 3.2), the term complexity was more used as adjective, fewer as term of a
science theory. Thus at the first the evolutionary theory in context of systems theory was in the
focus of the research programme. After this, self-organisation aspects in context of cybernetic was
analysed. At last matured the insight, that loosely speaking evolution and self-organisation are two
sides of the same coin. It was stated, that the most theories and principles are cross-linked and
separate views to the same core. Therefore, since ten years, under the influence of the Santa-FeInstitute, the research program focused simultaneously to Complexity Theory.
Finaly a condensed, but extensive view to complexity from a PMI founded research project (CookDavies et. al., 2007, Cicmil et al. 2007, 2009):
Complexity is a particular dynamic or movement in time that is simultaneously stable and
unstable, predictable and unpredictable, known and unknown, certain and uncertain.
Important features are:
Nonlinearity: sensitive dependence on initial. conditions vs the clockwork universe; planning in advance seen as problematic/paradoxical
Emergence: self-organising through patterned behaviour; strange attractors; choice;
simultaneous states of stability and instability (far from equilibrium)
Evolving: local micro-diversity, adaptation, and transforming; gives rise to novelty
Radical unpredictability and paradox underpinning the very nature of reality

Part: 2
2.2
Complexity in Context to Project Management
Complexity in the project environment comes not only from individual structural elements an their
interactions, but especially also from the dynamic effects of each of these changing end then interacting as they change, causing further change in other parts of the system (Whitty & Maylor,
2007). This model of complexity is shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2: The Structural Dynamic Interaction (SDI) Matrix of Complexity (Whitty & Maylor,
2007).
Complex projects are characterised by a degree of disorder, instability, emergence, non-linearity,
recursiveness, uncertainty, irregularity and randomness (ICCPM 2008):
There is dynamic complexity where the parts in a system can react / interact with each other in
different ways (a chess game);
There is high uncertainty about what the objectives are, and / or high uncertainty in how to
implement the objectives (refer diagram). The level of uncertainty will vary with the maturity
of the individual /organisation;
The strategy is outcomes based, emergent and requiring constant renegotiation;
Complex projects are not just complex adaptive systems, but rather they are complex evolving systems dominated, by double loop learning they change the rules of their development
as they evolve over time. They do not simply, adapt to their environment, but evolve with
them.
Complex projects are dynamic and evolving systems
The PMI Research Project Exploring the Complexity of Projects: Implications of Complexity
Theory for Project Management Practice (Cicmil et.al. 2009) explores the Process and findings of
the implication of the complexity theory for project management theory and practice. The research
proposed a description of the landscape of complexity theory (similar to the more comprehensive
analysis of scientific theories in Chapter 3.2 of this paper) and illuminates those developments
within it that have high relevance to PM. The concept of complex responsive processes of relating
in organizations (CRPR) is one of them. Regarding CRPR compare chapter 5.2 of this paper.

Part: 2
The landscape of the intensity on complexity in projects is demonstrated in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3: The Landscape of Project Complexity
Broadly defined, we can recognize four type of project complexity (Remington & Pollack 2007):
Structural complexity: Numerous individual structural elements. Often described as complicated
Technical complexity: Complexity in project-product among others by technical or design
problems
Directional complexity: Unshared goals and goals paths, unclear meanings and hidden agendas
Temporal complexity: Among others by unanticipated environmental impacts such as legislative changes or civil unrest.
3.
The Research Programme Beyond Frontiers of Traditional Project Management at a glance
3.1
General
On the research programme, interdisciplinary study teams have been working under the direction of
M. Saynisch on new cognitions, concepts and recommendations for PM. Insights world class thinkers and scientists, like Ervin Laszlo, especially with his Theory of Evolution and Heinz v. Foerster
with his Cybernetics Second Order, have acted as protagonists. The subjects and results of the
research program (1990 until 2000), were extensively presented in a documentation book
(Saynisch et al. 2002). Comprehend descriptions are presented in several congress papers (e.g.
Saynisch 2003, 2004a).
The research programme will be explained and discussed in detail in the annex of this paper. In the
chapters 3.2 to 3.5 to follows will be given a briefly description of the research programme.

Part: 2
3.2
Objectives, Methodology and literature review
Objectives
The objectives of the research have been the genesis of a new perspective and paradigm of PM
which assures mastering high complexity and dramatic changes in projects, economy and society.
This shall be generated by a research process based on the fundamental new insights and perception in modern natural and social sciences (evolutionary and chaos theory, self-organization, synergetic, non-traditional logic, brain-research, social systems theory, theory of complex systems, etc.)
The research teams were an independent alliance of scientists who were professional members of
an academic corporation and scientifically engaged individual experts and practitioners.
Methodology
The following scientific methodologies were most frequently applied:
More explorative processes instead of an empirical approach (e.g. evaluation and interpretation
of general inquiries).
More inductive thinking / logic than deductive.
Discovery processes in search of new cognitions and knowledge, especially on basis of modern
natural and social sciences.
Formations after analogy, conclusions of analogy.
Team members undertook a rigorous process of recruitment. It was a requirement that each team
member exhibit either excellent knowledge and experience in project management and sufficient
knowledge in some modern natural and social scientific theories, which is listed below, or
sufficient knowledge and experience in project management and excellent knowledge in some
modern natural and social scientific theories.
Substantiated of the numerous scientific theories and principles in modern natural and social
sciences, which was analysed (listed below), a likewise great number of elaborated themes respectively work packages were elaborated. The work at each theme was divided into three phases. The
first phase dealt with screening and exploration of a suitable theme. Discovery processes for acquisition of knowledge and understanding of affected single theory as well principles composed the
second phase. The third phase at last dealt with the transformation process of located insights into
aspects of project management. Mostly, the findings was summarizing in a thesis. Furthermore, the
numerous scientific theories and principles as well the elaborated themes was clustered in a
successive sequence projects (see chapter 3.3)
Literature review
At the start of the research programme Beyond Frontiers of Traditional PM at 1988, there has
existed only very rare analyses of transfer new insights and perception in modern natural and social
sciences into management approaches. For example, the first work of Malik (1986), Probst
(1984/87) or Weick (1985). But these works was focused to general management. Transfer of new
insights especially into Project Management approaches was unavailable.
Therefore the research programme has been started discovery processes in search of new cognitions and knowledge in modern natural and social sciences. But for these processes was the works
of E. Jantsch (1979/80), R. Riedl (1985) and E. Laszlo (1987/97) additionally helpful. These

Part: 2
scientists has transformed the new insights and perception in modern natural and social sciences
into aspects in society and economic as also in other sciences.
The objectives of the research programme Beyond Frontiers of Traditional PM at 1988, the genesis of a radical new perspective and paradigm of PM has emerged in the further PM community
only recently as post millennial. For example:
The EPSRC Network Rethinking Project Management (Winter et al. 2006).
The research programme Beyond Frontiers of Traditional PM, has transcended the management world to find new ideas by the fundamental new insights and perception in modern natural and social sciences, whereas the EPSRC Network has generates his results more from a
endogeneous view of the management world. But the results shows, broadly spoken, no great
differences.
Or the challenging and trend-setting requirements of Ch. Bredillet (2007/8) for a new perspective and approach in PM research.
Analysis of scientific theories in modern natural and social sciences
For transformation potentialities into PM; the research programme has reflected in the time-span
from 1990 to today the new cognitions and results of :
System and Physical Sciences:
General-Systems-Theory (v. Bertalanffy, Weiss, A. Rapoport, Boulding, E. Laszlo), 1945-70;
Cybernetic (Wiener, H. v. Foerster, Ashby, S. Beer), 1950-70.
Systems Dynamic (Forrester), 1960-1980;
Theory of Complex Systems Self-organization, Edge of Chaos, Emergence, Evolution (Santa
Fe Institute: Gell-Mann, Anderson, Kauffmann, Langton et.al.), 1985 1995;
Nonequilibrium-Thermodynamic, Dissipative Structure (Katachalsky, Prigorgine), 1960-80;
Synergetic (H. Haken). 1980 1990.
Life Sciences:
Modern Evolutionary Theory in Biology, Behaviour and Molecular-Physics (S. Gould, E.
Mayr, R. Riedl, K. Lorenz, Eigen), 1955-80.
Classical Evolutionary Theory (Darwin, Lamarck), 19. century;
Grand Evolutionary Systems Theory (Laszlo) 1980 1990; Social and Cultural Evolution
(Jantsch, Dawkins, 1975-1985);
Autopoiesis (H. Maturana, Varela), 1965-80.
Cellular Automata, Artificial Life, Selforganized Criticality (v. Neumann, Langton, Bak) 1955
1990;
Brain / Neuroscience (Edelmann, W. Singer, G. Roth) 1980 2000;
Sociobiology (Wilson) 1975-1985.
Mathematics, Logic:
Dynamic-Systems-Theory / Chaos-Theory (Thom, Zeeman, Shaw, Abraham), 1970-85;
Logic (Russell, B.; Whitehead, N., 1910/27);
Dialectical / Transclassical Logic (G. Gnther, 1975-1985);
Neural Networks / Genetic Algorithms (v. Neumann, McCulloch, Pitts, Holland, Rechenb..),
1970 95.
Social & Psychological Sciences:
Systemic Therapy (P. Watzlawik 1985-1995);
Social Systems Theory (N. Luhmann), 1980-1995.
Philosophical Sciences:
Epistemology Theory (Evolutionary) (R. Riedl, K. Lorenz, G. Vollmer), 1970 1990;
Epistemology Theory (Constructivism), (Bateson, v. Glaserfeld, v. Foerster, Watzlawik), 1980
1995.
10

Part: 2
Some of the many several results above have been interpreted by explanations and statements in a
convergent manner by publications of E. Jantsch (1979/80), R. Riedl (1985) and E. Laszlo
(1987/97). Malik (1986/2004) and Probst (1987) has reflected some of the theories above and
translated in management aspects. These has been also a source for the research programme.
With a few of the outstanding world class researchers and protagonists of the modern natural and
social scientific theories, listed above, our research teams has performed personal discussions.
This has been more than one performed with Ervin Laszlo, Heinz v. Foerster, Rupert Riedl (a former pupil of L.v. Bertalaffny and Konrad Lorenz), Gerhard Roth and Hermann Haken. Further
discussions has been performed with Humberto Maturana, Edgar Wilson, Ernst v. Glaserfeld, Paul
Watzlawik and Gerhard Vollmer.
A range of the emerged paradigm (with the focus to complexity theory) in the natural and social
science disciplines , listed above, has been recently also analysed for relationship to Project Management by Terry Cook-Davies et. al. in 2007.
3.3
Scope of the Research Programme
The research work of the programme has been subdivided into a successive sequence of autonomous but networking projects, somewhat overlapping.
Project 1, 1990-1997: Research for an evolutionary-systemic and cybernetic-systemic PM
The paradigmatic evolutionary-systemic and cybernetic-systemic research results in the natural and
social sciences and their relevance for a new perspective in PM were analysed. Further issues were
the Cybernetic 2nd Order (v. Foerster 1981), self-organization, Autopoiesis (Maturana 1982),
constructivist / evolutionary epistemology, theory of chaos and complexity and innovation.
Project 2, 1996-1998: The social, technical and systemic architecture of projects.
The focusses were the cooperation of social, technical and complex systems with the emphasis on
the context of theory of social systems and self-reference (Luhmann 1984) to PM, applications of
constructivist epistemology, sociocybernetic, dual control to PM-aspects, advanced logic
(transclassical logic) and morphogenesis of order in networked logical systems. The first new perspectives in PM, the Project Management 2nd Order (PM-2) was pre-developed.
Project 3 1998-1999: Management-cybernetics in a project and PM.
Research for applications in PM of the Viable Systems Model VSM of S. Beer (1975/79/81) was
the issue.
Project 4 1999-2000: System Dynamics in a project and PM.
Research for applications in PM of System Dynamics of J. Forrester were the emphasis.
Project 5 2000 2004: Documentation book
The subjects and results covering the years 1990 to 2000 (projects 1-4) were presented in the
documentation book (Saynisch & Lange 2002, 475 pages in German):
Project 6 2003 2006: Project Management 2nd Order (PM-2).
This project dealt with the genesis of a new perspective of Project Management, the highlighted
result of the research programme. The emphases laid to the convergence, an integrated approach of
the particular results obtained in the preceded projects 1-4. This project was prized by IPMA
Research Award 2007.
Current research projects started 2007
Currently three further research projects are in process. The nomination for the ICCPM Research
Prize 2010 are based on these three research projects.
11

Part: 2
Project 7: This project discusses the subject of coping with complexity and changes in projects by
a radical redefinition of PM - an advancement of PM-2 with focus on synergy and integrations
aspects with currently similar activities, like the competency standard of ICCPM (ICCPM 2008) or
the traditional views of ICB-3 (IPMA 2006) and PMBoK (PMI 2004). This project will described
in the following chapters 5 to 10.
Project 8: This project deals with improving the management of complex projects - the impact of
neuroscience into the project management.
Project 9: Managing the complexity of projects the contribution of Luhmanns theory of
organizations as social systems. This project is concurrently part of the ICCPM-Focus-Group
Social and cultural Complexity in PM.
For awarding of the ICCPM Research Prize 2010 these three research projects 7-9 was clustered
under the label:
Mastering Complex Projects by radical Rethinking of PM.
3.4
Results of the research projects 1-4 at a glance
In following, a short survey of some important results and work packages of the research program
with the focus to complexity theory will be listed. It is a strong selection and condensation of a
great number of elaborated themes respectively work packages in the documentation book of the
Research Programme (Saynisch et al. 2002, Saynisch 2003, 2004a). From these more than 50
outcomes we have been formulated 30 theses. These theses generates the following executions.
The principle-definition and foundation of Evolution 1st and 2nd Order. The
collaboration and cooperation of both as a foundation of the evolutionary paradigm on
the basis of scientific work by J. Gould / N. Eldredge (1977), E. Jantsch (1979/80) and E.
Laszlo (1987).
The dual aspect by the evolutionary-systemic perspective:
1.
Project as an evolutionary Process (Evolution 1st and 2nd Order)
2.
Evolutionary jumps (Chances, Evolution 2nd Order, punctuated equilibrium)
trough projects
Comperative statements of theories for structural and dynamic description of Social Systems Theories of: N. Luhmann (1984)/ Willke (1987)- P.M. Hejl (1984)- H. Maturana
(1982) Busch, Busch; - Bhl and self-referential phenomenon in organizations (as a social
system)
The fundamental need of Dialectical Logic Only a multi-valent or transclassical logic
(G. Guenther 1976/80), adequately describe a decision situation in a complex system.
o Bivalent logic = Yes / No = classical logic (since Aristoteles) act as the basis in the
past and now (In science, society, thinking etc. as also traditional PM)
o Tri-valent (Yes / medium / no), Quatro-valent and more-valent represent a multivalent logic
Morphogenesis of order in networked logical systems.
Mathematical / physical model-building / pattern cognition, especially of complex systems
and theories.
Recommendations to mastering complex organizational projects.

Applications of constructivism epistemology and theory of social systems (especially:
Luhmann (1984), Hejl11984)
How can we master a high dynamic in a project, in project-products and project-environment?
12

Part: 2
Applications of System Dynamics of J. Forrester (1961/71/88) on project management

situations
The cybernetic-systemic paradigm - The limitation of human cognition
o New aspects of epistemology, evolutionary and/or constructivism cognition theory
. (Riedl 1985, v. Foerster 1981/94, Bateson 1988, Maturana 1982)
o How can we really act in management decision with the influence of limited
human cognition?
Innovation-Management: A new perception of innovation, systems modelling and Project
Management (Kroy et al.1996)
o Radical innovation as Evolution 2nd Order vs. incremental innovations as Evolution 1st Order;
o systemic-evolutionary process-modelling;
o MARTEC and THARSOS concepts of R. W. Kroy
In the scope of this article it is not possible, to explain these themes above in more detail.
3.5
The emergence of Project Management 2nd Order (PM-2)
The great number of elaborated themes respectively work packages of the research program focalise to single phenomena of perceptions, characteristics and possible actions. But these particular
results with their respective limited scope cannot configure a comprehensive holistic management
system. Additionally, an umbrella function is necessary, to link all these particular results in a systemic way.
Therefore, as a highlighted result of the Research Program the Project Management 2nd Order
(PM-2) - or Second Order Project Management (PM-2) - was established. The term "Project
Management Second Order (PM-2)" was created by the author for the first time 1995 in Germanlanguage papers (Saynisch 1995/97) and 2004 in English-language paper (Saynisch 2004b).
PM-2 integrates the former traditional approach in PM (PM 1.Order) with the results of the
research programme (fig. 1 below) It is a reference model which is recommended for specific
demands. This PM-2 represents the highlighted result of the research programme. PM-2 integrates
the particular analytical results of the research programme to a comprehensive model or system as
a new paradigm and new solutions in the Project Management world.
PM-2 is an universal draft for mastering complexity in projects and project management
and is to be considered a future management system
The PM-2 concept was priced with the "IPMA Research Award 2007" (IPMA 2007/8).
4.
Limits of Traditional Project Management
Traditional management-understanding will represent for example by the 9 knowledge areas in the
PMI-PMBoK and most elements of the IPMA-ICB. It based mainly on a mechanical, monocausal, non-dynamic, linear structure and discrete view of human nature and societies with its perception, knowledge and action. It works on a basis of reductionist thinking and on the Cartesian
concept of causality (the mechanistic science). Traditional Project Management cannot solve these
widespread profound challenges, described in chapter 1 (Saynisch 2004a, 2005).
13

Part: 2
Traditional Project Management approaches is focused on rigid structures, precise work breakdown
structure definitions, elaborate control rules and high levels of scope certainty. Traditional Project
Management presuppose congruent goals, cultures, norms and technologies. This follows a positivists perspective with his deductive knowledge and quantitative paradigm (Bredillet 2007/8).
This widespread traditional management-understanding will be named Project Management 1st
Order (PM-1).
5.
Fundamentals of Project Management 2nd Order (PM-2)
5.1
Methodology and literature review
After a number of years on work in the research program, in 1997 there was a maturation of the
insight that all of the preliminary findings since 1990 are not sufficient for building a new
comprehensive system of project management. We have subsequently searched for the missing
link, but have not found any suggestions in the literature. Therefore we been on our own in
finding a solution, which will be presented in the next section of this article.
Only recently, papers on some closely related concepts were publishedfor example:
The EPSRC Network Rethinking Project Management (Winter, Smith, Cooke-Davies, &
Cicmil, 2006).
The PMI-funded research project Exploring the Complexity of Projects: Implications of
Complexity Theory on Project Management Practice (Cicmil, Cooke-Davies, Crawford, &
Richardson, 2009; and Cooke-Davies, Cicmil, Crawford, & Richardson, 2007)
The Complex Project Managers Competency Standard CPMCS (International Centre for
Complex Project Management [ICCPM], 2008).
The project-oriented company multi-project firms at the edge of chaos (Geraldi, 2008).
(We will discuss two of these papers, later in this article.)
5.2.
The Research Results for the Basic Concept of PM-2
5.2.1
Need for Two Cybernetic Cycles of Control
PM-2 is a universal draft for mastering complexity in projects and project management. PM-2
assumes that traditional project management will furthermore play an active and important role.
But this traditional approach has to be monumental, extended to a project management that
considers dynamic, nonlinear, and multicausal structures and processes, as well as principles of
self-organization, evolution, and networking.
A project is a strongly goal-oriented system with a defined finishing point in time. Projects are
determined by their goals. Evolutionary and self-organizational processes do not strive for
conclusion at a defined point in time. Evolutionary / self-organizational processes are not
determined by goals. They are processes without a specific destination. Therefore, evolutionary and
self-organizationalbased management methods cannot help to reach the fixed goal in a project.
For an effective attainment of project goals, the defined finishing point in time, we need the linear
processes and the Cartesian causality and the Newtonian logic from traditional project
management. But evolutionary and self-organizationalbased management methods are
necessary to master complex and uncertain situations on the way to the defined finishing point in
14

Part: 2
time in a project. A well balanced interaction of traditional project management and the
evolutionary and self-organizational principles is the message of project management second order
PM-2 is the enabler for simultaneous, synchronous acting and usage of:
High evolutionary dynamics, autopoietic, or living systems, chaotic environment, selforganizational processes and human-social systems
Processes for technical configuration, design, and realization (machine systems), with the
features of clear calculability and planned forecasting
The basic architecture and process model of PM-2 (Saynisch, 2005a, 2005b, & 2008a, 2008b) is
demonstrated in Figure 4. The process of the project-product, the product processes, are
represented by the horizontal time-arrow in the center. This arrow of time starts with the idea (start
of a project) and ends with the project result, deliveries, or the real product, the defined finishing
point. Two cybernetic cycles navigate and control directly this project-process in an interactive,
complementary, and cooperative sense.
In our research program (chapter 3) we have found, that for differentiation of traditional view of
project management and new complexity view, the following feature of paradigm are most
important factors:
Cybernetic first order vs. Cybernetic second Order (v. Foerster 1981, 1994)
Classical logic vs. transclassical logic (Gnther 1976-1980)
Allopoiesis vs. autopoiesis (Maturana 1982)
Order vs. edge of chaos
Cartesian / Newtonian / Enlightenment vs. modern sciences (e.g. quantum theory, theory
of evolution and complexity)
5.2.2
The First Cybernetic Cycle The Traditional Project Management
The first cycle (from down, in the following named World 1) represents the traditional management
approach. The term World 1 is, in addition to the succeeding explanations, outlined in chapter 5.3.
The principle of cybernetic 1st order is the logic of this kind of control in World 1. That means an
observer (manager) acting outside of the system (v.Foerster, 1981, 1994; Wiener, 1961). The
observer (manager) monitors and checks the system, the project-product processes. He or she
compares the monitoring results against planned data and intervenes if necessary from his or her
outside position into the system. The small vertical arrows (information flow) symbolize this
approach.
Classical logic (since Aristotle) or bivalent logic acts as the decision basisi.e., yes / no logic.
Acting is determined by techniques and hard facts, based on the
Cartesian/Newtonian/Enlightenment paradigm, the mechanistic sciences.
5.2.3 The Second Cybernetic Cycle The Complexity Management

The other cycle (on top, in the following, named World 2) represents the monumental extension of
traditional project management to the management of complexity. The term World 2 is, in addition
to the succeeding explanations, outlined in chapter 5.3.
World 2 considers dynamic, nonlinear, and multicausal structures and processes, as well as
principles of self-organization, evolution, and networking. The principle of cybernetic 2nd order
is largely the logic of this kind of control. That means an observer (manager) acting inside of the
15

Part: 2
system (v. Foerster, 1981, 1994) . This represents the principle management in
projects/complexity.
It is difficult, to achieve a clear understanding of the important, but abstract cybernetic principle of
acting inside of the system. Because professional blinkers have to be overcome ! A good
example to understanding , how are the features of this principle, is the concept of Complex
Responsive Processes of Relating (CRPR) (Stacey 2001). This concept is based in many thinks on
principles of Cybernetic second. Order, with recognizing and acting inside of the system.
A significant part of control will take place inside of the system, the project-product processes. The
partial overlap of the box complexity management with the horizontal time-arrow of the projectproduct processes in Figure 4 symbolizes this approach. Such self-adjusting and self-organizational
capabilities are self-evident and incorporated into the structure by natural systems (life systems),
but not in the project-product processes. In these processes, these capabilities must be specifically
(and artificially) incorporated (Malik, 1984, 2004).
A very small part of control is similar to the first cycle, the traditional principles of management.
This is symbolized by the huddled small vertical arrows.
Transclassical or dialectic logic (multivalent logic) acts as the decision basis (Gnther, 197680;
Kramer, 2002). Operation is indeterminate and based on the new emerging paradigm of modern
sciences (sections 1 and 2), which considers dynamic, nonlinear, and multicausal structures and
processes, as well as principles of self-organization, evolution, and networking
Fig. 4: The basic architecture- and process-model of PM-2 (Saynisch 2005/8)
5.5
Conclusions
Both these cybernetic cycles govern the project-product process directly and immediately. PM-2 is
therefore an integrated approach of the two cybernetic cycles, with several processes and
techniques. PM-2 represents a dual cybernetic cycle principle. The main characteristic is the
coexistence of a management of complexity (evolution, self-organization, edge of chaos) and the
traditional management. To find the proper balance between complexity and traditional
management will be the future management-art.
16

Part: 2
5.3.
The Creation of a Systemic Architecture- and Process Model of PM-2
The systemic structure- and process-model of PM-2 will described in Fig. 5. This model is based
on the basic architecture, shown in Fig. 4. It has been extended by two additional elements (now
called WORLD):
the universe of the human behaviour (WORLD 3),
the universe of ground rules and ways of thinking (WORLD 4).
These additional WORLDs controls not directly and immediately the projcect-product process,
they has a more indirectly and infrastructural character.
The architecture of the systemic structure consists therefore of four WORLDs with a superposed
reciprocal action by Worlds 3 and 4. These reciprocal actions will be represented in fig.5 by sectoral overlapping the WORLDs (Saynisch & Lange 2002, Saynisch 2003/5/8) .
WORLD 1 is the universe of traditional approach to Project Management. The principle of cybernetic 1st Order is the logic of control. Acting and techniques are in the centre of control. (PMBoK
of PMI, ICB of IPMA, ISO 10006). Problem-solving contents primary linear and goal-oriented
information processing (e.g. plan/actual comparison and mode of acting. Nearly 80% of the PMliterature has been covering these themes for more than 45 years.
WORLD 2 is the universe of the management of complexity. The principle of cybernetic 2nd
Order is the logic of control. Mastering of high evolutionary dynamic, of complex instabilities, of
situations with self-organization and/or self-reference are important tasks. Important methods are
communication, observing and perception of project-dynamic. Problem-solving contents primarily
the consideration of system approach, thinking in networks and circular processing. Control
means more influence and emergence of consciousness instead of precise and quantitative plans or
duty points. E.g. by interventions, supervisions or audits. This world has to this point not been discussed within PM-literature.
WORLD 3 is the universe of human behaviour. Man and his behaviour in groups or organizations
are in the centre of control. Project culture will also be an important part. In WORLD 1 and 2 the
object-logic dominates, the object-dimension. In WORLD 3 the logic of behaviour (e.g. values,
personal attitudes, personal interests) dominates. Important methodical approaches are e.g.: motivation, coaching, reflections, support of learning, leading with confidence and goals, communication of visions. The PM-literature in this world has a growing trend since a decade.
Foundations, ways of thinking, systemic views and networking are important aspects of the universe of WORLD 4. Thinking in cycles, the principle of pilgrim-steps (two forward, one backward) and networked jumps between the steps of problem-solving are thinking-ways and actingprinciples in WORLD 4. Ways of thinking and the principles of acting will influence the other 3
worlds. Also, it can be focussed only for the control tasks in WORLD 1 or 2.
Scope of Model: The model represents a reference model. It is valid for all types of projects in
different fields of business and function. As a well-defined model it is characterized by a high
degree of abstract thinking. For concrete application in projects (i.e. organization-, software- or
F+E project) or within a company it has to be adapted accordingly. The result is an independent
model based on a new, concrete application level. The previous explanations for the concept of
PM-2 are focussed on the presentation and execution of a single project. For the management of a
project oriented company or for multi-projects firms these explanations do not apply. Further
discussions are in chapter 8.3.
17

Part: 2
Fig. 5 The systemic architecture- and process-model of PM-2 (Saynisch, 1997, 2002/3/8).
6.
Implementation in Different Project Types Adaption of PM-2
Construction projects basing on conventional technologies and in the own country can be controlled primarily by WORLD 1. Reason: the object-system can be sufficiently determined and the
acting-system shows a low complexity. A fundamentally different situation will emerge, if the construction project will be performed in another field of culture (e.g. with Islamite fundamentalism).
In this case, WORLD 3 emerges and the control processes of WORLD 1 have to be expanded to
WORLD 2. This will be the situation, if a European contractor performs a project in an Arabian
country
If research & development projects contents advanced technologies (e.g. biotechnology) an
extensive and simultaneous control from WORLD 1 and 2 are needed. If such projects expand to a
Mega-Project (e.g. the new European Galileo-Project or the historical APOLLO Project) it will
be necessary to simultaneously control it from all four WORLDs.
If organizational projects exhibits a high potential for effects of self-reference, the control must
be performed mainly by WORLD 2 with the support of WORLD 3. In most cases of organizational
projects, IT-systems (software and installation of hardware) are integrated. If this case occurs, an
additional control with the methods of WORLD 1 would be necessary (Saynisch & Lange 2002,
Saynisch 2003/5/8).
18

Part: 2
7.
Principles, Methods and Processes in PM-2 for Project Management

Practice
7.1
General
Concepts of action in world 1, i.e. traditional PM, do not require further explanation. Good general descriptions can be read in international standard works, such as PMBoK of PMI (USA), the
ICB of IPMA and the ISO 10006. The PMBoK is limited to WORLD 1, whereas the ICB also
refers to the methods in world 3. Both of them include some elements of WORLD 4.
Concepts of action as also principles and strategies in World 2: The following broadly defined
description of concepts explains the meaning of principles, strategies and approaches which have
an effect in PM-2 additionally to or instead of traditional concepts in world 2. They partly refer to
world 3.
In his work about self-organization Probst (1987) described 45 planning and guiding principles
for the organization in self-organizing systems. In his works about evolutionary management
Laszlo (1997) defined 18 principles. These principles are established with a focus of a general
Management, not especially for Project Management. But they can good transferred without
great damages into the world of Project Management.
Especially for Project Management, we have in the Research Programme Beyond Frontiers of
Traditional Project Management developed numerous principles, methods and techniques.
These are condensed into 30 thesis, which are presented in the documentation book (Saynisch
& Lange 2002, Saynisch 2003). In the competency standard of ICCPM (2008), numerous procedures are described.
A cyclic acting principle (iterations, circular processes, feedback non-linear) seems to prevail as
common and central principle among many methodical approaches as selectively described above.
Part of this principle is the evolutionary paradigm of the process variation selection keeping.
This is to make clear that numerous concepts of action exist already for WORLD 2. Due to
limited text size of this paper only some selected elements of acting concepts of the concept description will be explained in the next chapter
7.2
Selected concepts of action in WORLD 2 , the Management of Complexity (Saynisch

1997, Saynisch & Lange 2002)
Basic Principles:
Evolutionary planning, not focussing aims but a horizon changing constantly.
Cyclic action on a strategic and detailed basis.
Complexity can only be mastered by increased complexity (volitive situation, dialectic logic).
Reductions and trivialities destroy the system. paradoxes can be innovative.
Key Principles:
Handling open aims evolutionary development of aims
Practise a variety engineering. Create and keep mutations. Do not destroy mutations
Planning and control as calculable interventions in self-organization
Principles: Planning is to be considered a process of observation (like soft system methodics) rather than a basis for deviation analyses
As an observers guiding principle following concepts are possible:
1. interventionistic planning and control
19

Part: 2
2. experimental planning and control (This will be explained in more detail in the next
chapter)
Operative Principles
Use of audit- and review principles
Control handling by setting frame conditions
Variation of classic planning approach: control-able planning (This will be explained in more
detail in the next chapter).
Creation of temporary, networked, interdisciplinary structure
7.3
Detailed descriptions of selected elements of acting concepts in chapter 7.2

(Saynisch 1997, Saynisch & Lange 2002)
Experimental Planning and Control (Key Principles):

Controlling is part of the system: cybernectics of 2nd order or of observing systems.
Experimental planning and control is not limited to one way but tries several possibilities.
o Keeping of variation (mutation) and evaluation (selection) of possibilities
o Thus it corresponds to the basic principle of evolutionary planning
With the concept of experimental planning and control
o planning and control effects are recursively lead back into the process,
o thus planning and control becomes an experiment.
Controlable Planning (Operative Principles):
Variation of classic planning approach: Also within the traditional planning and control process
the feedback principle is used, but only in case of deviations, mostly limited to a part of the
problem solving process.
Approach for PM-2: As of project start planning is to be adjusted to many feedback processes
(planning revisions).
This controlled planning functions according to the principle: Better plan roughly and quickly
than in detail and slowly. Who plans too much in detail loses time and chances.
With this principle the author has made good experiences in the F+E field since 40 years.
8.
Demonstration, Verification and Similarities of PM-2 today
Finally, concrete situations and alternative conceptual models demonstrate that some elements of
PM-2 (particularly world 2) have already been analysed in research and transformed into practical
use and are presently regarded as state of art.
8.1
The New Evolutionary Acquisition Model of DoD
Maybe everyone knows, that Project Management has been developed by DoD + NASA in the
early Sixties. AFSCM 375 was one of the first document being published about Project Management. Today, DoD again takes over a leading role by incorporating new ideas for a future Project
Management. DoD developed a new acquisition model, called Evolutionary Acquisition (EA),
that reduces cost and cycle times. EA will be used for large, complex and software-intensive projects (SEI 2001).
20

Part: 2
In an evolutionary approach the delivery to the user is divided into two or more blocks, with
increasing increments of capability. Block 1 provides the initial deployment capability. The technology is developed somewhere and adopted to try it out. If successful there, it becomes the subject of Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD). In the Acquisition Program phase, the evolutionary acquisition will begin. The key of the concept is, that the acquisition occurs in a sequence
of blocks. In each block cycling processes, an evolutionary approach, will be performed (called
also Spiral Development by Boehm). Important features of the concept are:
Evolutionary Acquisition implies evolutionary requirements
Evolutionary Acquisition also implies evolutionary fielding with impacts on training and
sustainment
8.2
PM-2 vs. Complex Project Managers Competency Standard CPMCS
The International Center for Complex Project Management (ICCPM) establishes the CPMCS
(ICCPM, 2008). This standard defines complex project management as an emerging natural
extension of traditional project management to create a specialist profession. The standard moves
away from existing approaches and identifies new project management competencies. Project
managers need to accept that the implementation of complex projects is a dynamic system and to
a large degree unknowable. Detailed long-term planning is therefore impossible. Indeed, applying
traditional project management approaches with their focus on long-term planning, rigid
structures, precise work breakdown structure definition, and elaborate control rules is
counterproductiveit will drive the complex project towards failure (Saynisch, 2007).
The CPMCS moves away from traditional philosophies, approaches and languages, which cannot
adequately describe complex projects. Instead, this standard uses a Systems Thinking
philosophical approach and methodology, based upon the premise that you cannot understand a
whole through analyzing its parts: Therefore Views provide insights from multiple
perspectives, that together provide holistic understanding; and a holistic understanding of the
competencies required for the project management of complexity can only be achieved through
using multiple views. The standard establishes nine new competency areas, titled Views (e.g.,
View 4: Innovation, Creativity, and Working Smarter, and View 6: Systems Thinking and
Integration).
The CPMCS make a clear distinction between traditional project management (existing and
expanded traditional competencies) and complex project management (new complex project
management competencies). Therefore, the CPMCS principles are similar to the concept of
PM-2, described in chapter 5.
Both CPMCS and PM-2 deal with a paradigm shift in project management. Both are concerned
with the inability of traditional project management to successfully deliver complex projects and
programs. Both radically redefine project management with many additional principles, methods
and processes. Both deal with complex systems, which are defined as unpredictable, nonlinear,
unstable, disordered, emergent, and so on
But there are also differences (Saynisch 2008a, 2007). The CCPM Standard is focused on large
projects: international aid; defence; climate change, and disaster relief; mergers; policy
implementation; pandemics; national development, change in large organizations as well as
construction of major plants. As a reference model, PM-2 is valid for all types of projects in
different fields of business. PM-2 is characterized by a high degree of abstract thinking.
Furthermore, the CCPM Standard mainly deals with competences PM-2 is focused on the
following trinity: processes, structures, and management systems. In addition, the CCPM
Standard was established in 2005 in Australia and has had budget resources; PM-2 was launched
21

Part: 2
10 years earlier in Germany with no financial support, with the only resources being the great
engagement of personal involvement of team members. Finally, one important difference is the
orientation of contents:
Scientific basis on the PM-2 side. PM-2 assures more detailed and transparent deduction
of the underlying research in modern sciences
Application and implementation details on CCPM Standard
Therefore, both concepts complement each other. There is synergy; in the potential of both
concepts and integration activities.
8.3
PM-2 vs. project oriented company - multi-project firms at the edge of chaos
(MUPEC)
The previous explanations for the concept of PM-2 are focussed on the presentation and execution
of a single project. The general identification model of PM-2 is a horizontal time arrow, representing the project-process with the two cybernetic cycles of Complexity and Traditional Management, which navigate and control this project-process. This is demonstrated in fig. 4. For the management of a project oriented company, for example, these explanations do not apply. A company
is less defined by obtaining a fixed time schedule but by competitiveness and growth. This situation
is discussed by Rietiker (2006).
But Complexity Management plays also an important rule at project oriented companies. For
these challenges Geraldi (2008) has established a remarkable conceptual model. This specifically
defines the edge of chaos (coexistence of order and chaos) for multi-project firms based on the
match between complexity of project portfolio and flexibility of its organisational units. The general identification model of this basic approach for project oriented companies is a map to asses
this match and mismatch of complexity and flexibility. This map proposes four regions or organisational archetypes: the creative-reflective, the mechanic structured, chaotification of order and
bureaucratisation of chaos.
Both conceptual models, the PM-2 and the multi-project firms at the edge of chaos (MUPEC),
includes some similarities. For mastering complex situations in the world of projects, both deals
with a coexistence and balance between order and chaos, between Traditional and Complexity
Management as an essential characteristic for the challenges.
22

Part: 2
Fig. 6: Integration of previous project management1 knowledge field with CPMCS and MUPEC
For a future comprehensive rethinking of project management and for an emergence of a radical
new view of a systemic project management world, an integration approach of both models and
perspectives (single project and company) will be necessary. But this is a challenge for future
research. The significance of both models and perspectives has been highlighted by award of the
IPMA Research Award in 2007 and 2008 (IPMA 2007/8)
9.
The Future - Integration Aspects of PM-2, CPMCS, MUPEC, ICB3

and PMI-Standards (PMBoK etc.)
The previous project management1 knowledge field, represented by standards of IPMA and
PMI and based on traditional management-understanding (chapter 4), wont eliminate. It becomes
furthermore take an important position (chapter 5.2). But this previous knowledge field must
integrate with the advanced models, which deals with complexity, such as PM-2, MUPEC
or CPMCS (Chapter 5-7, 8.2, 8.3). This chapter treat with the integrated view of the context
and relations of PM-2, MUPEC, CPMCS, IPMA-ICB3 and PMI-Standards (Saynisch 2008a,b).
23

Part: 2
Integration of previous project management1 knowledge field with CPMCS and MUPEC
Right in fig. 6 you can see in three vertical columns the ICB3 of IPMA with its technical, behavioural and contextual competences as also the four levels of competences in the ordinate. The three
vertical columns of PMIs PMBoK, OPM3 and Program/Portfolio Management flanks the ICB3.
The three vertical columns of PMIs Program/Portfolio Management, OPM3 and contextual competences of ICB3 represents the integrated view of multiple projects, the other three vertical columns represents a single project.
On the top of the three vertical columns at single project of traditional management is the field of
CPMCS with his 9 views, the management of complexity. CPMCS has no focus to integration of
projects, it concentrates oneself to a single project. You can see, that this field represent a higher
Fig. 7: Integration Aspects of PM-2, CPMCS, MUPEC, ICB3 and PMI-Standards The
umbrella function of PM-2
level of competency as the A-level of ICB3, maybe level A++. Furthermore it will be clear, that
the CPMCS complements the traditional management by the management of complexity. You can
see, that the complexity and the scope of competences increases from bottom to top. Analogous to
CPMCS at single project, the MUPEC represent a higher level of competency for complexity
situations at integration of projects.
Additional integration with PM-2 the umbrella function
The PM-2 with its four WORLDS is pictured left in fig. 7. The relations of PM-2 to CPMCS,
IPMA-ICB3 and PMI-Standards are represents by arrows; the broadness of arrow represents the
intensity. WORLD 2, the Complexity management corresponds primary and intensively with the
CPMCS of ICCPM. Also World 3 and 4 shows relations to CPMCS. World 3 corresponds primary
with the behavioural competences of ICB3. WORLD 1, the traditional PM with direct control of
project processes, corresponds primary and intensively with the PMBoK and the technical compe-
24

Part: 2
tences of ICB3. Furthermore World 4 is related with PMIs Program/Portfolio Management,
OMP3, the contextual competences of IPMA-ICB3 and the MUPEC.
The conclusions as much as the challenges for future are: The PM-2 with his feature of reference
model acts as an umbrella for the elements of CPMCS, IPMA-ICB3 and PMI-Standards.
PM-2 will assure a framework for integrative re-orientation of these concepts and standards.
10. Perspectives and Future Developments

The conclusions for future are: PM-2 with its feature of reference models will help to develop and
integrate the widespread competencies for the management of complex projects in the traditional
and advanced field:
The research and development of PM-2 and its environment is still in a draft state. We need an
international research initiative for extended research & development on these subjects to come
to better practical solutions. One point in this research agenda will be an integration approach of
PM-2 and MUPEC a future co-evolutionary and comprehensive model for mastering complexity
in the world of projects.
The previous explanations for the concept of PM-2 are focussed on the presentation and
execution of a single project. We also need further research for an extension approach of the PM2 concept: the integration of single project aspects with the viewpoints of program/portfolio
management, as suggested in chapter 8.3. We need a new view of a systemic project
management world which integrates the aspects of a company. This work has the label:
Second Order Project-, Program- and Portfolio Management (P3M-2)
Finally, we need intensive and new education and training programs all over the world which
reflects the ideas. This paper should be understood as a call to begin the discourse, to fulfil the
requirements of Ch. Bredillet (2007/8) for a new perspective and approach in PM research based
on inductive knowledge, qualitative paradigm, constructivist epistemology, speculative thoughts,
non traditional logic and moving beyond the classical management perspective.
11.
References, Acknowledgements and Biography
The preparation of this paper was supported by the Manfred Saynisch Project Management Foundation (MSPM-Foundation) [info@mspm-stiftung.de].
Bateson, G.(1988): kologie des Geistes; Frankfurt, 1988
Bredillet, Ch. (2007): From the Editor The Link Research-Practice, Part 3. In: Project Management Journal, Volume 38, Number 1, PMI Inc. PA 19o73-3299 USA, March 2007
Bredillet, Ch. (2008): From the Editor Mapping the dynamics of the PM (Part 1). In: Project
Management Journal, Volume 39, Number 4, PMI Inc. PA 19o73-3299 USA and Wiley Subscription Services Inc. Hoboken NJ, December 2008
25

Part: 2
Cicmil, S., Cooke-Davis, T., Crawford, L., & Richardson, K. (2009): Exploring the Complexity of
Projects: Implications of Complexity Theory for Project Management Practice. Newtown Square,
PA, Project Management Institute (PMI).
Cicmil, S. (2007) Project Complexity and the Paradox of Project Control. Paper presented at ICAN
07 Conference, November 29th-30th 2007, Sydney
Cooke-Davis, T. et.al (2007): Were not in Kansas anymore, toto: Mapping the strange landscape
of complexity theory, and his relationship to Project Management. Project Management Journal,
Vol. 38, Nr. 2. june 2007, 50-61
Forrester; J.W. (1971): World Dynamics. Cambridge (Productivity Press) 1971.
Forrester, J.W. (1961): Industrial Dynamics. Cambridge (Productivity Press) 1961.
Foerster, H. v. (1981): On cybernetics of cybernetics and social theory. In: Roth, G., Schwegler, H.
(Hrsg): Self-organizing systems. Frankfurt 1981, S.102-105
Geraldi, J.G. (2008): The balance between order and chaos in multi-project firms: A conceptual
model. International Journal of PM, vol.26, issue 4, 2008, Elsevier Ltd.
Gould, St. J., Eldredge, N. (1977): Punctual equilibria. Paleobiology 3 (1977), 115-151
Gnther, G. (1976/79/80): Beitrge zur Grundlegung einer operationsfhigen Dialektik. Band 1 bis
3. Hamburg (Meiner).
Hejl, P.M (1984).: Towards a Theory of Social Systems: Self-Organization and Self-Maintenance,
Self-Reference and Syn-Reference; in Ulrich, H., Probst G.J.B. Self-organization and Management of Social Systems, Springer, Berlin/NewYork 1984.
ICCPM (2008): Complex Project Manager Competency Standards, Version 3.3, . Editor: ICCPM,
Sydney 2008 (www.iccpm.com)
IPMA (2007/8): http://www.ipma.ch/awards/resawards/Pages/winners.aspx
IPMA (2006): ICB-3 - IPMA Competence Baseline Version 3.0, 2006; www.ipma.ch; IBSN 09553213-0-1
Jantsch, E. (1979/1980): Selbstorganisation des Universums; Mnchen 1979/86. The Self-Organizing Universe; Oxford: Pergamon 1980
Kroy, W., Saynisch, M. (1996): Management radikaler Innovationen durch Projekte und Projektmanagement; in: Balck, H. (Hrsg.): Networking und Projektorientierung - Gestaltung des Wandels,
Springer, Berlin/New York, 1996.
Laszlo, E., Laszlo, CH. (1997): The Insight Edge. Quorum Books, Westport, CT 06881, 1997
Laszlo, E. (1987): Evolution - Die neue Synthese. Europa-Verlag Wien-Zrich 1987. Evolution:
The grand synthesis; Boston: Shambhala, 1987
Luhmann, N (1984).: Soziale Systeme; Suhrkamp, Frankfurt 1984
Malik, F.(1986): Strategie des Managements komplexer Systeme; Bern/Stuttgart 1986/2004
Maturana, H.C. (1982): Erkennen: Die Organisation und Verkrperung von Wirklichkeit, Vieweg,
Braunschweig 1982
PMI (2008a): A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge PMBOK, Guide
Fourth Edition . Newton Square, PA, USA, 2008
PMI (2008b): Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3) Second Edition .
Newton Square, PA, USA, 2008
PMI (2008c): Standard for Program Management Second Edition . Newton Square, PA, USA,
2008
PMI (2008d): The Standard for Portfolio Management Second Edition . Newton Square, PA,
USA, 2008
Probst, G.J.B. (1987): Selbstorganisation Ordnungsprozesse in sozialen Systemen t, Parey, Berlin, 1987
Probst,G.J.B (1984): Self-organization and Management of -Social Systems. Springer, Berlin/NewYork 1984
26

Part: 2
Remington, K., Pollack, J. (2007): Tools for Complex Projects. Gower Publishing, Aldershot
Hampshire, 2007
Riedl, R. (1985): Die Spaltung des Weltbildes - Biologische Grundlagen des Erklrens und Verstehens, Berlin Hamburg 1985
Rietiker, S.(2006): Der neunte Schlssel vom PM zum projektbewussten Management. Haupt
Verlag, Bern, 2006
Saynisch, M. (2008b): To Cope with Complexity and Changes in Projects by Radical Redefining of
PM - The Project Management 2nd Order (PM-2). Congress Proceedings: 22nd IPMA World
Congress "Project Management to Run, Rom 2008
Saynisch, M. (2008a): Mastering Complex Projects by Project Management 2nd Order (PM-2)
Synergy and Integration Potentials of CPMCS and PM-2; Vortragsmanuskript zu. 2. KSF des
ICCPM / Australia in Frankfurt; April 2008,
Saynisch, M. (2007): A Radical Redefining of PM for Mastering Complex Projects: ICAN CONFERENCE 2007 at University of Technology Sydney, Australia, November 29th and 30th, 2007
Saynisch, M. (2005): Mastering Complexity and Changes by Project Management 2nd Order (PM2). 19. IPMA World-Congress, Nov. 2005 in New Delhi, congress documentation
Saynisch, M.(2004a): Results of the research programme Beyond Frontiers of Traditional
Project Management.
Paper on the 18. IPMA World-Congress, June 2004 in Budapest,
congress documentation IPMA 2004, www.ipma.ch
Saynisch, M. (2004b): The concept of Project Management Second Order (PM-2) - A
Management Approach for next decades in this century. Paper on the 18. IPMA WorldCongress, Juni 2004 in Budapest, congress documentation IPMA 2004, www.ipma.ch
Saynisch, M. (2003): Neue Wege im Projektmanagement In: Kerber et al. (Edit.): Zukunft im Projektmanagement Beitrge zur InterPM in Glashtten/Taunus Mrz 2003. dpunkt.verlag, Heidelberg 2003
Saynisch, M. (1997): Radikale Innovationen schaffen und managen - Wenn alte Rezepte nicht
mehr helfen (Teil 1 + 2). In: Gablers Magazin 6-7/97 und 8/97, Gablers Verlag, Wiesbaden 1997
Saynisch, M. (1995): Business Reengineering - Radikale Vernderungsprozesse mit
Projektmanagement 2. Ordnung; in: Lange, D. (Hrsg.): Management von Projekten - Know-how
aus der Beraterpraxis, Schffer/Poeschel, Stuttgart 1995, S. 247-277.
Saynisch, M., Lange, D. (Edit.) (2002): "Neue Wege im Projektmanagement - Ergebnisse aus Forschungsprojekten 1990-2000", GPM-Verlag Nrnberg / Stuttgart 2002. Information for procurement of the book: info@spm-consult.de.
SEI (2001): Special report CMU/SEI 2001-SR-005, SEI, May 2001
Stacey, R. D. (2001): Complex responsive Processes in Organizations. Routledge, New York, NY
10016, 2001
Stacey, R.D. (1997): Unternehmen am Rande des Chaos; Schffer-Poeschel, Stuttgart 1997. Complexity and Creativity in organizations; Berrett-Koehler; San Francisco, 1996.
Waldrop, M (1992).: Complexity, the Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. Simon &
Schuster, New York 1992: In German: Inseln im Chaos Die Erforschung komplexer Systeme;
Rowohlt, Hamburg 1993
Weick, K.E.(1985): Der Prozess des Organisierens; Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/M. 1985. The Social Psychology of Organizing; Adison-Wesly 1969/79.
Wiener, N. (1961): Cybernetics; New York 1948/61
Wilke, H.: Systemtheorie; G. Fischer Verl., Stuttgart, 1987
Winter, M et.al (2006): Rethinking Project Management - Final Report; EPSRC Network 20042006, (http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/management/rethinkpm/final.htm
Whitty, S.j., Maylor, H. (2007): And them come Complex Project Management. In: Kisilinscki,
J.A., Sroda, S.: Project Management Essential Reality for Business and Government, Proceedings
of the IPMA World Congress, Cracow 2007, 371-376
27

Part: 2
Authors Biography
MANFRED SAYNISCH, Dipl.-Ing., has more than 40 years experience in Project Management
(PM) on important national and international projects. He is one of the pioneers of Project and
Configuration Management in Germany and he further developed both disciplines.
He has been head of the Project Control as well as the Organisation Department at the R&DDivision in one of the largest mechanical engineering / production companies in Europe for many
years. In 1985 he founded his own consultancy SPM-CONSULT - Systems and Services in
Project and Process Management. At various universities he has lectured on PM. In 2006 he
founded the MSPM-Foundation, a Foundation for PM, on which he acts as Senior Executive
President.
In the field of Project and Configuration Management he has published more than 120 articles and
books. He published the first book in Europe on Configuration Management. (1984). At eight
IPMA World Congresses (1972-2005) and two PMI Congresses (1981-1998) he has presented
papers. In 2007 he was the winner of IPMA Research Award.
He is founding and honorary member as well as member of the board of trustees (until 2007) and
Research Advisory Board of GPM / German Association of Project Management and one of the
first German members of PMI / USA. He is a member of various professional committees,
including: German Standardization Board (DIN) for PM and CM, Editorial Board of International
Journal of Project Management (from its foundation in 1982 to 2001) and German journal of PM
"projektMANAGEMENTaktuell" since its foundation in 1989. He has founded and directed the
research programme Beyond Frontiers of Traditional Project Management (since 1990).
Contact: Saynisch@spm-consult.de - info@mspm-stiftung.de - http://www.mspm-stiftung.de
12.
Annex:
More detailed descriptions of the Research Programme Beyond Frontiers of Traditional Project
Management and Project Management 2nd Order (PM-2) are published in
Saynisch, M. (2010a): Beyond Frontiers of Traditional Project Management: An Approach to
Evolutionary, Self-Organizational Principles and the Complexity TheoryResults of the
Research Program. Project Management Journal PMJ, Vol. 41, Nr.2, 21-37, April 2010,
Wiley/PMI USA.
Saynisch, M.(2010b): Mastering Complexity and Changes in Projects, Economy, and Society
via Project Management Second Order (PM-2). Project Management Journal PMJ, Vol. 41,
Nr.5, 4-20, Dec. 2010, Wiley/PMI USA.
You can read and download these important current papers at ICCPM website /Publications / Other
Resources / Articles and Resources / Complexity in PM
28

Mastering Complex Projects Msaynisch

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Mastering Complex Projects Msaynisch

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SPM

ICCPM Research Prize 2010 - Awarded research papers