Beyond Frontiers of Traditional Project Management · of PMI and SPM-CONSULT – M. Saynisch. Beyond Frontiers of Traditional Project Management: An Approach to Evolutionary, Self-Organizational

© 2010– Copyright by Project Management Journal (Wiley/PMI) and SPM-CONSULT – M. Saynisch,.

Only for personal use and is not to be distributed or published without the express permission of PMI and SPM-CONSULT – M. Saynisch.

Beyond Frontiers of Traditional Project Management:

An Approach to Evolutionary, Self-Organizational Principles

and the Complexity Theory Results of the Research Program

by

Manfred Saynisch Managing Director MSPM-Foundation for PM and SPM-CONSULT,

Munich, Germany

Paper published in Project Management Journal - PMJ,

Vol. 41, Nr.2, 21-37, April 2010, Wiley/PMI USA

-------------------------------------------

Dipl.-Ing. Manfred Saynisch SPM-CONSULT - Systems and Service in Project Management

Düppeler-Str. 19, 81929 Munich, Germany Tel: 089-93 93 09 51; E-Mail: [email protected]; [email protected],

http://www.mspm-stiftung.de

SPMCONSULTSPM

FOUNDATION CONSULT

© 2010– Copyright by Project Management Journal (Wiley/PMI) and SPM-CONSULT – M. Saynisch,.

Only for personal use and is not to be distributed or published without the express permission of PMI and SPM-CONSULT – M. Saynisch.

Comments to the paper In his blog „Preventing Project Failure“ wrote Mishiko Diby (owner and principal consultant of SeaLight, LLC) at April 18, 2010 to this paper a distinguished interpretation and comment:

Shifting Our Thinking To Expect Crisis: Project Management Second Order Rethinking Our Paradigms

………So when I came upon Martin Saynisch article, Beyond frontiers of traditional project management, in the April 2010 PM Journal, I immediately sensed that there was something groundbreaking there, but it took me a good week to get through the article. Here’s the deal – what Saynisch et. al. are proposing is a fundamental shift if the way we think about project management. We are moving from Project Management First Order to Project Management Second Order. And it’s all about the shifting collective beliefs of our entire scientific body of knowledge……. In the same blog wrote Geoff Crane (Owner / Consultant of Papercut Project Monitoring):

“Wow! What a fabulous article! There’s a lot of really great information in there, and you’ve totally prompted me to dig into the original article.” http://blog.sealightllc.com/?p=1081 - 17.03.2011 -------------------------------------------------------------------- “Congrats for the excellent work.” Hermano Perrelli de Moura | PhD, PMP Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil Visiting professor University of Maryland, USA

-----------------------------------------------------------

A supplementary and succeeding paper Saynisch, M.:

Mastering Complexity and Changes in Projects, Economy, and Society via Project Management Second Order (PM-2)

was published in Project Management Journal PMJ, Vol.41, Nr.2, 4-20,

Dec. 2010, Wiley/PMI USA

PA

PE

RS

April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 21

INTRODUCTION ■

Fundamental changes in sciences offer new perspectives for the man-agement of complexity. Increased complexity in society, economics,and technology requires a new and suitable organization and manage-ment. What are the consequences and results for project management?

That is the theme of this article. First, the challenges posed by the funda-mental changes in the sciences and the increased complexity in society, eco-nomics, and technology will be discussed. This article asserts that traditionalproject management, the “Project Management First Order (PM-1),” cannotsolve these challenges. Next, the widespread working themes, methodologyof research process, and results of the research program “Beyond Frontiers ofTraditional Project Management” will be briefly presented as answers tothese challenges.

Subsequently, some selected results of the research program will be dis-cussed in detail: (1) the principal definition and foundation of “Evolution Firstand Second Order”; (2) the Evolution First Order and its impact on projectmanagement methods and processes, as well as the Evolution Second Orderand the Grand Evolutionary Systems Theory (GEST) of Ervin Laszlo (1987) andtheir impact on project management methods and processes; and (3) themanagement of crisis: turning a change to advantage or risk assurance.

Finally, the concept of “Project Management Second Order (PM-2)” as ahighlighted result of the research program, a new paradigm in project man-agement and answer to the challenges, described above, is discussed. Theconcept of PM-2 has been awarded the International Project ManagementAssociation (IPMA) Research Award 2007.

Advanced Challenges and Requirements for ProjectManagement, Based on the Irreversible, Nonlinear, System-Structuring Change in Nature, Society, and EconomyReasons to Start a Research ProgramThere were several reasons to start a research program. For our research program, one reason was the fundamental changes in the sciences, while the second reason was the new challenges and requirements for projectmanagement.

Beyond Frontiers of Traditional Project Management: An Approach to Evolutionary, Self-OrganizationalPrinciples and the ComplexityTheory—Results of the ResearchProgramManfred Saynisch, MSPM Foundation for PM and SPM-CONSULT, Munich, Germany

ABSTRACT ■

This article speculates beyond current thinkingin project management, asserting that tradi-tional project management cannot fulfill thechallenges and requirements for masteringincreased complexity in society, economics, andtechnology. The new paradigmatic evolutionary-systemic and cybernetic-systemic researchresults (including self-organization or chaoticsystems) in the more recent natural and socialsciences were analyzed based on their rele-vance for a new perspective in project manage-ment. Selected results of the research programwill be presented, including a short descriptionof “Project Management Second Order (PM-2)”as a highlighted result and a new paradigm inproject management.

KEYWORDS: project management; evolutiontheory; theory of complexity; self-organization;constructivist epistemology; nontraditionallogic; social system theory; evolutionary projectmanagement; evolutionary management;Evolution First and Second Order; ProjectManagement First and Second Order; manage-ment of crisis; system theory of evolution;Grand Evolutionary Systems Theory (GEST)

Project Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 2, 21–37

© 2010 by the Project Management Institute

Published online in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com)

DOI: 10.1002/pmj.20159

PMJ412_04_20159.qxd 3/11/10 8:50 PM Page 21

22 April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

Beyond Frontiers of Traditional Project Management

PA

PE

RS

Characteristics, Aims, and Results of the Research ProgramOn the research program, interdiscipli-nary study teams have been working onnew cognitions, concepts, and recom-mendations. World-class thinkers andscientists, such as Ervin Laszlo (espe-cially his Theory of Evolution [Laszlo,1987]) and Heinz von Foerster, with hisCybernetics Second Order (vonFoerster, 1981), have acted as protago-nists of this program.

The aim of the program has been to answer the question: What are thenew requirements for the implementa-tion of project management, based onthis transdisciplinary and integrativeapproach? This approach shakes upand undermines traditional views ofplanning and control. Traditional man-agement understanding—based mainlyon a mechanical, monocausal, nondy-namic, linear structure—cannot fulfillthese challenges and requirements.Project Management Second Order(PM-2) as a highlighted result of theresearch program shows a new para-digm, but also new solutions for newchallenges in project management.

Figure 1 explains the field of action,the genesis of the concept of Project

Management Second Order (PM-2)—from the challenges and advantages ofthe research program to results.

DeploymentThe subjects and results of the researchprogram, covering the years 1990 to 2000,were extensively presented in a docu-mentation book by Saynisch and Lange(2002). Comprehensive descriptions arepresented in several congress and jour-nal papers (discussed later in the section“Scope of the Research Program”).

Fundamental Changes inSciences as New Advantages for Project ManagementA new understanding and cognition ofnature and “men vs. nature” or “mindvs. nature” has been developed acrossall fields of society. In different relation-ships, the industrial society requires aradical and fundamental reorientationof thinking and action.

The rational, causal-analytic sci-ence calls into question its traditionalview and theory of life. Until now, sci-ence and society are accustomed toseeing the empirical world as consist-ing of spatially and temporally discreteand separable objects, activities, andevents, acting independently on us and

the environment. Now, the world isinterpreted as a complex, temporal,and spatial whole, which is basic tocontemporary physics.

A new paradigm has emerged andoffers new perspectives of complexityfor management. New insights includethe multicausal feedback effects ofhuman interference with the naturalenvironment, as well as nonlinear multicausality effects, the complex systems, in the natural scientific theo-ries. Furthermore, the inseparability ofexperiment, object, and observer (theCybernetic Second Order), as well as the processes of evolution and self-organization, are important perceptions.

In the field of management, theinterest of cognition focused on holisticor systemic views, complexity, and syn-ergy; evolutionary problem solving;process thinking; self-organization;and network interrelationships. Furthertopics for consideration are the multi-ple natures of the brain, the limitationof men-cognition and communication,values, and a sense of management andleadership, as well as intra- and inter-cultural structure and processes.

But how can the theory of evolutionand chaos, the constructivism cogni-tion theory, or the theory of complexsystems be applied or realized in ourreal project work?

The Challenges andRequirements for an AdvancedUnderstanding of ProjectManagementRapid technological, social, economi-cal, and global change push increasedcomplexity. One phenomenon is therapidly growing variance of complex,new technologies (innovations) inindustrial and social products (resultsof projects)—for example, microsys-tems, biosystems, nanotechnology, andtheir connections to “human” scaledimensions (Kroy, 2004), as well as bio-logical or living systems with mega-complex features, especially humansocial systems, and virtual spaces.

Another phenomenon is the“Dynamics of Instability,” as Ervin

A new “Paradigm” by theory ofnature and life offers newperspectives for management ofcomplexity.

The research program

New requirements for PM

highlighted result

as a new Paradigm in PM

“Beyond Frontiers ofTraditional Project

Management”

“Project ManagementSecond Order

(PM-2)”

Rapidly technological, social,economical, and global changepushes increased complexity

“Dynamics of Instability” —nonlinear, discontinuoussituation in projects

1. Fundamental Changes inSciences 3. Aims and Results

2. New Challenges andRequirements for PM

Figure 1: From reasons upon the research program to result—The development of an advanced understanding of project management.

PMJ412_04_20159.qxd 3/11/10 8:50 PM Page 22


Laszlo (Laszlo, 1992; Laszlo & Laszlo,1997) states. The development of ourworld and society with its markets,technologies, people, and organizationsis not foreseeable (i.e., stable and lin-ear). In real life, it is unstable and non-linear. These phenomena require a newand promising management approachwith a feature of paradigm. Traditionalmethods and mechanistic thinking losetheir efficiency.

The research program “BeyondFrontiers of Traditional Project Man-agement” that was founded to meetthese fundamental challenges hasdeveloped the Project ManagementSecond Order (PM-2) as an answer. ThisPM-2 represents the highlighted resultof the research program. (The PM-2 willnot be outlined in this article, as it will beexplained and discussed in detail in asubsequent article in an upcoming issueof PMJ.)

Frontiers of Traditional ProjectManagement to Solve TheseAdvanced RequirementsTraditional ManagementUnderstandingAs a result of 19th-century natural sci-ences, particularly Newton’s “classicalmechanics,” executives who hold tradi-tional management views considertheir companies to be complex mecha-nisms. They believe that the best way torun such mechanisms is by rigoroushierarchical organizations, controlledby those at the top. The distribution oftasks is established at headquarters.The company’s functions are mecha-nistically divided into individual workcomponents, and planning is based ona firm belief in control and predictabil-ity. Effects are traced back to causes,and causes are quantitatively analyzed(Laszlo & Laszlo, 1997).

Mechanistic ConceptThis mechanistic concept remaineddominant for many decades in the pastas a paradigm. This paradigm is charac-terized by the following features:mechanical, monocausal, nondynamic,linear structure, and a discrete view of

human nature and societies and of theirperception, knowledge, and action. Itworks on the basis of reductionistthinking and on the Cartesian conceptof causality (the mechanistic science).

Project Management First OrderAfter its genesis in the early 1960s, proj-ect management has been orientedaround this traditional paradigm. Anunderlying idea of the “specification-planning-execution-control theory” isthe result. For example, the nineKnowledge Areas in A Guide to theProject Management Body of Knowledge(PMBOK® Guide)—Fourth Edition(Project Management Institute [PMI],2008) and most elements of the IPMACompetence Baseline (IPMA, 2006)represent an understanding of a tradi-tional project management. We will callthis traditional management-under-standing “Project Management FirstOrder (PM-1).”

Traditional project managementcannot solve the widespread profoundchallenges described earlier in this article.

Scope and Methodology of theResearch Program “BeyondFrontiers of Traditional ProjectManagement”BackgroundOn the research program, interdiscipli-nary study teams have been working

under the direction of Saynisch since1990 on new cognitions, concepts, andrecommendations for project manage-ment. World-class thinkers and scien-tists, such as Ervin Laszlo (especially hisTheory of Evolution [Laszlo, 1987]) andHeinz von Foerster with his CyberneticsSecond Order (von Foerster, 1981), haveacted as protagonists. Project Manage-ment Second Order (PM-2) as a high-lighted result of the Research Programshows a new paradigm, but also newsolutions for new challenges in projectmanagement.

The subjects and results of theresearch program (1990 to 2000) wereextensively presented in a documenta-tion book (Saynisch & Lange, 2002).Comprehensive descriptions are pre-sented in several congress papers(Saynisch, 2003, 2004a, 2004b).

Scope ProgramThe research work of the program hasbeen subdivided into a synthetic andsuccessive sequence of autonomousprojects. The relationships are shown inFigure 2. The results of this researchproject will be discussed later in thisarticle.

Project 1, 1990–1997: Research for anEvolutionary-Systemic and Cybernetic-Systemic Project ManagementThe paradigmatic evolutionary-systemicand cybernetic-systemic research results

Project 52000–2004

Documentation Book

Project 6 2003–2006 Project Management 2nd Order (PM-2)

A new paradigm in PM

Project 11990–1997

Project 21996–1998

Project 31998–1999

Project 41999–2000

Figure 2: The steps in the research program “Beyond Frontiers of Traditional Project Management” and the convergence to “Project Management 2nd Order (PM-2)”.

PMJ412_04_20159.qxd 3/11/10 8:50 PM Page 23



PA

PE

RS

in the natural and social sciences andtheir relevance for a new perspective inproject management were analyzed.The emphases were on evolutionary-systemic paradigm and the influenceon project management and the prin-cipal definition and foundation ofEvolution First and Second Order.Further issues were the CyberneticSecond Order (von Foerster, 1981), self-organization, autopoiesis (Maturana,1982), and constructivist/evolutionaryepistemology and its influence on project management. The theory ofchaos and complexity, transclassicallogic, and innovation were additionalissues.

The various and widespread par-ticular research results have been presented at several congresses andpublished in congress proceedings(mainly of GPM [German Associationof PM] and IPMA), journals, and bookcontributions (Saynisch & Lange, 2002).

Project 2, 1996–1998: The Social,Technical, and Systemic Architecture of ProjectsThe focus of this project was the coop-eration of social, technical, and com-plex systems, with emphasis on the con-text of social systems and self-reference(Luhmann, 1984) to project manage-ment. In addition, the focus was appli-cations of constructivist epistemologyand theory of social systems, sociocy-bernetic, and dual control to projectmanagement aspects. Further issueswere the need for advanced logic (tran-sclassical logic) and morphogenesis oforder in networked logical systems, aswell as heightened analysis of the samethemes of Project 1. The visionary firstnew perspective in project manage-ment, the Project Management SecondOrder (PM-2), for mastering complexitywas predeveloped.

The various and widespread par-ticular research results were presentedin a workshop on the PM-Forum 1997(congress of GPM) and published inthe congress proceedings in a 90-pagepaper (Saynisch & Lange, 2002).

Project 3, 1998–1999: ManagementCybernetics in a Project and ProjectManagementResearch for applications in projectmanagement of the “Viable SystemsModel (VSM)” of Stafford Beer (1975,1979, 1981) was the issue of Project 3.The particular research results werepresented in a workshop on the PM-Forum 1998 (congress of GPM) andpublished in the congress proceedings(60 pages). The results of the workshopwere published in the journalProjektManagement/PMaktuell in 1998(Saynisch & Lange, 2002).

Project 4, 1999–2000: System Dynamicsin a Project and Project ManagementResearch for applications in projectmanagement of “system dynamics” ofForrester were the emphasis. The par-ticular research results were presentedin a workshop on the PM-Forum 2000(congress of GPM) (Saynisch & Lange,2002).

Project 5, 2000–2004: DocumentationBookThe subjects and results covering theyears 1990 to 2000 (Projects 1–4) wereplaced together and extensively pre-sented in the documentation book(Saynisch & Lange, 2002).

The content of this book, the inte-grated results of Projects 1–4, was pre-sented in summary form in 2003 at the“InterPM—Conference for Future inPM” (Saynisch, 2003), as well as in 2004at the 18th IPMA World Congress inBudapest with various presentationsthrough lectures, panels, workshops,and poster sessions (Saynisch, 2004a).

Project 6, 2003–2006: ProjectManagement Second Order (PM-2)This project dealt with the genesis of anew perspective of project manage-ment, the highlighted result of theresearch program. Emphasis was placedon convergence, an integrated approachof the particular results obtained fromthe preceding Projects 1–4, as well as onthe research on the interface situationscaused by the convergence of these

particular results, based on new cogni-tions and results in different modernsciences (several natural and social sciences).

Further important issues were theexploration of procedures for conver-gence and integration, the transforma-tion of the several outcomes of Projects1–4 in an integrated, systemic, andusable reference model of project man-agement for practical approach and thedevelopment of a structured landscapeof principles, methods, processes, andimplementation aspects for PM-2.Demonstration of transfer evolutionaryand self-organizational managementprinciples in a real project life conclud-ed the project.

Preliminary and selected resultswere presented in 2005 at the PM-Forum(congress of GPM; Saynisch, 2005c); in2005 at the 19th IPMA World Congress in New Delhi (Saynisch, 2005a); in 2005 inthe scientific journal World Futures—The Journal of General Evolution, pub-lished by Taylor & Francis, Inc., ofPhiladelphia (Saynisch, 2005b); in 2006at the “InterPM—Conference for Futurein PM” (Germany) (Saynisch, 2006); andin 2007 at the ICAN Conference at theUniversity of Technology in Sydney(Saynisch, 2007).

Current Research Projects From 2007Currently, three further research proj-ects are in progress. The first projectdiscusses the subject of coping withcomplexity and changes in projects bya radical redefinition of project man-agement—an advancement of PM-2with a focus on synergy and integra-tions aspects with currently similaractivities, like the competency stan-dard of the College of Complex ProjectManagers (CCPM; 2008). The secondproject deals with improving the man-agement of complex projects—theimpact of neuroscience on projectmanagement. Managing the complex-ity of projects, the contribution ofLuhmann’s theory of organizations associal systems, is the theme of the thirdproject.

PMJ412_04_20159.qxd 3/11/10 8:50 PM Page 24


Methodology I—The Research ProcessObjectives and Approach

ObjectivesThe objectives of the research havebeen the genesis of a new perspectiveand paradigm of project managementthat assures mastering high complexityand dramatic changes in projects,economy, and society. This will be gen-erated by a research process based onthe fundamental new insights and per-ception in modern natural and socialsciences (e.g., evolutionary and chaostheory, self-organization, synergetic,nontraditional logic, brain research,social systems theory, and theory ofcomplex systems).

The research process and results willgo beyond frontiers of traditional projectmanagement to develop a usable refer-ence model with a new and innovativestructured landscape of principles,methods, processes, and implementa-tion aspects, as well as demonstratingthe transfer potentialities of evolution-ary and self-organizational manage-ment principles in an approach to proj-ect management.

The research results meet the chal-lenging and trend-setting requirementsof Bredillet (2007) for a new perspectiveand approach in project managementresearch. These requirements werebased on inductive knowledge, thequalitative paradigm, constructivistepistemology, speculative thoughts,nontraditional logic, and movingbeyond the classical management per-spective.

Features of the Research ProcessThe features of the research processdepended on the following organiza-tional, environmental, and infrastruc-tural constraints.

The research teams were an inde-pendent alliance of scientists who wereprofessional members of an academiccorporation and scientifically engagedindividual experts.

The research program had no for-mal and organizational annexation to

an academic corporation/university.The team members were volunteerswith a thirst for knowledge and initia-tive to reach the research objectives.

The research program had no exter-nal financial support; a budget did notexist. All of the expenditures and costswere mostly paid personally by theteam members. The work was done inparallel to salary-supported profession-al work—mostly during the spare timeof the team members.

These constraints caused the timefor research processing to be longerthan for formal financially supportedresearch at academic institutions.

Scientific MethodologiesThe following scientific methodologieswere most frequently applied.

Team members undertook a rigor-ous process of recruitment. It was arequirement that each team memberexhibit either excellent knowledge andexperience in project management and sufficient knowledge in some mod-ern natural and social scientific theo-ries, which would be listed or sufficientknowledge and experience in projectmanagement and excellent knowledgein some modern natural and social sci-entific theories.

Typical methodologies were:• More explorative processes instead of

an empirical approach (e.g., evalua-tion and interpretation of generalinquiries);

• More inductive than deductive thinking/logic;

• Discovery processes in search of newcognitions and knowledge;

• Formations after analogy, conclusionsof analogy;

• Assurance of connection ability of theresults; and

• Assurance that all deductions and con-clusions are correct, consistent, com-patible, and complete (a C4 approach).

Reflective practice, creative synthe-sis, and validation were applied withthe goal of understanding and interpre-tation of the new findings and results of

modern natural and social scientifictheories in relation to transformation inproject management theories. In addi-tion, demonstration of transfer to a realproject life as well as verification andvalidation activities for the final out-comes were important methods.

Furthermore, periodical meetingsof the spatially distributed team mem-bers for cognition exchange and dis-cussing preliminary results were held.Preliminary results were published injournals and congresses (mainly ofGPM and IPMA), with the aim of feed-back discussions in lectures and work-shops.

Methodology II—Analysis of ScientificTheoriesFundamental changes in sciences offernew advantages for project manage-ment. A new understanding and cogni-tion of the nature of reality and “men vs.nature” or “mind vs. nature” have beendeveloped across all fields of society. A new paradigm has emerged, offeringnew perspectives for the managementof complexity.

The aims of the research programwere to determine:• What are the influences of the new

fundamental advantages and require-ments on project management?

• What are the consequences for intra-and intercultural structures andprocesses?

• What are the consequences andresults for practice?

• What are the new requirements for theimplementation of project manage-ment, based on this transdisciplinaryand integrative approach, which shakesup and undermines traditional views ofleadership, planning, organization, con-trol, and action? What is the progressiveperspective of project management—evolution or revolution?

The research program reflected onand analyzed the new cognitions andresults of following modern natural and social scientific theories, with a focuson the relevance to project management

PMJ412_04_20159.qxd 3/11/10 8:50 PM Page 25



PA

PE

RS

(Saynisch, 2003, 2004a, 2005b; Saynisch &Lange, 2002). The numerous sciencesare listed in Tables 1 and 2, along withtheir protagonists and periods of emer-gence. The sciences are clustered infields of knowledge such as systems andcomplexity sciences, life sciences, phys-ical sciences, mathematics and logic,social and psychological sciences, andphilosophical sciences.

Some of the results above have beeninterpreted by explanations and state-ments in a convergent manner by pub-lications of Jantsch (1979, 1980), Riedl(1985), and Laszlo (1987). Malik andProbst (the St. Gallen School of Man-agement thought) have reflected onsome of the theories described aboveand the transformation of managementaspects, especially evolution theory andself-organization aspects (Malik,1986/2004, 1993/2003; Probst, 1987).These have also been a source for theresearch program.

With a few of the outstandingworld-class researchers and protago-

nists of the modern natural and socialscientific theories listed above, ourresearch teams have held personal dis-cussions concerning the validation andtransformation aspects of the protago-nists’ theories to an approach in man-agement science.

This has been the case on more thanone occasion with Ervin Laszlo, Heinzvon Foerster, Rupert Riedl (a formerpupil of von Bertalaffny and Lorenz),and Hermann Haken (1990). Furtherdiscussions have been carried out withHumberto Maturana, Edgar Wilson,Gerhard Roth, Ernst von Glaserfeld, PaulWatzlawik, and Gerhard Vollmer.

Twenty years ago, at the start of theresearch program “Beyond Frontiers ofTraditional Project Management” (seethe “Scope” section earlier in this arti-cle), the term complexity was used moreas an adjective and less as a term of science theory. Thus, at first, the evolu-tionary theory in the context of systemstheory was the focus of the researchprogram. After this, self-organization

aspects in the context of cyberneticswere analyzed. At last, an insightmatured that evolution and self-orga-nization are, loosely speaking, twosides of the same coin. It was statedthat most theories and principles arecross-linked and separate views to thesame core. Therefore, for the past tenyears, under the influence of the SantaFe Institute, the research programfocused simultaneously on “complexitytheory,” which is based on the historicalfirst-running theories of evolution, self-organization, cybernetics, chaos, andsystems, by integrating elements ofthese into the complexity theory.

The objectives of the research pro-gram “Beyond Frontiers of TraditionalProject Management” (founded 1990),the genesis of a radical new perspectiveand paradigm of PM, have emerged inthe further PM community only recent-ly as postmillennial. For example:1. The Engineering and Physical Sciences

Research Council (EPSRC) Network“Rethinking Project Management”

Theories Protagonists Period of Genesis

Systems and Complexity Sciences

General Systems Theory von Bertalanffy, Weiss, Rapoport, Boulding, Laszlo 1945–1970

Cybernetic Wiener, von Foerster, Ashby, Beer 1950–1970

Systems Dynamic Forrester 1960–1980

Theory of Complex Systems, Self-Organization, Santa Fe Institute: Gell-Mann, Anderson, Kauffmann, 1985–1995Edge of Chaos, Emergence, Evolution Langton et al.

Life Sciences

Evolutionary Theory in Biology, Behavior, Gould, Mayr, Riedl, Lorenz, Eigen; Classical 1955–1980;and Molecular Physics Evolutionary Theory: Darwin, Lamarck 19th century

Grand Evolutionary Systems Theory Laszlo 1980–1990

Social and Cultural Evolution Jantsch, Dawkins 1975–1985

Autopoiesis Maturana, Varela 1965–1980

Cellular Automata, Artificial Life, von Neumann, Langton, Bak 1955–1990Self-Organized Criticality

Brain/Neural Research Edelmann, Singer, Roth 1980–2000

Sociobiology Wilson 1975–1985

Table 1: The analyzed Sciences I.

PMJ412_04_20159.qxd 3/11/10 8:50 PM Page 26


(Winter & Smith, 2006): The researchprogram “Beyond Frontiers ofTraditional Project Management” hastranscended the management worldto find new ideas by the fundamentalnew insights and perception in mod-ern natural and social sciences(Tables 1 and 2), whereas the EPSRCNetwork has generated results morefrom a endogenous view of the man-agement world. But the results show,broadly spoken, no great differences.

2. From the paradigm that emerged(Tables 1 and 2), a selected range(with a focus on complexity theory)of the natural and social science dis-ciplines listed above has been alsoanalyzed for its relationship to proj-ect management by Cooke-Davies,Cicmil, Crawford, and Richardson(2007). The results correlate with theoutcomes of the research program.This work is part of a PMI researchproject that was recently published(Cicmil, Cooke-Davies, Crawford, &Richardson, 2009).

Results of the ResearchProjects, Briefly PresentedGeneralThe outcomes of the four projects in theresearch program are extensive andvaried. As an unbroken thread, 30 the-ses have been formulated and docu-mented in the documentation book(Saynisch, 2003; Saynisch & Lange,2002). It is beyond the scope of this arti-cle to explain all of the numerous out-comes.

In the following sections, a strongselection of some important results ofthe research program will be presented,along with an outline of the mainpoints.

Results With Fundamental andAdvanced Scientific FeaturesThe collaboration and cooperation ofboth the principal definition and foun-dation of Evolution First and SecondOrder served as a foundation of the evo-lutionary paradigm—on the basis ofscientific work by Gould and Eldredge

(1977), Jantsch (1979, 1980), and Laszlo(1987).

Applications of Evolution First andSecond Order in projects and projectmanagement were carried out on thebasis of scientific work by Riedl (1985)and Laszlo (1987). The dual aspects ofthe evolutionary-systemic perspectivewere identified:1. Project as an evolutionary process

(Evolution First and Second Order)2. Evolutionary jumps (chances, Evolu-

tion Second Order, punctuated equi-librium) through projects

Furthermore, a reflective analogy tothe phase transition in project phaseswas conducted.

A taxonomy of the large variety insystem theory of “systemic” terms wasdeveloped. Development paths andperspectives of system theory and cyber-netics were analyzed and demonstrated.The spectrum of consideration rangedfrom von Bertalanffy and Wiener via vonFoerster, Laszlo, Maturana, Luhmann,

Theories Protagonists Period of Genesis

Physical Sciences

Nonequilibrium-Thermodynamic, Dissipative Katachalsky, Prigorgine 1960–1980Structure

Synergetic Haken 1980–1990

Mathematics, Logic

Dynamic Systems Theory/Chaos Theory Thom, Zeeman, Shaw, Abraham 1970–1985

Mathematics/Logic Russell, Whitehead 1910–1927

Dialectical/Transclassical Logic Günther 1975–1985

Neural Networks/Genetic Algorithms von Neumann, McCulloch, Pitts, Holland, Rechenberg 1970–1995

Social & Psychological Sciences

Systemic Therapy Watzlawik 1985–1995

Social Systems Theory Luhmann 1980–1995

Philosophical Sciences

Epistemology Theory (Evolutionary) Riedl, Lorenz, Vollmer 1970–1990

Epistemology Theory (Constructivism) Bateson, von Glaserfeld, von Foerster, Watzlawik 1980–1995

Table 2: The analyzed Sciences II.

PMJ412_04_20159.qxd 3/11/10 8:50 PM Page 27



PA

PE

RS

Forrester, and Hall (systems engineer-ing) to the future.

Comparative statements of theoriesfor the structural and dynamic descrip-tion of social systems were performed.The theories of N. Luhmann/Willke,P.M. Hejl, H. Maturana, and J.A. Busch,G.M. Busch, Bühl were considered. Aspecial focus was the analysis of self-referential phenomena in organiza-tions (as a social system).

With the fundamental need for“dialectical logic,” only multivalent or transclassical logic (Günther,1976/1979/1980) adequately describesa decision situation in a complex andevolving system. Bivalent logic, yes/nologic, or classical logic (since the timeof Aristotle) have acted as the basis ofa decision situation in the past andcontinue to do so in the present.Trivalent (yes/medium/no), quatrova-lent, and more-valent represent a mul-tivalent logic for complex systems.This is the logic for our future. Fuzzylogic is a hybrid of bivalent and triva-lent logic and is not sufficient for com-plex systems.

Morphogenesis of order in networkedlogical systems was another theme. Thepotentialities of mathematical/physicalmodel building and pattern cognition,especially of complex systems and theo-ries, were analyzed.

It is beyond the scope of this articleto explain the themes above in moredetail. Therefore, I will select the“Evolution First and Second Order andthe Applications in Projects and ProjectManagement” for an exemplary expla-nation to be discussed later.

Results With More PracticalCharactersRecommendations for mastering com-plex organizational projects were deter-mined. This was an application of con-structivism epistemology and theory ofsocial systems (especially Hejl, 1984;Luhmann, 1984).

With management cybernetics inproject management, results for actingwere identified as an application of the

Viable Systems Model of Beer (1975,1979, 1981).

How can we master a high dynamicin a project, in project products, andproject environment? The answers wereidentified via applications of the “systemdynamics” of Forrester (1961, 1968,1971) in project management situations.

The importance of analytical andlogical differentiation of systems andprocesses was categorized into the fol-lowing levels:1. Goals/objectives, acting, and man-

agement (meta-level)2. Objects/products (output level, real-

ization, project results)

This was an application of the hier-archical order of systems (Hartmann,1964; von Bertalanffy, 1968) as well asthe differentiation and integration ofstructure and logical levels (Russell &Whitehead, 1910/1927).

The limitations of human cogni-tion needed to be addressed. How canwe truly act in management decisionswith the influence of limited humancognition? New aspects of epistemolo-gy, especially evolutionary and/or con-structivism cognition theory (Bateson,1988; Maturana, 1982; Riedl, 1985; vonFoerster, 1981, 1994), were examined.

Management of crisis addressedquestions such as how could a changebe turned to advantage (with loss costs)or risk assurance (with high costs)?What is the right way? These issues wereanalyzed under application of EvolutionSecond Order (Saynisch, 1994).

Cybernetic systemic approach, hardand soft truths in processes of change(Saynisch, 1995b), an application ofconstructivism cognition theory andcybernetic second order (von Foerster,1981) was addressed.

Innovation management involved anew perception of innovation, systemsmodeling, and project management(Kroy & Saynisch, 1996; Saynisch,1995a, 1997). Radical innovation asEvolution Second Order versus incre-mental innovations as Evolution FirstOrder was examined. The following

solutions were found: systemic-evolu-tionary process modeling, as well as theconcepts of MARTEC and THARSOS(Kroy & Saynisch, 1996).

“At origin has been the System”(Saynisch, 1991). An interactive geneal-ogy of general system theory, systemsengineering, and project managementwas developed (Hall, 1962; Saynisch,1991; von Bertalanffy, 1968).

It is beyond the scope of this arti-cle to explain these themes in moredetail. Therefore, the “Management ofCrisis . . .” will be given as an exempla-ry explanation later in this article.

The Principal Definition andFoundation of Evolution First andSecond OrderThe generality of theories on evolutioncovers a very broad spectrum of termsand interpretations. These are some-times contradictory and/or overlap-ping. Furthermore, the new cognitionprovides a radically different view thanthe traditional views of evolution.Therefore, we have established a suit-able definition and a clear differentia-tion in Evolution First and SecondOrder. These are explained in Figure 3.

On the left side of Figure 3, you willsee Evolution First Order with the princi-ples of mutation and selection (Darwin).Typical features of this type of evolutionare fine adjustment, slow change rates toa higher level, and stable characteristics.

In the middle of Figure 3 you can seethe principles of Evolution Second Orderlike rapid, jumping changes; creation ofnew formations (emergence); bifurca-tions; and dynamic chaos, as well asgrand strides. This can cause a dangeroussituation, a breakdown, or a collapsewithin the process or system. We have thedual situation of rapid changes to a newformation or a possible “breakdown.”

After a jump (right) you will seeagain a process of Evolution First Order,which will continue for a while.

Within Evolution First Order, theprocess develops continuously, whereasin Evolution Second Order, the processshows rapid changes with fluctuations,

PMJ412_04_20159.qxd 3/11/10 8:50 PM Page 28


dynamic eruptions, and synergetic con-vergences. The term Evolution First andSecond Order has been formulated bythe author for the first time in theresearch program on the basis of thethoughts of Ervin Laszlo (1987) andErich Jantsch (1980).

The principles of Evolution SecondOrder are new understandings of naturalprocesses. We now find in the modern nat-ural sciences some theories and percep-tions that deal with rapid, jumpingchanges, creation of new formations, andemerging phenomena. Table 3 lists themost important theories and perceptions.

Some of these perceptions (“punc-tuated equilibrium,” “hypercycle,”

“fluctuation”) have their foundations inthe thoughts of Ervin Laszlo (1987) andErich Jantsch (1979, 1980).

The theories of evolution describedby Evolution First Order and EvolutionSecond Order emerge today as a univer-sal paradigm for the society. These the-ories of evolution form a basis of mod-ern complexity theory, which integrateselements of these theories.

Evolution First Order and ItsImpact on Project ManagementMethods and ProcessesFeatures of Evolution First OrderThe basic process of Evolution First Order“Mutation/Variation–Selection–

Retention” is described in Figure 4.Evolution First Order is in conformitywith the theory of Darwin and the mod-ern synthetic view of evolution of ErnstMayr (1969, 1979). One important char-acteristic is a low rate of mutations toassure stability, especially in biologicalevolution. Another characteristic is thatbiological evolution has a nearly con-stant pool of genetic information.

In contrast, sociocultural evolutionacts with a faster change and has moreinstability. Sociocultural evolutionsummarized new results in the infor-mation pool of genes (principle of theLamark Evolution). Management,organizational, or technical processesare parts of the sociocultural evolution.

The Evolution First Order covers abroad spectrum of applications. Someexamples of these applications of thethoughts, conceptions, and principlesof Evolution First Order in the field ofmanagement and organization includethe following:• The philosopher J. Dewey established

in his 1938 publication How We Thinkthe basic principles of a problem-solving process. The Evolution FirstOrder was the foundation. All types ofproblem-solving processes developedlater are based on these principles.

• The organizational scientist Weick(1969/1985) established an organiza-tional process design on the basis ofEvolution First Order.

• The Guilford thought model distin-guishes five thought operations

EVOLUTION 1. ORDER• Mutation, selection (Darwin)• Trial-error processes• Slow change, stabilize• Fine adjustment

EVOLUTION 2. ORDER• Rapid, jumping change and eruptions, grand advance• Create new formations• Bifurcation, Synergetic, Hypercycle, Chaos-dynamic

EVOLUTION 1. ORDER

breakdown, collapsecatastrophe

Fluctuation � dynamic eruption synergetic convergence

continuous discontinuous continuous TIME

COMPLEXITYHigher far of equilibriumLower entropyHigher density of free energy flowHigher structural complexityHigher organization level

Figure 3: The principal definition and foundation of “Evolution First and Second Order.”

Biology Gould and Eldredge (1977): “punctuated equilibrium” (rapid evolution in Paläozonikum/Kambrium)

Eigen and Schuster (1979): hypercycle (origin of first living molecule, Prokaryoten)

Physics G. Sobotta (personal communication, 1996), regarding Ebeling, Engel, and Feistel (1990): physics of evolution Wilson/Fisher/Kadanoff: pathbreaking developments process (1. Phase transition and 2. Type)in second order phase transition magnetism and wonthe prestigious Wolff Prize in Physics in 1980(Wilson won the Nobel Prize, 1982)

Haken (1990): synergetic (description of a Prigogine and Stengers (1981): fluctuation jumping change and the final transition to a (nonequilibrium thermodynamic, description of stable process on a higher level) the beginning on a jumping change)

Chaos theory (bifurcation) Quantum jump (not to higher levels)

Table 3: Theories and perceptions that deal with rapid jumping changes (Evolution Second Order).

PMJ412_04_20159.qxd 3/11/10 8:50 PM Page 29



PA

PE

RS

(Guilford, 1956, 1967). These thoughtoperations are an analogy to theprocess of Evolution First Order.

Some examples of the applicationsin the field of technical products, econ-omy, and social science include the fol-lowing.

In technical product design, geneticalgorithms are used for parameter opti-mization. The foundation of geneticalgorithms is the processes of EvolutionFirst Order. Therefore, this method will

also be called “evolutionary algorithms.”Genetic algorithms are developed forcomplex adaptive systems and for find-ing better (although not necessarily thebest) solutions. Genetic algorithms anddata structures represent the evolution.

The widespread system and processof competition in the market economyis an application of the principles ofEvolution First Order.

The principle of higher organizationof society that is one of the concepts of

the philosopher Karl Marx is based onthe ideas of Darwin, and therefore is alsoan application of Evolution First Order.

Generic Pattern of a ProjectIn order to understand some of the fol-lowing illustrations, a generic pattern ofa project, developed by the author, willbe presented, as shown in Figure 5. It isan integrated view of the project processor the system/product life cycle and thehierarchy of the project-product.

The project process or the sys-tem/product life cycle is depicted in theabscissa—the life phases from idea tothe result, the complete product:• idea, problem, and requirement

analysis;• concept development and definition;• full-scale development of parts and

their integration;• realization implementation, produc-

tion, and manufacturing; and• operation and maintenance.

Each project phase represents aspecial maturation of a project and ismarked by completion of one or more

SYSTEM-LEVELS

Overallsystem

Sub-syst.1. order

Sub-syst.2. order

Perform problem-solving-processes (in several levels) in iterative- arcycle-form.

Sub-syst.n. order

Problem-analysis

Concept Development Implementation/Realization

SYSTEM/PRODUCT-L IFE-PHASES

Operation

LEGEND:

System/Product-Life-Phases (Life Cycle)

Syst

em/P

rod

uct-

Leve

ls (

Hie

rarc

hy)

Cyclic Work and Problem-Solving Processes

Figure 5: Generic pattern of a project (Saynisch, 1989).

Accumulationof results

Reproduction

Variation, VariantsModeling, Contin-gency, Genotype

Mutation• Analysis, Evaluation, Elimination• Many types of selection

Selection Retention

Systems conditionsNecessity, Phaenotype, etc.

Criteria for selection

Figure 4: The basic-process of Evolution First Order (Evolution in conformity to Darwin).

PMJ412_04_20159.qxd 3/11/10 8:50 PM Page 30


deliverables. A deliverable is a tangible,verifiable work product such as a feasi-bility study, a detailed design, or a prototype.

The hierarchy of the project-product,the levels of systems and subsystems,and the project or product breakdownare shown in the ordinate. A project orproduct breakdown is a (hierarchical)structuring of the project or product intoits elements (system S subsystem Ssub-subsystem, etc.). Each descendinglevel represents an increasingly detaileddefinition of a project or product com-ponent. This project or product break-down structure is the central instrumentof order and communication in theproject.

The great quantity of workflowsand problem-solving processes—withtheir cyclical and feedback character—is displayed in the middle of Figure 5,in the several fields. This represents thework to be performed (Saynisch, 1989).The work to be performed starts in ahigher level (the level of system) andends in a lower level (sub-sub . . . system).

This presentation will act as thebasis of some of the following illustra-tions.

System Condition of Evolution FirstOrderThis explanation is based on the work ofthe Vienna biologist Rupert Riedl, a former pupil of Ludwig von Bertalaffnyand Konrad Lorenz (Riedl, 1985). Riedlhas developed a “system theory of evo-lution.” This is an extension of the “syn-thetic theory of evolution” of Ernst Mayr(1969, 1979). Riedl’s system theory ofevolution assumed additional feedbackfrom the phenotype (phenomenon) tothe genotype of the pool of genes (sys-tems conditions). The basic process ofEvolution First Order (mutation, selec-tion) normally assumed an efficiency,an active force from the genotype to thephenotype. Furthermore, Riedl hasestablished, on the basis of his work andthe thoughts of Konrad Lorenz and KarlPopper, the “Evolutionary Epistemo-logy,” the biological fundamentals ofperception, understanding, and inter-pretation of men.

We will now discuss the statementsof R. Riedl with regard to the systemconditions of biological evolution andevolutionary cognition theory.

The systems conditions (necessity)of form and purpose causes operatefrom a macro-level, a system level, or

the top position. This is an efficiency of the so-called “phenotype.”

The potentiality conditions (contin-gency) of material, substance, andmotive power causes operate from amicro-level, a component level, or thedown position. This is an efficiency ofthe so-called “genotype.”

These two efficiencies are demon-strated in Figure 6 in the context of the generic pattern of a project (seeFigure 5).

Secondly, for project managementapplications, it can be said that theproject life cycle (phased project man-agement) and the principle of strategicflow basis in connection with the system/product hierarchy is highlyanalogous to these statements of Riedl(Figure 6). For example, the typical “sys-tem specification” established in theearly phases of product developmenton the basis of requirements corre-sponds to the systems conditions ofRiedl. These technical specificationsdefine the purpose and objective of thesystem/product. On the other hand,the potential conditions and the mate-rial cause are represented in a technicalsystem by material property and qualityas well as by processing and machining


SYSTEMS-CONDITIONS - NECESSITYForm - and purpose-cause, selection-conditions

Material-and motive-power-causes, building-statutePOTENTIALITY-CONDITIONS-CONTINGENCY

SYSTEM-LEVELS

Overallsystem

Sub-syst.1. order

Sub-syst.2. order

Sub-syst.n. order

Problem-analysis

Concept Development Implementation/Realization Operation

Requirements-System-Spec.

System/Product-Life CycleSy

stem

/Pro

duc

t-Le

vels

(H

iera

rchy

)

Technologies, Variants, etc.

Figure 6: Synopsis of strategic project flow (life cycle, phases) in relation to the Evolution First Order, the “System Conditions” of Riedl.

PMJ412_04_20159.qxd 3/11/10 8:50 PM Page 31



PA

PE

RS

possibilities. They determine the real-ization of the requirements of the system specification. Otherwise, therequirement of a system specificationor a drawing represents the “selectionstatute” (condition of top) for the greatnumber of the potential conditions ofthe structure and building statutes(condition of down).

These views and reflections on theinterpretations of Riedl open up the fol-lowing perspectives for project man-agement applications.

Project management is the princi-ple for “managing of change”! On theone hand, a project is a step or transi-tion in the evolution of technicalprogress in the real world. The life cycleof a project, on the other hand, repre-sents evolutionary principles.

Top-down and down-top principlesof project/product design and/or proj-ect management obtain clear funda-mentals and application conditions byevolutionary interpretations.

Evolution Second Order and theGrand Evolutionary Systems Theory

Grand Evolutionary Systems Theory The first synopsis on the multiplicityof new cognitions in several sciences(discussed earlier in the section

“Methodology II—Analysis of ScientificTheories”) was given by Jantsch in a firstapproach in 1979. In interaction withJantsch and after his early death, Laszlodeveloped a comprehensive and intelli-gible view of this creative situation withthe working title “GEST—GrandEvolutionary Systems Theory” (Laszlo,1987). One important highlight of hissynopsis is that systems can exist inequilibrium and far off equilibrium(nonlinear). A further highlight is thatnew levels of organization, complexity,energy, and entropy can be reached byfluctuations, catastrophic bifurcations(chaos theory), punctuated equilibrium,evolutionary jump, and disequilibrium.

Figure 7 represents the radical,innovative theory of the creative situa-tion of evolution (i.e., GEST), developedby Laszlo. In this figure, you can see thecreation of new and higher levels ofquality, organization, and complexity,ordered by fluctuation and bifurcation.It shows the path from dynamic stabilityon level n (the system is in equilibrium)via a jumping transition (the system isfar off its equilibrium—it is nonlinear)to a new, dynamic stability with highercomplexity on level “n � 1.” This jump-ing transition represents the EvolutionSecond Order.

Impact on Project ManagementI want briefly to explain the impact thatthe theory of Ervin Laszlo has had onproject management, which representsthe Evolution Second Order (Figure 8).Again, the generic pattern of a projectwith the phase transition (Figure 5) willbe used. We now see the evolutionaryjumps in a cascade. This means:• An evolutionary jump is similar to a

phase transition in a project life cycle.• A phase transition in a project life

cycle is a phase jump. Achievement ofgreat progress in jumps is similar toEvolution Second Order.

• Fluctuation and bifurcation processesare similar to project-phase transitionperiods.

With knowledge of these bifurca-tion processes, project managementcan better handle the phase transitionin a situation of nonequilibrium andnonlinearity. Traditional managementprocesses cannot handle this situation.As shown in Figure 8, the projectprocess is a discontinuous achieve-ment of higher orders, from ideas toresults.

Furthermore, the new cognition thata “change of state” exists between twophases shows consequences in projectmanagement. The practical conse-quences are that we have to define morethan one level of phase cycle (life cycle).At a minimum, we have a phasedprocess on the top level (only a few phas-es with a great change of the state) that issimilar to bifurcation processes. Everyphase of this level is subdivided intophases of lower levels, which occur in atransition of lower nonequilibrium ornear-equilibrium.

Another important point is the dif-ferent nonequilibrium situations in theseparate levels of management processand product process. For example, thereviews and baselines of configurationmanagement will handle the change ofthe state in the product process level.But the transition of phases will handlethe change of the state in the manage-ment process level.

COMPLEXITY• Higher far of equilibrium• Lower entropy• Higher density of free energy flow• Higher structural complexity• Higher organization levels

Possible newlevels (notrealized)

Evolution 2. OrderJumping transition

New dynamic stability

breakdown,collapse,catastrophe

Time

Introduction offluctuations

Dynamic stability on level, n

on level, n+1with higher complexity

Source: E. Laszlo, E. Jantsch

Figure 7: Order by Fluctuation and Bifurcation: The creation of new and higher levels of Quality, Organization � Complexity (GEST).

PMJ412_04_20159.qxd 3/11/10 8:50 PM Page 32


Further, the holistic view of Laszlooffers a great number of ideas andstimulations for project managementapplications, the discussion of all ofwhich is beyond the scope of this article.

Management of Crisis: Turn aChange to Advantage or RiskAssurance?I will explain a further application ofthe Evolution Second Order: a newunderstanding of the management ofrisk and crisis (Saynisch, 1994).

Figure 9 deals with the question “Arerisk and crisis a contradiction?” On theleft side of the figure (circle 1) we startwithin an equilibrium, a stable situation.We try hard to keep this state of equilibri-um, with a great deal of effort or money.When a crisis emerges, the system turns

into nonequilibrium and instability. Acritical point has been reached, the pointof bifurcation (circle 2). At this point wecan end up “successful” (change andprofit) or “unsuccessful” (realized risk, aloss or a catastrophe), as shown in circle3. That is the principle of chance, theEvolution Second Order.

This means:• We face dynamic situations and states

of instability in many projects.• Crises are the outcome of a process,

not a single event or a point in time.• The new paradigm in managing risks

will be the “principle of chance.”• We face the possibilities of ordering to

a higher level by an evolutionary jump(Evolution Second Order) in projects.

The terms risk and risk manage-ment have a negative interpretation ormeaning. The benchmark for benefit isnot the ordering to a higher level, theuse of the “principle of chance.” Therisk benchmark in place of that keeps orretains the actual state of equilibrium.This will be represented by a horizontalline in Figure 9. The term chance is apositive interpretation of the risk-crisissituation, a profit with zero costs.Perform problem-solving-processes (in several levels) in iterative- ar

cycle-form,

SYSTEM-LEVELS

OverallSystem

Sub-syst.1. order

Sub-syst.2. order

Sub-syst.n. order

Problem-analysis

Concept Development Implementation/Realization Operation


phase transition

Evolution2nd Order

LEGEND:

Figure 8: Projects as an evolutionary process.

State

Crisis

1

2

3

Profit

Chance

Risk

Loss

Time

Catastrophe

Success

Danger

Risk Action

Figure 9: Management of crisis—turn risks into changes!

PMJ412_04_20159.qxd 3/11/10 8:50 PM Page 33



PA

PE

RS

The principle of evolutionary order-ing to a higher level, the cascade ofbifurcations, is interpreted in Figure 10.Here you can see the interconnectionbetween a series of critical situations,with a cascade of bifurcations and theprinciple of evolutionary ordering to ahigher level. So in each crisis, we canrealize new chances and may build onthem until the next one comes. Fromcrisis to crisis, we get more and morepotentialities for changes and practicesfor a utilization of changes.

The Highlighted Result of theResearch Program: The OutlinedFormulation of ProjectManagement Second Order (PM-2) as a New Paradigm inProject ManagementThe fundamental break, the radical andprofound changes in society and econ-omy, and the rapid growing variance ofcomplex, new technologies (innova-tions) in industrial and social products(results of projects) require a new andpromising management approach witha feature of paradigm.

In the research program, to meetthese challenges we have analyzed a

great deal of modern natural and socialscientific theories, with a focus on therelevance to project management. Butthe great number of elaborated themesand their outcomes focalize to the sin-gle phenomenon of perceptions, char-acteristics, and possible actions. Theseparticular results, with their respectivelimited scope, cannot configure a com-prehensive holistic management sys-tem. Additionally, an umbrella functionis necessary to link all of these particu-lar results in a systemic way. Therefore,we have developed the Project Manage-ment Second Order (PM-2).

This PM-2 represents the highlight-ed result of the research program. Thevarious and multilateral results of thisprogram (explained earlier in this arti-cle) are important elements of PM-2but are not its only elements.

PM-2 is a universal draft for master-ing complexity in projects and projectmanagement. PM-2 is the enabler forsimultaneous, synchronous acting andusage of the following:1. High evolutionary dynamics, auto-

poietic or living systems, chaoticenvironment, self-organizational pro-cesses, or human-social systems

(Cybernetic Second Order)2. Processes for technical configura-

tion, design, and realization (machine systems), with the features of clearcalculability and planned forecasting(Cybernetic First Order)

The concept of PM-2 has beenawarded the IPMA Research Award2007 (IPMA, 2007).

The PM-2 will be discussed in detailin a subsequent issue of PMJ.

Final ConclusionsTo realize the aspects of evolution, self-organization, complex systems theory,and the like, some important factorsneed to be taken into account. Institu-tional barriers to evolutionary and otheraspects need to be eliminated. Educationand training are essential to accultura-tion. Cultural change is necessary so thatnew approaches are not abandonedearly.

With the findings of our research pro-gram, we could add that there are manydeficits in our traditional way of thinking.Thus, we need to come to new insightsabout our cognition processes and theterms we use for expressing ourselves.

Success

Danger

State Profit

ChanceSuccess

Success

Catastrophe

Catastrophe

TimeThe cascade of bifurcations

Risk

Loss

Danger

Danger

Chance

Risk

Loss

Chance

Risk

Loss

Crisis

Figure 10: The principle of evolutionary ordering to a higher level—the cascade of bifurcations.

PMJ412_04_20159.qxd 3/11/10 8:50 PM Page 34


The deficits in our way of thinking causeresistance to the integration of outsidersand the adoption of new ideas.

We have to create a commonunderstanding of the current state ofevolutionary, self-organizational, andcomplex principles. There needs to be aculture of trust. A “trusting” culture wel-comes outsiders, embraces new ideas,and promotes cooperation. An“untrusting” culture is one where out-siders are treated with suspicion andnew ideas are unwanted.

The results of the research programand the description of PM-2 are still in a draft state. Further research is neces-sary.• We need an international research ini-

tiative for extended research anddevelopment on these subjects tocome to integrative and practical solu-tions. The concept of PM-2 representsa first step in this way. Additionally,illustrations of the approach in variouscase studies need to be established.

• Furthermore, we need intensive andnew education and training programsall over the world that reflect the ideasas well as the bodies and schools ofthoughts of our research program.

• We also need further research of modern natural and social scientifictheories (single phenomenon of per-ceptions), which was to date only cur-sory or not in the focus of the research program—for example, “genetic algo-rithm,” “neural networks,” or “syner-getic.” In the field of “brain research/neuroscience,” we have started a proj-ect and presented interim findings atthe IPMA World Congress 2008 inRoma (Baumann & Saynisch, 2008).

This article should be understood asa callout to begin the discourse, to fulfillthe requirements of Bredillet (2007) fora new perspective and approach inproject management research.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors thank the various membersof the research program for their profes-sional contributions and engagement.

The preparation of this article wassupported by the Manfred SaynischProject Management Foundation ([email protected]). ■

ReferencesBateson, G. (1988). Ökologie des Geistes.Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp.

Baumann, T., & Saynisch, M. (2008,November). Neuroscience—A viablebridge to project management.Presented at the Second IPMA WorldCongress, Rome, Italy.

Beer, S. (1975). Platform for change.London: Wiley.

Beer, S. (1979). The heart of enterprise.Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Beer, S. (1981). Brain of the firm.Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Bredillet, C. (2007). From the editor—The link research-practice: A matter of“ingenium” (part 3). ProjectManagement Journal, 38(1), 3–4.

Cicmil, S., Cooke-Davies, T., Crawford,L., & Richardson, K. (2009). Exploringthe complexity of projects: Implicationsof complexity theory for project man-agement practice. Newtown Square, PA:Project Management Institute.

College of Complex Project Managers(CCPM). (2008). Complex project man-ager competency standards, Version 3.3,CPMCS-3.3. Sydney, Australia: Author.

Cooke-Davies, T., Cicmil, S., Crawford,L., & Richardson, K. (2007). We’re notin Kansas anymore, Toto: Mapping thestrange landscape of complexity theo-ry, and its relationship to project man-agement. Project Management Journal,38(2), 50–59.

Ebeling, W., Engel, A., & Feistel, R.(1990). Physik der Evolutionsprozesse[Physics of evolution processes]. Berlin,Germany: Akademie-Verlag.

Eigen, M., & Schuster, P. (1979). Thehypercycle—A principle of natural self-organization. Heidelberg, Germany:Springer.

Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrialdynamics. Cambridge, MA:Productivity Press.

Forrester, J. W. (1968). Principles of sys-tems (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA:Productivity Press.

Forrester, J. W. (1971). World dynamics.Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.

Gould, S. J., & Eldredge, N. (1977).Punctual equilibria. Paleobiology, 3,115–151.

Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure ofintellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53,267–293.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature ofhuman intelligence. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Günther, G. (1976/1979/1980).Beiträge zur Grundlegung einer opera-tionsfähigen Dialektik [Contributionsfor a basis of condition of operationdialectic]. Band 1 bis 3. Hamburg,Germany: Meiner.

Haken, H. (1990). Synergetik—Nichtgleichgewichts-Phasenübergängeund Selbstorganisation in Physik,Chemie und Biologie [Synergetic-non-equilibrium phase transition and self-organization in physics, chemistry andbiology]. Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Hall, A.D. (1962). Methodology for sys-tems-engineering. Princeton, NJ: VanNostrand.

Hartmann, N. (1964). Der Aufbau derrealen Welt [The structure of the realworld]. Berlin, Germany: Walter deGruyter.

Hejl, P. M. (1984). Towards a theory ofsocial systems: Self-organization andself-maintenance, self-reference andsyn-reference. In H. Ulrich & G. J. B.Probst (Eds.), Self-organization andmanagement of social systems (pp.60–78). Berlin/New York: Springer.

International Project ManagementAssociation (IPMA). (2006). ICB-3—IPMA Competence Baseline Version3.0, 2006. Retrieved January 3, 2007,from http://www.ipma.ch

International Project ManagementAssociation (IPMA). (2007). RetrievedMay 15, 2008, from http://www.ipma.ch/awards/resawards/Pages/winners.aspx

PMJ412_04_20159.qxd 3/11/10 8:50 PM Page 35



PA

PE

RS

Jantsch, E. (1980). The self-organizinguniverse. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Kroy, W. (2004, June). Coping withunexpected situations—A task for themanagement of complex futureprojects. Paper presented at the 18thIPMA World Congress, Budapest,Hungary. Retrieved September 15,2004, from http://www.ipma.ch

Kroy, W., & Saynisch, M. (1996).Management radikaler Innovationendurch Projekte und Projektmanage-ment [Management of radical innova-tions via projects and project manage-ment]. In H. Balck (Ed.). Networkingund Projektorientierung—Gestaltungdes Wandels (pp. 133–144). Berlin/NewYork: Springer.

Laszlo, E. (1987). Evolution: The grandsynthesis. Boston: Shambhala.

Laszlo, E. (1992). EvolutionäresManagement—GlobaleHandlungskonzepte [Evolutionarymanagement—global action con-cepts]. Fulda, Germany: Paidia.

Laszlo, E., & Laszlo, C. H. (1997). Theinsight edge—An introduction to thetheory and practice of evolutionarymanagement. Westport, CT: QuorumBooks.

Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale Systeme.Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp.

Malik, F. (1986/2004). Strategie desManagements komplexer Systeme[Strategy of management complex sys-tems]. Bern/Stuttgart, Germany.

Malik, F. (1993/2003). SystemischesManagement, Evolution,Selbstorganisation [Systemic manage-ment, evolution, self-organizing].Bern/Stuttgart: Paul Haupt Verlag.

Maturana, H. C. (1982). Erkennen: DieOrganisation und Verkörperung vonWirklichkeit. Braunschweig, Germany:Vieweg.

Mayr, E. (1969). Principles of systematiczoology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mayr, E. (1979). Evolution und dieVielfalt des Lebens [Evolution and thediversity of life]. Berlin, Germany:Springer.

Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1981).Dialog mit der Natur—Neue WegeNaturwissenschaftlichen Denkens[Dialog with nature—new paths of scientific thinking]. München,Germany: Piper.

Probst, G. J. B. (1987). Selbstorgani-sation—Ordnungsprozesse in sozialenSystemen aus ganzheitlicher Sicht [Self-organization—Processes of order insocial systems from a systemic view].Berlin, Germany: Parey Verlag.

Project Management Institute. (2008).A guide to the project managementbody of knowledge (PMBOK ® guide)—Fourth edition.). Newtown Square, PA:Author.

Riedl, R. (1985). Die Spaltung desWeltbildes—Biologische Grundlagendes Erklärens und Verstehens [The split-ting of the conception of the world—biological foundations of explanationand understanding]. Berlin, Hamburg,Germany: Parey.

Russell, B., & Whitehead, N. (1910/1927).Principia mathematica. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.

Saynisch, M. (1989). PhasenweiserProjektablauf und Phasenorgani-sation—Lebensphasenkonzept undablaufstrategische Grundlagen. In H. Schelle (Ed.), Projektmanagement-Handbuch (pp. 705–744). Köln: TÜV-Rheinland.

Saynisch, M. (1991). Am Anfang war das System. Zur Genealogie des Systems-Engineerings und desProjektmanagements. In K. W. Krathky (Ed.). SystemischePerspektiven—InterdisziplinäreBeiträge zu Theorie und Praxis(pp. 189–206). Heidelberg: Carl AuerVerlag.

Saynisch, M. (1994). Krisenmanage-ment—Chancennutzung oderRisikoabsicherung? In R. Gareis (Ed.),Erfolgsfaktor Krise (pp. 49–74). Wien,Germany: Signum Verlag.

Saynisch, M. (1995a). Managementvon Innovationen durchProjektmanagement 2. Ordnung:

Kongressbeitrag Deutcher Wirtscha-ftsingenieurtag ‘95 (DWIT ‘95)“Innovation und Management,”München, Germany.

Saynisch, M. (1995b). Business reengi-neering—Radikale Veränderungs-prozesse mit Projektmanagement 2. Ordnung. In D. Lange (Ed.),Management von Projekten—Know-how aus der Beraterpraxis(pp. 247–277). Stuttgart, Germany:Schäffer/Poeschel.

Saynisch, M. (1997, June–July).Radikale innovationen schaffen undmanagen—Wenn alte Rezepte nichtmehr helfen (Teil 1 � 2) [Create andmanage radical innovations—If oldrecipes do not help]. Gablers Magazin,issues 6–7/97 and 8/97.

Saynisch, M. (2003, March). NeueWege im Projektmanagement—WelcheImpulse, Konzepte und Handlungsem-pfehlungen für das Projektmanage-ment zeigen die neuen Sichtweisenund Erkenntnisse in den Natur- undSozialwissenschaften auf? Ergebnisü-bersicht des Forschungsprogrammsvon 1990–2000. In G. Kerber, R. Marré, &A. Frick (Eds.), Zukunft im Projektma-nagement—Beiträge zur gemeinsamenKonferenz “Management undControlling von IT-Projekten” und“InterPM” in Glashütten/Taunus(pp. 221–258). Heidelberg, Germany:dpunkt.verlag.

Saynisch, M. (2004a, June). Results ofthe research programme “BeyondFrontiers of Traditional ProjectManagement.” Presented at the 18thIPMA World Congress, Budapest,Hungary. Retrieved September 15,2004, from http://www.ipma.ch

Saynisch, M. (2004b, June). The con-cept of “Project Management SecondOrder (PM-2)”—A managementapproach for next decades in this cen-tury. Presented at the 18th IPMA WorldCongress, Budapest, Hungary.Retrieved September 15, 2004, fromhttp://www.ipma.ch

Saynisch, M. (2005a, November).Mastering complexity and changes in

PMJ412_04_20159.qxd 3/11/10 8:50 PM Page 36


projects, economy and society by ProjectManagement Second Order (PM-2).Presented at the 19th IPMA WorldCongress, New Delhi. Retrieved January12, 2006, from http://www. ipma.ch

Saynisch, M. (2005b). Beyond frontiersof traditional project management—The concept of project managementsecond order (PM-2) as an approach of evolutionary management. WorldFutures: The Journal of GeneralEvolution, 61(8), 555–590.

Saynisch, M. (2005c). Projektmanage-ment 2. Ordnung (PM-2) Managementim Zeitalter hoher Komplexität undradikaler Veränderungen. In T. Möller &K. Spang (Eds.), Mit Projektmanage-ment zum Unternehmenserfolg—22.Internationales DeutschesProjektmanagement Forum 2005 inFrankfurt/M (pp. 105–116). Nürnberg:GPM-Verlag.

Saynisch, M. (2006). AgileProjektmanagement Prinzipien—Einevolutionärer Management-Ansatz?Projektmanagement 2. Ordnung als Referenzmodell. In B. Oestereich(Ed.), Agiles Projektmanagement—Beiträge zur Konferenz InterPM 2006,in Glashütten/Taunus (pp. 273–304).Heidelberg, Germany: dpunkt.verlag.

Saynisch, M. (2007, November). A radi-cal redefining of PM for mastering com-plex projects. Presented at the ICANConference 2007 at the University ofTechnology, Sydney, Australia.

Saynisch, M., & Lange, D. (Eds.). (2002).Neue Wege im Projektmanagement—Ergebnisse aus Forschungsprojekten1990–2000 [Beyond frontiers of tradi-tional project management—Results ofthe research program 1990–2000].Nürnberg/Stuttgart: GPM-Verlag.

von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General sys-tems theory. New York: George Braziller.

von Foerster, H. (1981). On cyberneticsof cybernetics and social theory. In G. Roth & H. Schwegler (Eds.), Self-organizing system (pp. 102–105).Frankfurt, Germany: Campus Verlag.

von Foerster, H. (1994). Wissen undGewissen [Knowledge and conscience].Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp.

Weick, K. E. (1969/1985). Der Prozessdes Organisierens. Frankfurt:Suhrkamp.

Wilson, K. G. (1982). The renormaliza-tion group and critical phenomena,Nobel lecture, 8 December 1982. In T. Frängsmyr & G. Ekspäng (Eds.), Nobellectures, physics 1981–1990. Singapore:World Scientific.

Winter, M., & Smith, C. (2006).Rethinking project management—Finalreport. EPSRC Network 2004–2006.Retrieved February 10, 2009, fromhttp://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/management/rethinkpm/final.htm

Manfred Saynisch, Dipl-Ing, has more than 40years’ experience in project management on

important national and international projects.He is one of the pioneers of project and configu-ration management in Germany and he furtherdeveloped both disciplines. He has been headof project control as well as the OrganizationDepartment at the R&D Division in one of thelargest mechanical engineering/productioncompanies in Europe for many years. In 1985,he founded his own consultancy, SPM-CON-SULT—Systems and Services in Project andProcess Management. He has lectured on proj-ect management at various universities. In2006 he founded the MSPM Foundation, a foun-dation for project management, on which heholds the position of senior executive presi-dent. In the field of project and configurationmanagement, he has published more than 120articles and books. He published the first bookin Europe on configuration management(1984). He has presented papers at eight IPMAWorld Congresses and two PMI Congresses. In2007, he won the IPMA Research Award. He isfounding and honorary member, past memberof the board of trustees, and member of theResearch Advisory Board of the GermanAssociation of Project Management and one ofthe first German members of PMI. He is a mem-ber of various professional committees, includ-ing the German Standardization Board (DIN) forPM and CM, the editorial board of theInternational Journal of Project Management(from its foundation in 1982 to 2001) and theGerman journal projektMANAGEMENTaktuellsince its foundation in 1989. He founded andhas directed (since 1990) the research pro-gram “Beyond Frontiers of Traditional ProjectManagement.” The author may be contacted [email protected].

PMJ412_04_20159.qxd 3/11/10 8:50 PM Page 37

Beyond Frontiers of Traditional Project Management · of PMI and SPM-CONSULT – M. Saynisch. Beyond Frontiers of Traditional Project Management: An Approach to Evolutionary, Self-Organizational

Documents