Abstract
In contemporary Project Management literature and practice, it is possible to distinguish two paradigms: the algorithmic-rational paradigm and the relational paradigm. The algorithmic-rational paradigm is characterized by a sequence of programming methodologies that constitute the classic corpus of knowledge on Project Management (WBS, CPM, PERT, Gantt diagrams). Following the diffusion of Agile methods, dissatisfaction with the algorithmic-rational paradigm has spread and a Visual Planning approach, based on the decentralization of planning and control and the abandonment of algorithmic techniques (such as CPM and Gantt diagrams) in favour of simpler, visual and physical tools, has become increasingly established. Visual Planning is the concrete manifestation of a relational project management paradigm. In this work, through an analysis of the key practices characterizing Visual Planning, we have identified the five fundamental principles that define this approach to project management. Then, to structure and guide the choice of a software application that can support Visual Planning, we have (1) identified several features which allow distinguishing one software from another, and (2) created a correlation matrix between the core principles of Visual Planning and the software features. Through this matrix, it is possible to evaluate and measure the adherence of project management software applications to the logic and practices of physical Visual Planning.
Highlights
IntroductionThe classical Project Management paradigm is characterized by an algorithmic-rational approach and a specific sequence of planning and control methodologies (see Wysocki, 2014 and Loch et al, 2011): 1. The structured breakdown of the project in order to define all the actions to be carried out to achieve the objective (WBS - Work Breakdown Structure): the fundamental aim of the breakdown is the identification of the elementary work packages, which represent those activities that can be managed independently and assigned to a single manager; 2
The classical Project Management paradigm is characterized by an algorithmic-rational approach and a specific sequence of planning and control methodologies: 1. The structured breakdown of the project in order to define all the actions to be carried out to achieve the objective (WBS - Work Breakdown Structure): the fundamental aim of the breakdown is the identification of the elementary work packages, which represent those activities that can be managed independently and assigned to a single manager; 2
In recent years several new project management software tools have emerged that capture the spirit of the relational perspective, focusing on collaboration and sharing of information and knowledge, rather than activity scheduling algorithms
Summary
The classical Project Management paradigm is characterized by an algorithmic-rational approach and a specific sequence of planning and control methodologies (see Wysocki, 2014 and Loch et al, 2011): 1. The structured breakdown of the project in order to define all the actions to be carried out to achieve the objective (WBS - Work Breakdown Structure): the fundamental aim of the breakdown is the identification of the elementary work packages, which represent those activities that can be managed independently and assigned to a single manager; 2. Checking the progress of the project, through the verification of deviations from what has been planned with the aid, for example, of a time-scale task bar chart (Gantt diagram) The application of such methodologies has often proved to be very disappointing (De Meyer at al., 2001; Lenfle and Loch, 2010; Saynisch, 2010; Salameh, 2014; Marle and Vidal, 2016): rational planning techniques do not give the expected results, CPM schedules prove unrealistic and not very useful to manage the progress of the project, turning into documents that are detached from reality or occasionally updated for mere reporting or external communication purposes. Two are the fundamental consequences of this new paradigm, which we can define as relational: (1) planning cannot be separated from action and : it is not possible (and it makes no sense) to plan the whole network of activities at the beginning; planning is a continuous event and details are progressively formed over time (plans must be of the rolling wave type); the act of "planning" is a coordination activity that must be carried out by those who carry out the operational work; (2) the project is a network of discussions, commitments and actions and : planning must be a collaborative and social event, it is a "conversation" in which those responsible for the activities assume mutual commitments on the performance of tasks; the temporal relationships between activities are the result of a "bargaining" between those responsible for the activities themselves (and not an intrinsic attribute of interdependence between abstract activities); the duration of an activity is (naturally within a certain range of values) the result of a "bargaining" that depends on the needs of the "customer" downstream
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
