Roland Dürre
Saturday September 27th, 2014

Another Project Polemic

If you do politics as a project

I always get grumpy on hearing the word “project”!

I know a proud nation. It considers itself “God’s own Country”. Consequently, the people of said country feel responsible for preserving “the Western Values”. Meaning exactly those values it considers Western Values. Due to its power, it feels the obligation to play the role of “world police”. The people play this role with a high degree of professionalism in three steps:

Step I:

They collect data.
No exception is made for secret data. If someone holds something secret, then we have to assume that it is important, don’t we? And how is anybody supposed to understand a situation without knowledge of what is important? Consequently, they spend a lot of money in that country on the CIA, NSA and other “agencies”. And they listen in on the entire world.

Step II:

Data are processed.

They use numerous experts and think-tanks. In order to create security, danger scenarios are designed along the lines of all these data. This is how they totally logically and reasonably generate certainties – in a professional way and using their best brains.

Step III:

Decisions are made and activities are initiated.

After all, you have to counteract against the threats you found. Based on artificial data, you deforest one country with Agent Orange and burn it down with Napalm. Tyrants are murdered and dictators and their countries are declared war on. The army is sent into the desert and all around the world. Armed drones are sent on their way to kill particularly dangerous persons. Special teams destroy the current public enemy number one. Sanctions against insubordinate behaviour are organized. “Partners” are reminded of their contractual obligation and alliances are formed. For instance now in order to bomb the IS. The plan is to have destroyed it exactly four years from now.

Doesn’t this kind of procedure sound exactly like very rational, fact-based project management?

Except what are the consequences of such behaviour? The USA have now spent years trying to achieve their goals in this way, yet all they ever achieved was the opposite of what they had intended. And I have a growing suspicion that the main mistake is that the US policy is based on superbly professional project planning, rather than value-oriented.
I get the impression that this mistake is not restricted to politics, either. And that projects sell irrationality as proved ratio!

(Translated by EG)


This article was inspired by me reading several articles from the blog parade “Beyond Project Management”. Marcus Raitner currently invites people to participate in his blog “führung-erfahren”.

The blog parade is intended as some kind of warming-up for the Dornbirn PM-Camp 2014. The motto will be “Beyond Project Management”.

2 Kommentare zu “Another Project Polemic”

  1. rd (Sunday September 28th, 2014)

    Folgenden Kommentar dazu habe ich auf Facebook bekommen:

    “Mir hat ein Coach mal erzählen wollen, dass man als Manager nie REAGIERT – weil Manager alles VORSEHEN müssen, können sie stattdessen immer AGIEREN!”

    Das ist guter alter Omnipotenz-Glaube aus dem letzten Jahrhundert. Ich würde das so formulieren:

    “Gute Projekt Manager REAGIEREN nie – weil gute Projekt Manager alles VORSEHEN müssen, können sie stattdessen immer AGIEREN!”

    Jetzt ersetze vertausche ich die beiden Worte müssen und können:

    “Gute Projekt Manager REAGIEREN nie – weil gute Projekt Manager alles VORSEHEN können, müssen sie stattdessen immer AGIEREN!”

    Und man sieht, wie absurd die Sache wird.


  2. Aufruf zur Blogparade: Beyond Project Management - Führung erfahren! (Sunday September 28th, 2014)

    […] Roland Dürre zum zweiten Mal im IF-Blog. Noch eine Projekt-Polemik. […]

Kommentar verfassen