“Beyond Frontiers of Traditional Project Management”: The Concept of “Project Management Second Order (PM-2)” as an Approach of Evolutionary Management

Fundamental changes in sciences offer new perspectives for the management of complexity. Increased complexity in society, economics, and technology requires a new and suitable organization and management. What are the consequences and results for project management? That is the theme of this article. First of all it will given a short introduction to project management, which will be later called “traditional project management” or “project management 1st order (PM-1).” Then, the challenges by the fundamental changes in sciences and the increased complexity in society, economics, and technology will be discussed. It will state that traditional project management cannot solve these challenges. The widespread working-themes and results of the research program “Beyond Frontiers of Traditional Project Management” as an answer to these challenges will be presented at a glance. Subsequently, it will discuss some selected results of the research program:

• The principle-definition and foundation of “Evolution of 1st and 2nd Order.”

• The Evolution of 1st Order and the impact on Project Management methods and processes.

• Evolution of 2nd Order and the Grand Evolutionary Systems Theory (GEST) of E. Laszlo as also the impact on Project Management methods and processes.

• Management of crisis: turn a change to advantage or risk-assurance?

Thereafter, the concept of “Project Management Second Order (PM-2)” is presented as a highlighted result of the research program, as a new paradigm in project management, and as an answer to the challenges, described earlier will be explained in detail. Finally, a real example of transfer evolutionary and self-organizational management principles in a real project life will be demonstrated.     

Ecosystems and society: Implications for sustainable development

Human systems are interacting with, and dependent on, the global ecosystem. These complex interconnected systems have to obey natural laws and system laws in order to remain viable in the long‐term. “Sustainable development” therefore has to adhere to certain principles and constraints which derive partially from physical conditions, partially from principles of (evolving) ecosystems, partially from principles applying to human systems with conscious actors and normative standards. Although “sustainable development” constrains the spectrum of permissible processes, it does not define a final steady state. The development process must be guided by reference to an ethical principle and to the balanced satisfaction of the basic orientors resulting from a system's interaction with its environment. The systems perspective required encompasses a wide range of scientific disciplines, for which a comprehensive bibliography is provided.     

Chaos and designing social systems

Growing appreciation of work done in the past several decades in complexity science is changing how we see the world. Efforts to apply what has been learned there to human systems such as organizations, perhaps through metaphor, challenges our views of social structures and how we may influence their organization and functioning. This article considers the implications of some key propositions from chaos theory for the design of social systems.     

Darwin's lost theory and its implications for the 21st century

This paper reports the reconstruction of the long ignored “second half” or human level completion for Darwin's theory of evolution. Pursuing the striking contradictions between what has been attributed to Darwin by his neo‐Darwinian and sociobiological heirs and what he actually said, in ignored sections of The Descent of Man and Darwin's long unpublished notebooks it uncovers a three‐level theory of the moral agent that foreshadows the emergence of 20th century social science and the late 20th century rise of the fields of systems science and humanistic psychology. Implications for a joint venture of natural science and social science in the completion of the humanistic and action‐oriented theory of evolution called for by the species‐threatening challenges of the 21st century are considered.     

The three eras of cosmic evolution

The time‐honored concept of change seems capable of accounting for the appearance of matter from the primal energy of the Universe, and in turn for the emergence of life from that matter. As sentient beings, we, perhaps along with other advanced life forms in the cosmos, have become the collective consciousness of the Universe. Our raison d'etre is our ability to appreciate the cosmos—to wonder, to introspect, to abstract, to explain—for technological intelligence is a preeminently evolved agent of the Universe.     

The emergence of brain and mind amid chaos through maximum‐power evolution

A new brain algorithm based Neurological Positivism (NP) is described that is reconcilable with emergent evolution. The maximum‐power evolution of brain and mind amid chaos is described. It is proposed that with the maximum‐power evolution of mind (a) a chaotic/fractal dynamical algorithmic isomorphy among world, brain, and mind is erected, and (b) we witness the origin of the mechanism of evolutionary epistemology—the origin of knowing energy. The maximum‐power evolution of symbols is described as resulting from features of chaos and fractal geometry. Finally, a neurological positivistic explanation of the workability of mathematics in the real world is proposed.     

The autonomy of social reality: On the contribution of the theory of systems to the theory of society 1

Many contemporary schools of thought contend that the autonomy of the human world is an impossible and dangerous goal to aim at. It is shown that this is the result of the unwarranted identification of autonomy with self‐mastery. Autonomy has to be conceived of in terms of complexity and self‐transcendence (a bootstrapping). Among the paradigms that are thus revisited: Structuralism, Deconstruction, Methodological Individualism.     

Chance,command, and chaos in ancient military engagements 1

The Greeks and the Romans believed that commanders ought to exercise their foresight to preclude risks in combat. They also tried to inculcate and to preserve order in their military systems by the use of initiatory mechanisms, repetitive drill, and replication of the military order in social, economic, and spatial arrangements. In spite of their efforts to minimize entropy within their military units, these systems sometimes underwent chaotic transformations during set‐piece engagements on the battlefield. These set‐piece battles which followed a simple, formulaic pattern provide the data for a case‐study in the behavior of military systems within a relatively simple set of constraints. The results suggest that command functions can have little influence once a system is actively engaged with the enemy and that small effects can drive even simple military systems irreversibly over thresholds into chaos. They illustrate the dangers in any analysis of military phenomena which assumes linear rather than chaotic change. They also suggest that prediction, let alone control, of the course of an engagement is considerably more difficult than is often assumed. It is even difficult to label known outcomes as victories or losses, since the same result may appear differently to two observers occupying different vantage points. Military analysts should take into account values held by society at large.     

Systems evolution,structures of long‐waves,and systems management

By classifying the evolution of systems into inter‐level evolution and intra‐level evolution and dividing the intra‐level evolution into four stages which are interrelated but quite different from each other, we discuss structures of several typical systems long‐waves, and strategies of systems management.     

How Frameworks Can Help Operationalize Sustainable Development Indicators

After nearly three decades of discussion about sustainable development are we any nearer to achieving it? And do we even know what a sustainable world will look like for future generations? Early definitions of sustainable development were so broad as to allow a range of interpretations based largely on individual interests and anthropocentric needs. We are measuring the performance of countless indicators of sustainable development, but is this more an exercise in applying data than meaningful progress? This article explores the ultimate goals of sustainable development and the most important means of achieving this by analyzing and comparing two frameworks designed to direct attention to the fundamental means and the ends of sustainable development.