The Future of The Management of Projects in The 2030s

The Future of the Management of Projects in the 2030s
Derek H.T. Walker
Beverley M. Lloyd-Walker
Abstract
Purpose: This paper explores recent literature on the impact of changes in the workplace
environment and projected trends through to the year 2030 in order to identify and discuss what
key trends are changing the nature of project organising work. We aim to identify what knowledge
and which skills, attributes and experiences will be most likely valued and needed in 2030.
Design/methodology/approach: This paper is essentially a reflective review and is explorative in
nature. We focus on several recent reports published in the UK and Australia that discuss the way
that the future workforce will adapt and prepare for radical changes in the workplace environment.
We focus on project organising work and the changing workplace knowledge, skills, attributes and
experience (KSAE) needs of those working in project teams in 2030 and beyond. We draw upon
existing KSAE literature including findings from a study undertaken into the KSAEs of project alliance
managers working in a highly collaborative form of project delivery.
Findings: Our analysis suggests that there is good and bad news about project workers prospects in
2030. The good news is that for those working in non-routine roles their work will be more
interesting and rewarding that is the case for today. The bad news is that for workers in routine
work roles, that they will be replaced by advanced digital technology.
Originality/Value: Few, if any, papers published in the project organising literature speculate about
what this discipline may look like or what KSAEs will be valued and needed. This paper is about a
projected future some 12 years onwards from today. Its bridges a gap in this debate of how project
organising jobs may change and how they will be delivered in the 2030’s.
Key words: Futures, project management, knowledge skills attributes and experience, Foresight.
Paper type: Discussion paper.
1 - Introduction
The field of project management/organising (PM) has for decades been expanding rapidly in
recognition of the scope and its range of perspectives (Dalcher, 2016; Hodgson & Cicmil, 2016;
Svejvig & Grex, 2016; van der Hoorn, 2016; Walker & Lloyd-Walker, 2016). Projectification of work
continues to proliferate. What used to be managed as operational processes are now increasingly
managed as projects (Midler, 1995; Midler & Beaume, 2010). Governments are increasingly
delivering policy through projects, despite concerns that this may be elevating sectional interest of
identified project stakeholders over the more general public interest (Sjöblom & Godenhjelm, 2009,
p183). This implies a prospect for increased job and career opportunity for project workers due to
increasing projectification of business and government project work may offer.
Project work is not only undertaken by project based organisations, construction companies for
example, but also by project-oriented organisation that use projects as a vehicle for delivery strategy
and transformation (Andersen, 2008; Lundin, Midler, Sydow, Ekstedt, Arvidsson, & Brady, 2015).
Institutions such as the Project Management Institute (PMI) paint a rosy picture for future project
management/organising (PM) team jobs (Rockwood, 2018) but these reports do not rigorously
E217 IJMPiB SI paper V2 Page 1

explore how future contextual trends may change the required nature of knowledge, skills,
attributes and experience (KSAEs). Career opportunity prospects may be exciting for some project
practitioners but may presents challenges for others due to the likely impact of technology advances
such as artificial intelligence (AI) and the use of robots (Committee for Economic Development
Australia, 2015; United Kingdom Commission for Employment and Skills, 2014).
Future PM job prospects present a quandary about whether project practitioners should be
positively excited or negatively depressed by the paradox of advanced digitisation of project
delivery. AI and use of robots advances make work easier but perhaps at the cost of lost jobs and
livelihoods.
This poses several interesting questions that will be addressed in this paper:
1. What will the general workplace landscape look like for project managers and team
members in the 2030s?
2. How will this workplace landscape relate to the values of society, business and professional
project managers and their team members?
3. Which core KSAEs will prepare them, sustain their career and deliver value to their clients?
The paper is structured as follows. The next section briefly explains the research approach and
underlying ontological and epistemological assumptions. This establishes the basis of the paper in
explaining how we see the world and therefore how we interpret the literature we review. This is
followed by a discussion of the literature and how the research questions may be addressed by that
literature. We then discuss the evidence and foresight projections in the selected literature that
address each of the three questions. We then summarise our paper and suggest further research
that may usefully complement this discussion paper.
2 - The Research Approach

This discussion paper explores propositions that have been made in three selected foresight reports.
Therefore, this is not an empirical research paper but is one that identifies potentially fruitful future
empirical research avenues. It is based upon a focussed reflection on recent literature discussing
how the business and workplace landscape may look in 2030. We draw upon those literature
sources to help us make sense of the likely future for project work because our research questions
focus on project organising work, jobs and KSAEs.
The value of a literature review is explained by Webster and Watson. They argue that it ‘creates a
firm foundation for advancing knowledge. It facilitates theory development, closes areas where a
plethora of research exists, and uncovers areas where research is needed’ (2002, p xiii). Svejvig and
colleagues have undertaken several literature reviews on PM literature (Laursen & Svejvig, 2016;
Svejvig & Andersen, 2015; Svejvig & Grex, 2016) by undertaking a four step approach: ‘(1) planning
and scoping, (2) conceptualizing the review, (3) searching, evaluating, and selecting literature, and
(4) analyzing the selected literature’ (Laursen & Svejvig, 2016, p738). We follow but adapt the
approach recommended by Laursen and Svejvig (2016, p738). Our approach can be seen as
consistent with their approach although our aims and objectives are less concerned with
undertaking a review of the literature about the future prospects for the project

management/project organising (hereafter referred to as PM) but rather to reflect on three
important foresight reports and their meaning to the PM discipline.
We planned our research by first searching our university library data base. We used the search logic
of sources ‘from January 2010 until January 2018’ with the title must contain the words ‘project
management career’ and any word must contain the word ‘future’. This search yielded only 13
results, although none of these actually discussed specific career contexts or KSAE future demand
issues. When the search logic was amended to title must contain the words ‘project management’
and any word must contain the word ‘future career’ the search revealed 22 results with only one
source, a dissertation (King, 2012) being relevant to our topic for this paper. Several of the
references cited in that dissertation proved useful in informing our paper. Our initial literature
search approach presents difficulties for searching for foresight articles rather than reports. It
became evident that there are few if any relevant journal articles specifically on the future of project
organising and that newspaper articles may exhibit bias and a motivation to advertise or promote a
particular position. We therefore focussed on the independent foresight reports.
One short report cited in the King (2012) dissertation that was substantially relied upon for her
analysis (Davies, Fidler & Gorbis, 2011) identifies drivers of change for the future of work in general
as well as likely new KSAE’s workers will require. This prompted us to search for foresight reports
about the future of work in general.
The foundational premise of our research questions is based on the usefulness of trying to assess the
near, but to not too distant future (2030), based on existing trends but being aware that we live in a
time of disruptive technology and business processes. The year 2030 is over 12 years away, at the
time of writing, and the start of a fresh decade that is not too far distant to be unable to project
from current trends but far enough for disruptive technologies and workplace contextual issues to
still gain momentum to transform the nature of PM work.
We recognise a danger of speculating too far into the future because we could be directing our
attention to something that may prove irrelevant if there will be radical disruptive change. Even
when projections are accurate, their implications may be poorly understood or utterly false. For
example when the concept of widespread use of the motorcar was first introduced it was believed
that this would reduce pollution because horse drawn transport resulted in much horse manure,
many flies and dead horses polluting streets and highways. The impact of petrol and diesel fumes on
the environment was not seriously considered at that time (Morris, 2007; Utterback, 1994). After
having undertaking a Google search for ‘workplace skills and the future of work 2030’ we identified
two interesting reports. At the top of the list was one by the United Kingdom Commission for
Employment and Skills (UKCES) (2014) for the UK Government and at second place an interesting
PwC report (PwC, 2017) at the top of 233,000 search results. The former report was less journalistic
but both reports share consistency with underlying assumptions about what the workplace context
for 2030 may look like. These assumptions were also consistent with the (Davies et al., 2011) report
from the USA. Many of the following entries in the 233,000 Google search results were media
releases, magazine or news reports and other blogs and comments that pointed to the UK report or
a similar report that was published for the Australia context by the Committee for Economic
Development Australia (CEDA) (2015) that appeared fifth on the Google search list.

We therefore seek to challenge assumption as they relate to PM work and use the four scenarios
constructed in the UKCES report (2014) for the future of work and the nature of work undertaken by
people and the skills they will require. Our main concern for this paper is what the world of work for
those engaged in PM will be like in 2030 and the KSAEs that they will need. If, as many futurologists
believe, AI and robots will be performing many, if not most, business tasks and jobs. Consequently,
many of the human dimensions of those jobs are likely to be lost such as enthusiasm, passion, trust
and affective commitment. We wonder, what might be the unintended consequences of entering
that kind of workplace culture?
The general thrust of the UKCES (2014) report is that changes in the workplace context in 2030 from
today for example, have a profound impact on the development of skills and competences of
effectively undertaking and managing project work. It opens up a debate about what will constitute
‘work’ and what KSAE’s will be in demand in a little over a decade from now. It also provides a useful
framework for analysis although it has scope limitations in its focus on themes. The UKCES report
identifies five emerging themes including further globalisation, an ageing workforce, and
digitalisation of work and everyday life, these inform four scenarios that are presented to identify
future employment roles and KSAEs.
The report uses four foresight scenarios to demonstrate the challenges that the 2030 work context
will present. They argue that ‘Foresight scenarios are rich narratives that reflect the relative
importance of key factors and disruptions in future states. They are not intended to be normative or
to convey a ‘preferred’ future. They seek to create coherent, plausible stories from complex socio-
economic and technological ingredients … The four scenarios chosen for the purpose of the study
describe alternative development paths for UK jobs and skills in 2030, but are not mutually
exclusive.’ (United Kingdom Commission for Employment and Skills, 2014, p43).
These scenarios comprise:

1. Forced flexibility (business-as-usual) characterised by ‘greater business flexibility and
incremental innovation that lead to moderate economic growth but this flexibility often
results in fewer opportunities and weakened job security for the low skilled’.
2. The Great Divide where ‘despite robust growth driven by strong high-tech industries, a
two-tiered, divided society has emerged, reinforcing the economic position of the
‘haves’ and ‘have nots’’
3. Skills Activism where ‘technological innovation drives the automation of white-collar
work and brings large-scale job losses and political pressure, leading to an extensive
government-led skills programme.’
4. Innovation Adaptation where ‘in a stagnant economy, improved productivity is
achieved through a rigorous implementation of Information and Communications
Technology (ICT) solutions’ (2014, p xiv).
The UK study is one of several prepared on this topic of the future workplace to be found around the
world. The other report that we reflect and draw upon by CEDA (2015) comprises a series of
chapters written by academic experts who draw on a range of literature to substantiate their
perceptions of the future workplace context in 2030 and beyond.

We discuss implications for PM and required KSAEs for project workers based on projected:
 likely demographic changes;
 shifts in emerging and dominant industry sectors requiring the management of projects;
 changes and shifts in emphasis of technology; and
 extent of the need for human interactions, collaboration and personal service delivery.
We take a PM systems integration perspective and argue that work undertaken by humans in
project teams will tend to be non-routine, specialised, complex and requiring system integration
capabilities characterised by collaborative and resilient behaviours. The traditional PM skills of
detailed cost and time management and even risk forecasting and contingency planning and
management may be largely usurped by enhanced and superior AI systems within the coming
decades. If this is to be the case then that mechanistic aspect of the PM role may be substantially
changed.
Our ontological position responds to Blaikie’s (2000, p8) explanation of the meaning of ontology as
‘claims and assumptions that are made about the nature of social reality, claims about what exists,
what it looks like, what units make it up and how these units interact with each other. In short,
ontological assumptions are concerned with what we believe constitutes social reality’. Our
assumptions about the reality of the project workplace context in 2030 is conceptual and socially
constructed based upon enduring present trends that we see either accelerating in intensity or at
least maintaining their current momentum. We respond to the UKCES scenarios of the possible 2030
future workplace context by accepting that, because it is impossible to predict the future perfectly,
assumptions underpinning these scenarios are plausible enough to provide a working hypothesis
with which to proceed with. We take a pragmatic approach to our reflection and analysis and accept
that what we propose is an approximation and as such is contestable. Our main aim is to help
readers prepare for a future that we propose is likely to occur, generally and broadly, as described in
the scenarios. We use deductive methods to treat the literature we have accessed and read it as
data that we may apply the if-then logic to propose what we argue are valuable conclusions.
Our epistemological stance is predicated upon the validity of the literature we access and cite.
Reports to governments such as the two we cite from the UK and Australia reference both scholarly
peer reviewed literature and government statistical data and so we argue that they represent at
least a moderate if not high level of reliability. In reflecting and discussing the report issues that are
raised about the 2030 workplace, and what that implies for workers and their required KSAEs, we
acknowledge that the literature on skill development, training and education and organisational
approaches (such as high levels of collaboration and integration) is dependent upon current contexts
and interpretations of 2018 and not 2030. Therefore, we may miss key contextual nuances and thus
under or over emphasise the importance and impact of what we perceive to be implications and
conclusions to be drawn.
Bearing in mind our earlier reference to the broad consensus of the advantages of the world moving
from horse power to mechanised petrol-fuelled transport, we could well be missing salient points
and falling into a time-context dependent perspective.

3 - Discussion about the salient literature
In this section we discuss the literature related to the foresight reports, issues related to a cyber
workforce with people skills necessary to orchestrate the resources of advanced technology,
people’s commitment and their collaboration to deliver projects.
3.1 - 2030 foresight report assumptions and conclusions
3.1.1 Shared report assumptions

This report assumes that for each of their four scenarios that:
1. Global competition is fierce and development of ICT enables people to offer their services
virtually, being based anywhere in the globe.
2. The pace of wider people-to-people and things-to-people connectivity and computing
power has increased drastically from recent years and that ‘Big Data’, gathering and storage
of digital transactions through ‘the internet of things’ and a digital based economy means
that there is truly massive amount of data about every aspect of people’s lives. Thus, it will
become possible for AI machine applications to detect trends, patterns and potential
opportunities as well as to monitor and help control actions for a range of applications.
3. AI will allow machines to be far more effective and efficient than people at detecting
patterns and trends in data as well as to rapidly search vast data storage facilities for
meaningful information. AI may be able to be programmed to take the next step from
accessing information and data to suggest decisions. It will be possible for AI to make
decisions and take action.
4. Robotics will develop along with AI to allow machines to be able to physically undertake
almost all the routine tasks manually undertaken today. Tiny repair robots for example
repairing things in small ducts, pipes and inside very small spaces. Further, machines may be
far superior to people because robots undertaking delicate operations can be scaled. For
example keyhole surgery is currently undertaken using robot assisted machinery and tiny
robots may be able to swarm to repair things that have miniscule access points or can be
scaled as large machines that autonomously manoeuvre themselves. The mining industry in
Australia already uses remotely controlled trucks (Gollschewski, 2015).
5. Immersive communication technologies are the next stage 3D virtual reality applications.
These allow virtual meetings to be held more effectively as people can appear to be present
in 3D. This technology also allows people to ‘feel’ as if they are somewhere inside a building
for example perceiving it at a human scale visualisation by ‘fly-through’. This may be from a
‘helicopter’ view or enlarging the view within a tiny space such as a pipe or duct.
6. Demographic shifts in which four generational cohorts from baby boomers to Millenniums
will need to work together respectfully accepting each cohort’s experience of historical
shifts in workplace practice and technology. The broad spectrum of experience helps
overcome corporate and personal amnesia so that a richer contextual analysis is possible.
The report claims that ‘By 2020, over 50 per cent of the workforce are expected to be
Generation Y members who have grown up connected, collaborative and mobile.’ It cites a
UK thought leader as observing that ‘Different generations have to understand each other.
Fostering intergenerational solidarity in the workplace is extremely important to future
business performance’ (2014, p107).

3.1.2 The UKCES (2014) Report
The UKCES (2014) report suggests that for innovation uptake, the Forced Flexibility scenario would
have its focus on incremental innovation across almost all sectors. Current trends indicate a
widening gap between education, career opportunities and pay and employment for the more
educated and skilled worker versus those who have lower levels of education and training. The latter
may have been forced out of their jobs by globalisation and technology changes that present a
conflict between their current skills and what is required. The report suggests that there will be
‘ferocious competition for low-skilled positions and a hollowing out of the middle of the workforce’
(2014, p46). Project workers will be continually pressured to ‘do more with less’ and to adapt to
tools and technology that takes over routine activities and learn to use supportive technology
applications that help them become more efficient. The increased global competitiveness and focus
on efficiency may place strain on value paradoxes as trends towards hiring people only when needed
and on precarious working security conditions will affect attitudes towards organisational loyalty.
Also in this scenario high performers will be keenly sought after and may be the ‘winners’ in this
scenario if they match their KSAE’s with the pragmatic values suggested by the highly competitive
mindset.
The second scenario The Great Divide, exacerbates the conditions surrounding scenario one. This
presents a highly competitive workplace environment in which the uptake of innovation is intense
rendering skills, knowledge and experience as being highly perishable commodities. This is because
innovation will follow a radical rather than incremental path. This will result in a much distorted
labour market with projects and industry segments that are high-tech and performing well but those
that fail to embrace radical change being the main losers. While high levels of skill, knowledge and
relevant experience is highly valued, workers will be mainly self-funding their skills development.
The cost of doing so would be significantly high. This will further disadvantage those who are slow to
adapt in gaining the requisite skills and knowledge. An important feature of this scenario is the high
level presence of a cyber workforce. The report explains a cyber workforce as one where ‘Work is no
longer characterised by space, time, or place constraints, but by the employee’s preferences and the
tasks he or she has to accomplish. Thus in 2030, conventional office spaces and work schedules have
become redundant. The workforce is to a large extent fluid and employment is project-based.
Workers may work for different companies from different countries simultaneously, setting their
own schedules and workplace preferences. Collaboration is based on specialised communication
networks and virtual exchange platforms. Work is supervised and controlled by smart computer
systems which operate autonomously and manage tasks and processes and assist and guide
employers and employees (2014, p129).
The third scenario Skills Activism, depicts a workplace where automation of professional work has
severely impacted middle to upper echelon workers. Interestingly the report specifically states for
this scenario that the labour market context will be characterised by ‘Significant disruption to
medium and highly skilled work. Jobs are mainly project-based with high turnover’ (2014, p46). This
scenario may be already familiar for many project practitioners. The scenario also envisages a
reform and expansion of education and training systems to facilitate wider access to upskill the
workforce. This is already evident in some of the Nordic countries. According to Scott (2015, p244),
‘In Denmark, retrenched workers do not receive redundancy payments, they instead receive
immediate retraining. The retraining is supported with public funds, often in the form of wage

subsidies, as well as the intensive publicly funded help for the workers to find new jobs. These active
measures mean that Denmark has one of the Western world’s highest rates of ‘older’ people who
are still in paid work’. This approach would be more common under the third scenario.
The fourth scenario Innovation Adaption, characterises its labour market context as ‘Growing virtual
workforces as a strategy for productivity in a low growth environment. Increased work intensity’ this
is supported by the uptake of innovation because of the presence of ‘Wide integration of cost-
efficient ICT technologies to enable business survival’. This context reveals adverse and stagnant
conditions facing turbulence in the international economic environment (2014, p46). This has
relevance to project workers in any country because it implies an open market in which cost
effectiveness may be imposing a highly diverse workforce based in an array of countries or regional
locations. This may introduce cultural complexities associated with machine-to-human and human-
to-human communication. It is also characteristics by a cyber workforce.
The report, similar to (PwC, 2017), stresses the point that constructed scenarios will be not mutually
exclusive but provide convenient domains of a collective context that aids our ability to understand
and visualise the future.
The UKCES report has many interesting stated implications for jobs and skills for each scenario: the
forced flexibility (pages 54-58); the great divide (pages 65-68); skills activism (pages 78-81); and
innovation adaptation (pages 88-91). What stands out from this extensive compilation is that these
scenarios point towards the need for workers to gain current and extensive skills in using technology
to support identifying issues, planning, decision making, and monitoring and controlling action being
taken. These skills prepare people to intelligently and effectively use technology to inform their
activities and help them be aware of more targeted options including potential consequences and
ramifications of actions that may be taken. The second group of skills highlighted are people-related
skills such as better ‘orchestration’ of people and systems/resources and how to motivate others
through better understanding their favoured value proposition and how to better communicate to
engender trust and commitment in people.
Each scenario, to a greater or lesser extent, suggests that PM work from 2030 onwards (if not to
some extent right now) will change. A key message for project workers is that ICT and other related
technologies can be used as ‘slaves’ to serve the human worker in providing them with the extent
and quality of background research analysis findings to them make far more reliable and effective
decisions and assessments of plans than is available at present. For example, data mining AI ‘bots’
are capable of searching and analysing far more data than any human could and the results can
rapidly assess and model far more options to open up possibilities that may be neglected without
that capacity.
3.1.3 The CEDA (2015) Report

This reports shares many general conclusions to UKCES (2014). However, it is structured differently
and comprises a series of book chapters written by subject matter experts that discuss the projected
context is depth.

Tee and Xu (2015), for example, contribute to the CEDA (2015) report by discussing a new AI tool
developed by IBM called Watson. This data mining and analysis tool has learning capabilities so that
it can learn to be more effective as it develops self-diagnostic and reflexive skills to improve its
performance. We suggest that this kind of technology may be used by skilled project organising
team members to more effectively plan projects, diagnose faults and rapidly respond to changed
circumstances. If tools such as Watson are used then this may enrich the PM work experience.
However, there is a danger that the Watsons of 2030 will either 1) usurp the work of humans or 2)
that subtle project context conditions will be either opaque to Watson, or be overlooked, in terms of
how Watson’s initial learning assumptions may be programmed. There is a danger of inaccurate or
inadequate intelligence being gathered and processed to guide decision making and action.
We may foresee other potential dangers of AI taking control within a cyber workforce context. AI
according to Bradlow (2015, p41) assists people in that ‘ These techniques enable computers to
perform human tasks such as natural language understanding, speech recognition and pattern
recognition.’ However, if the algorithms adopted as an AI start position is based on a strong and
rigorous monitor and control premise, then it may be difficult to see how this may be applied in a
highly collaborative context. Walker and Lloyd-Walker (2015) identify the balance of trust and
control as a key collaborative dimension of project alliancing. They argue that people need to trust
others (trust will be explored in more detailed later in this paper) to effectively collaborate but that
there also needs to be mechanisms in place for monitoring and control of actual delivery of planned
outputs and outcomes so that there is assurance that goals and objectives that were agreed upon
are delivered. Heavy handed command and control behaviours are associated with traditional
hierarchical approaches to project delivery that may drain commitment and positive enthusiastic
motivation. A mechanistic culture relies on compliance or at best duty-bound normative
commitment rather than the ‘want-to’ affective commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Meyer, Stanley,
Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). If AI results in a more autocratic approach to project delivery
monitoring and control then it could close off out-of-the-box action suggestions and reduce the
likelihood of innovation rather than increase its likelihood.
The CEDA (2015) report also provides an interesting case study in the use of robots in the form of
autonomous trucks in the mining sector (Gollschewski, 2015). Robots come in many forms. An
autonomous truck or car can be considered a robotic delivery system. Humankind’s evolution has
been marked by advances in using tools to supplement their strength and intellect such as the
simple non-programmable wheel through to the programmable spinning wheel that transformed
the weaving industry in the early industrial age. More recently sophisticated equipment is routinely
used in warehouses today to operate 24/7 managing goods including their stacking, storage and
delivery. Drones may be perceived as flying robotic cameras or delivery machines. Robots have
become prolific and ubiquitous and are part of general technology automation. Durrant-Whyte
(2015) refers to the need for both broad as well as deep technical skills required to capitalise on the
use of digital technologies including using robotics. He also notes with his colleagues (Durrant-
Whyte, McCalman, O’Callaghan, Reid, & Steinberg, 2015, p59) that ‘… in the next decade or two, the
largest impacts will come from the automation of intellectually and physically routine jobs for which
machine intelligence and robotics already play a large role. Also important will be the use of
automation to substantially increase productivity, and thus reduce employment, in many non-
routine occupations. An important trend is the automation of analysis roles for which machine

learning is especially effective and the increasing use of data is key, rather than creative roles for
which computer algorithms have yet to make a mark.’ Thus the report’s authors reinforce the
message that digital technologies as AI or robotic devices will have a significant impact in
supplanting routine work while enhancing the productivity of workers who work with these
technologies to undertake high-end judgement tasks.
The final trend that has profound implications noted in the CEDA (2015) report that we expand our
discussion upon, is immersive technologies. Bradlow (2015, p39) notes that ‘Media distribution is
shifting from broadcast to broadband, thereby creating the technology environment for immersive
solutions that allow realistic telepresence.’ This has implications for virtual meetings because it
transforms the current experience with Skype for example by enabling people in virtual meetings to
have a far greater awareness of the meeting’s surroundings and can integrate numerous other
digital technologies to improve a person’s capacity to grasp the significance of a meeting content.
Consider a construction delivery approach planning meeting in which the participants, some or
many, may meet remotely. They may have access to a building information model for ‘fly-through’
visualisations of the work being discussed as well as a drone produced picture of the site. There may
even be micro-drones that can ‘fly’ inside shafts and pipes to show details that would be impossible
to otherwise visualise. There could also be links to simulation software so that as various options are
discussed they could be rapidly modelled. This kind of facility in planning and decision making could
be a game-changer for productivity by not only being more efficient in processing data but being
more effective by an ability to consider options that otherwise would not be feasible to investigate.
3.1.4 PwC (2017)

This report appears to be pitched to an audience that may take in a more cursory overview of the
projected future that an in depth detailed study as may be the case with the other two reports. It is
based on a rigorous background survey work and evolved over an extended time from 2007. The
report states that ‘Our report draws on research begun in 2007 by a team from PwC and the James
Martin Institute for Science and Civilisation at the Said Business School in Oxford and a specially
commissioned survey of 10,000 people in China, India, Germany, the UK and the US’ (2017, p3).
Many of the megatrend drivers for change and contextual issues expected in 2030 are similar to the
other two reports but their scenario assumptions differ. This report uses a four scenario approach
based on a fragmentation versus integration dimension and a collectivism versus individualism
dimension resulting in four scenarios (2017, p10) that are then outlined and characteristics and
implications are summarised.
The dimension assumptions are presented with the following characteristics (2017, p10):
1. Business fragmentation: Small is powerful; Large businesses lose their dominance as
customers seek relevance and organisations find scale a burden rather than a benefit; Social
bubbles and affinity groups take on a new importance; Many could not exist without digital
platforms.
2. Corporate integration: Big business rules all; Companies get bigger and more influential –
the biggest have more sway than some nations; Brands span many business areas.

3. Collectivism: Fairness and equality dominates; The common good prevails over personal
preference; e.g. collective responsibility for the environment; social good and ‘fairness’ over
individual interest.
4. Individualism: Where ‘me first’ rules; A focus on individual wants; a response to the infinite
choices available to consumers.
This frames their four scenarios, or worlds as they refer to them, that each inhabit a quadrant across
the two sets of polar dimensions characterised as (2017, p12):
1. The Yellow World where humans come first occupies the Fragmented-Collectivism
quadrant. It is characterised by: Social-first and community businesses prosper;
Crowdfunded capital flows towards ethical and blameless brands; There is a search for
meaning and relevance with a social heart; Artisans, makers and ‘new Worker Guilds’ thrive
and; Humanness is highly valued.
2. The Red World where innovation rules occupies the Fragmented-Individualism quadrant. It
is characterised by: Organisations and individuals race to give consumers what they want;
Innovation outpaces regulation; Digital platforms give outsized reach and influence to those
with a winning idea and: specialists and niche profitmakers flourish.
3. The Green World – where companies care occupies the Integration-Collectivism quadrant. It
is characterised by: Social responsibility and trust dominate the corporate agenda with
concerns about demographic changes and; climate and sustainability becoming key drivers
of business
4. The Blue World where Corporate is King occupies the Integration-Individualism quadrant. It
is characterised by: Big company capitalism rules as organisations continue to grow bigger
and individual preferences trump beliefs about social responsibility.
This report maps the road to 2030 via 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2025 predictions for each ‘world’ and
explaining various aspects of how the workplace will evolve over those years. The report provides
useful talking points but because it is a brief report (39 content pages) with many glossy illustration
and fictionalised news vignettes, it lacks usefulness in citing specifics unlike the CEDA (2015) report.
However, it confirms trends and introduces an important point about changing value and value
systems from today that Generation Y and Millenniums appear to hold. If that cohort retain their
value systems then the PwC report may provide some useful supplementary insights to the other
two reports that tend not to stress this aspect as much as may be seen from this PwC report.
This values system perspective may be critical is an ability to understand implications for workplace
changes in 2030.
3.2 - 2030 worker’s KSAEs

To undertake any task or job, people (or AI machines) need to bring into play four separate
characteristics of ability. To be able to perform any task or job requires physical-mental,
organisational, governance, motivational, and knowledge infrastructure. Furthermore, most tasks
involve cooperation and collaboration between people and an ability to orchestrate the necessary
resources to perform a task.

There needs to be an enabling externally controlled and influenced infrastructure. People generally
purposefully perform tasks, their job, within and for organisations. They do not control the
organisation but may influence it in some way. They require external resources and need to
orchestrate those resources. They are subject to governance arrangements that set the protocols or
rules and legislative constraints and opportunities. They also need technical, administrative, business
and other forms of knowledge to be capable to undertake a task. The way that people interact with
other people, institutions and organisations, and technology and tools required to effectively
perform a task is determined by:
 The knowledge they have, or have ready access to, about the task and its context to be
able to perform satisfactorily;
 Their skills at performing the task which may include technical skills and people skills as
well as administrative skills to work within governance constraints;
 The personal attributes that helps them in undertaking the task such as their ability to
effectively collaborate with others, their trustworthiness and credibility that influences the
level of cooperation and collaboration that they may rely on from others and a host of
other qualities of their character, demeanour and presence, their response to leadership
and their motivation that either enhance or detract from their ability to work with others
on team tasks and;
 The way in which they apply lessons learned from reflection upon experience to shape their
responses to the way in which a task may be undertaken.
The above bullet points summarise the knowledge, skills, attributes and experience (KSAEs) relating
to undertaking a task or job. The context of their workplace determines rigid or non-negotiable
aspects that affect their potential to undertake a task. It also shaped the flexibility to negotiate
conditions and how the person may influence others to cooperate and collaborate with them to
undertake the task.
It has been argued (references here????) that we need to consider an individual (or team’s) KSAEs
to effectively undertake tasks as well as consider the workplace context. This is necessary to gain a
realistic fit, by design or adaptation of what is available to make the best of the situation, of the
person-team with the context. We need to enhance enablers and reduce barriers to performance.
In their study of profiling professional excellence in alliance management, Walker and Lloyd-Walker
(2011, p12) identify core competencies and skills that form a technical baseline hard skills and
experience with personal attributes and values that are characterised by relational soft people-skills
that help them to more effectively collaborate. This is supported by their relationship leadership
qualities and attributes that they demonstrate as leaders or active followers. They found that these
are enhanced at the highest professional excellence level by keen business communication and
influence skills. They also found that collaborative and triple bottom line values supported
excellence in relational skills. Triple bottom line refers to a balanced commercial, physical
environment and social outcome focus.
One of the attributes that the three foresight reports mention will be needed is the ability of
workers to collaborate effectively and that relies a great deal on trust. This assertion about the need
for people to build trust to collaborate is well supported by the literature. The concept of trust was
considered by early writers on this topic was that trust is a psychological state in which people, being

placed in a vulnerable position, have confidence that they will not suffer harm (Luhmann, 1979).
Various models of trust have been developed with the Mayer et al. (1995) being well known. Their
model show three factors affecting trust, ability (confidence that what is promised can be delivered),
benevolence (good will and lack of hard directed towards the trusting individual) and integrity
(honesty and consistency between the rhetoric and reality of actions taken by the person, or
organisation, seeking trust). This is moderated by the tustor’s propensity to trust. Siebert et al.
(2015) in reviewing the literature on trust make a valuable contribution by more fully explaining
what propensity to trust may entail. They draw upon the work of Fox (1974) who takes an historical
pluralist and radical rather than unitarist perspective of trust based on perceived and actual power
imbalances between employers and employees.
Siebert et al. (2015, p1039) explain the unitarist perspective as being very much aligned with a unity
of purpose, usually promoted by the employer with greater power and authority. Lack of trust is
seen as a pathogen. The pluralist perspective accepts that multiple stakeholders within a situation
will have a variety of interests with some complimentary and supportive of the employer’s but some
in conflict and others in between. Conflict is therefore seen as inevitable and so the mediating
impact of the trustor’s perception of the situation they engage in largely determines how they
perceiving the three ability, benevolence and integrity factors. Their radical perspective adopts a
more pessimistic view of trust propensity because this perspective holds that the power imbalance
between peoples make it impossible if not unlikely that true trust may be freely given by the trustor
to the trustee. This is interesting in the context of the 2030 foresight conditions. For those who ,
perceive themselves to have little power within a relationship there will be unitary, radical or at best
some pluralist features exhibited that govern the trustor’s propensity to trust. People who have
mastered the technology and have the requisite KSAEs to be in great demand with greater control
and autonomy over their career, are likely to adopt a pluralist perspective of trust. They are,
according to three reports, the people most likely to retain meaningful employment.
People who are effectively working in collaborative diverse cross-discipline and cross-cultural teams
would be expected to exhibit attributes that support the pluralist perspective. For example we
would expect to see high levels of flexibility and commitment to agreed goals, open-mindedness to
consider other perspectives and understand that people have a dynamic range of motivations. We
would also expect them to exhibit shared leadership characteristics and be prepared to take
leadership initiatives when qualified and authorised to do so, usually this happens when an
individual has the knowledge and/or expertise power in a group for a specific part of the task at
hand to take over the role of leading and influencing others (Carson, Tesluk & Marrone, 2007;
Drescher, Korsgaard, Welpe, Picot, & Wigand, 2014). This is similar to what has been termed
balanced leadership (Müller, Packendorff & Sankaran, 2017) in which the formal group leader and
followers recognise the limitations of hierarchical authority and instead engage in a matrix form of
leadership from those temporarily with the required knowledge, experience and ability to lead task
initiative being ‘followed’ by others. This as Müller et al. observes, happens when the teams
attitude towards this form of leadership is shared and genuinely agreed upon, the situation is
appropriate for balanced leadership and that team members have trust in each other and the
system governance to support the leadership approach.

4 - Answering research question one
The above discussion and following summary points respond to research question one, What will the
general workplace landscape look like for project managers and team members in the 2030s? by
illuminating what the general employment landscape for project managers and team members will
look like in the 2030s. Review of the content of the above three foresight reports leads to several
conclusions about the impact of the workplace landscape on jobs and required KSAEs . These help
paint a portrait of the 2030 workplace landscape.
1. There will be high expectations about workers’ grasp of and ability to work with new digital
technologies that are capable of more effectively undertaking routine operations. The scale
of this expectation is unknown at present but as Taylor (2015, p29) states there will be a
deeper technical skill need relating to: architecting (orchestrating components to build
larger systems); designing (conceptualising new salutations to challenges and problems)
and; analysing (making sense of data and information). Skills will require adaptation,
configuration and re-configuration of technological tools in innovative ways. Beitz (2015,
p163) discusses digital skills categories and suggests that the bulk of UK workers (46%)
currently employed are ‘digital workers’ who use digital technology purposefully and
confidently . The reports we analysed suggests that the percentage would have to be close
to 100% for those remaining employed and that the scope and nature of the technologies in
2030 will be more complex and more ubiquitous than today.
2. High value will be placed on social skills to build confidence and trust quickly, be able to
communicate and collaborate with people from highly diverse backgrounds (discipline,
nationality and social orientation) because groups of creative people are likely to be best at
arriving at innovative problem solutions and approaches (Gratton & Ghoshal, 2003). These
skills fit with the relational skills set identified by Walker and Lloyd-Walker (2015) for
elements in their collaborative framework.
3. Creative and entrepreneurial skills (Beitz, 2015, p163) are skills that allow people to
creatively use technology to significantly enhance their productivity and to use disruptive
technology creatively. This implies imagination, passion and acumen. This fits with the
cluster of business skills identified by Walker and Lloyd-Walker (2015) as necessary
collaborative framework elements.
4. Foundationally, workers who are able to retain employment will need to have exceptional
base technical skills. For example engineers with various specialisations working on
infrastructure projects. This allows them the discipline-based perspective that they may
share with others in a multi-disciplinary collaborative integrated team approach to project
delivery.
5. Finally, workers will need cross-cultural communication and inter-connectivity skills (United
Kingdom Commission for Employment and Skills, 2014, p104). They will need these for
sourcing work internationally in response to a highly globalised economy of 2030 and to be
able to confidently communicate and collaborate from people from a range of national,
religious, business-organisational and social cultures (United Kingdom Commission for
Employment and Skills, 2014, pxxvi). They will need to be prepared for seizing the
advantages offered by diversity.

The impression conveyed by the above is that people working in project teams will need to be more
broadly skilled than is generally evident today. This conclusion fits well with the KSAEs seen in high
performing alliance projects requiring intense team integration and collaboration. Reading the
various scenarios proposed by UKCES (2014), CEDA (2015) and PwC (2017) we see collaboration as a
key theme. Collaboration is important between people and technology in the form of robots, AI and
other digital technology as well as collaboration between people working on various facets of
projects. We see that technical base discipline knowledge, digital technology knowledge and social-
cultural knowledge is important to permit people to understand and connect with each other. One
important attribute that is stressed by the reports is the ability and capacity of people to learn For
example UKCES (2014, p xxix) states that individuals need to be ‘open to and take advantage of new
and different approaches to learning, for instance self-directed, bite-sized learning, peer-to-peer
learning and technology enabled training opportunities’. This would apply across their primary
discipline as well as for people-related and cultural skills. The various scenarios illustrate the levels of
support that governments and employers may contribute and these vary from strong support to
zero support.
5 - Answering research question two
A workplace landscape featuring high levels of collaboration and team team-technology integration
requires specific attitudes and attributes of workers as well as reflection upon and growth through
experience.
Research question two focuses on the general workplace landscape and asks How will this workplace
landscape relate to the values of society, business and professional project managers and their team
members the professional project managers’
To address this we need to be clear about what the concept of work and job may mean to project
managers and their teams. This requires considering the nature of work and how it is perceived so
that the impact of technology advances and the digitalisation of work may be better understood. It
leads to an answer to research question three, Which core KSAEs will prepare them, sustain their
career and deliver value to their clients? We answer that question in Section 6.
5.1 - Jobs, tasks and the meaningfulness of work

To directly answer question two and lead to the answer to question three we need to understand
the values concept and how it is relevant to this topic. The Values, Attitudes, and Moods (VAM)
model developed by George and Jones (1997) provides a starting point for understanding workers’
experience of meaningfulness of their jobs and the tasks they perform. George and Jones describe a
values system as a conceptual framework that people hold and default to that represents what they
perceive as the correct way to act and behave within a situation. It is informed by a range of
influences such as the norms of a cultural group (nation, family, organisation etc.) that the person
feels they belong to and should abide by.
More specifically, George and Jones see work values as guiding desired end-states. Coherently
working in manner aligned with those values should deliver an acceptable approximation to a valued
end-state. George and Jones see work attitudes as knowledge structures stored in memory about

feelings and thoughts about a person’s work experience. Finally, the VAM recognises the concept of
moods that govern behaviour at any given time and is informed by the context of the situation as
well as work values. Work experience can be felt ‘in the moment’ retrospectively or prospectively. It
fits with the KSAEs in that the experience provides personal knowledge about a situation. It is best
accessed through reflection and awareness of perceived biases and filters. The experience is also
influenced by attitudes and perception of the usefulness or accuracy of that experience.
All three foresight reports projected similar global trends and two of these the UKCES (2014) and the
PwC (2017) reports portrayed likely and plausible scenarios to depict how the 2030 workplace may
look. Some of these trends are specifically relevant to worker’s perception of the job experience and
how these may be shaped by their value systems. In each report there was discussion about the
values that will drive the nature of future work. The more corporate-centric scenarios emphasise
competitive advantage, business survival and attracting the best resources, particularly talented
people. The UKCES (2014) and the PwC (2017) reports also illustrate more socially focussed scenarios
that aim to ensure that productivity gains in the future benefit society as a whole and not just a
narrow sectional interest.
All three reports also note the impact of the values held by workers currently in the early stages of
their career or are close to joining the workforce. Generation Y (born between 1982 and 2000)
workers, according to UKCES (2014, p34), could comprise well over half the workforce in 2030. Their
values are reported to favour a work-life balance and working for organisations that demonstrate
strong corporate social responsibility. This is likely to place greater emphasis on ethical treatment of
society and the natural environment in the future than at present. This orientation has a significant
impact on perceptions of jobs, the skills expected to required, the identification of what the real task
is and consideration of it impact. Thus the meaning of work may be more socially-oriented and
collaborative in nature that at present. We can now look at the nature of work in terms of how the
characteristics of work may be perceived through the workers values and attitudes lens and how
their moods may also be influenced by job characteristics.
The Job Characteristics Model (JCM) is a useful tool developed by Hackman and Oldham (1976) over
40 years ago. It posits that five job characteristics, core job dimensions, lead to worker’s critical
psychological states and this triggers worker’s personal and work outcomes (Hackman & Oldham,
1976, p256). Three core dimensions (skill variety, task identity and task significance) lead to the
psychological state of experienced meaningfulness of work. An autonomy core job dimension leads
to the psychological state of experienced responsibility for work outcomes. The fifth core job
dimension, feedback, leads to the psychological state of knowledge of the actual work outcome.
Enriched job/task design and allocation based on this model is posited to enhance employee’s skill
growth need strength and so workers feel more motivated and put more effort and commitment
into their work which contributes to a positive work outcome. The intention of the JCM was that
management would use these dimensions to guide the design of jobs that would motivate and
engage workers, and lead to them experiencing job satisfaction. This, in turn, was expected to lead
to high levels of productivity and reduced staff turnover. Forty years later, the model remains useful,
but may be used now to support individuals or teams to craft their own roles, in a bottom up rather
than top down manner. This can enable ‘employees to steer their work towards their passions to

obtain more enjoyment and meaning from their jobs’ (Demerouti, Bakker & Gevers, 2015, p89). This
approach has the potential to engage staff, and lead to the team crafting work to support project
excellence, whilst addressing their need for challenge, learning, and job satisfaction within a highly
collaborative environment, where teams work cooperatively and collaboratively as outlined in
several of the foresight report scenarios. All this relies on their work values including career growth
and development as being a worker’s core value.
It may seem unwise of us to consider a model that is over 40 years old. However, Wegman et al.
(2018) conclude in reviewing the USA literature (on job characteristics studies referring to the JCM)
that the model remains generally robust and can be considered as still relevant and appropriate.
They note, however, that the general work context has changed over the past 40 years with respect
to ICT and other technology advances. As we see from the foresight reports all scenarios envisaged
suggest that this trend will accelerate markedly by 2030. Also, the impact of global competition has
forced organisations to flatten their hierarchies and outsource specialised job activities. Work may
become potentially more enriched and motivationally enhanced due to some of the technology
advances because now workers potentially have greater clarity about how their efforts fit ‘the parts’
into the ‘whole’ so that they can potentially receive clearer and immediate feedback about their
contribution.
PwC differentiate the potential impact of AI on jobs by the way that AI may be applied. They refer to
AI application in terms of:
 ‘Assisted intelligence, widely available today, improves what people and organisations are
already doing. A simple example, prevalent in cars today, is the GPS navigation programme
that offers directions to drivers and adjusts to road conditions.
 Augmented intelligence, emerging today, helps people and organisations to do things they
couldn’t otherwise do. For example, car ride-sharing businesses couldn’t exist without the
combination of programmes that organise the service.
 Autonomous intelligence, being developed for the future, establishes machines that act on
their own. An example of this will be self-driving vehicles, when they come into widespread
use’ (2017, p8).
The above section cited literature suggests that AI and other information technology tools may lead
to greater job/task meaningfulness because:
1. Task skills may be enhanced though the application of AI and information technology
increasing the scope and scale of activities that may be undertaken, provided that people
using this technology are trained to use the technology to its full potential. It is likely that
this skill level will vary between individuals as is the case for any technological tool advance.
The three foresight reports argue that people who do not effectively use these technologies
will be replaced by others who can. Being proficient in using the technology will increase the
skills of workers of 2030 compared with today in this technology application arena.
2. Task identity will change in the future with the application of digital technologies. All three
foresight reports predict the loss of repetitive and routine work to machines, AI or robots.
However, the reports predict that non-routine, more person-to-person interactive and
creative work will remain to be undertaken by humans but with the assistance of

technology. Creative work is more engaging for intelligent active workers than is routine
work so it is likely that these people will perceive their work to be more highly motivating.
3. Task significance refers to how people perceive the likely impact that their work makes and
the contribution that it makes to an outcome. Using enhanced digital technology enables
people to more clearly visualise and conceptualise a task’s outcome. Building information
modelling (BIM) for example, has not only allowed people to more effectively visualise the
end product and to some extent outcome but also to more clearly see how their task
component in the final outcome fits with other task components.
4. The autonomy job/task characteristic is likely to be enhanced by those remaining in work
using advanced digital technologies in 2030. This is because there will be many tools and
techniques that will be then available to be applied. The three reports indicate that a key job
role expected of workers in 2030 will to be orchestrators of their work. It will be their choice
about which tools they will use and how to use them. They will be configuring arrays of
these tools in a bespoke manner by fitting the best available tool to the challenge that they
respond to and in a manner that they have framed for that challenge. This design thinking
feature associated with task autonomy is likely to lead to workers gaining an enhanced
sense of responsibility for the work because the outcome is linked to their autonomy and
agency.
5. The task/job feedback characteristic refers to the extent, quality and manner in which
feedback guides their actions. Advanced digital technologies, AI in particular can be
configured to provide users of those tools with rich, rapid and high quality feedback. This
ability to fine-tune and customise feedback so that it is meaningful to the user, is likely to
enhance the work experience and promote continuous improvement.
Above JCM features have the capacity to enhance the work experience as illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1 – Job motivation and output/outcome
Figure 1 illustrates the way in which advanced digital technology may enhance the work experience
for workers in 2030. However, this paints a somewhat rosy picture predicated on a high quality and
nature of worker’s KSAEs. The JCM is useful in providing a way to look at KSAEs and how these may
be applied to augmented and assisted technology use. It becomes clear from the three foresight

reports that those who will be in work will be engaged in non-routine work and that getting to grips
and mastering the use of powerful digital technology tools to support, augment and inform people’s
work will form the basis for competitive advantage.
Each of the Figure 1 references to ‘digital technology’ could also be attributed to collaboration
because as the reports highlight, the tasks and jobs that will not be done by technology such as AI
will be done by groups of people collaborating together to orchestrate an output or outcome. Thus
communication (including use of digital technology to assist in the content, form and style of
communication) and its meaning to the users (others in a collaborative team) will be a vital feature
of work in 2030. Communication also includes aligning the communicated message with the cultural
context (national, organisational, group etc.) to ensure its effectiveness. Individuals within teams will
strategise and design the plans and means to undertake work and how best to organise the way in
which resources are marshalled and deployed to achieve the planned outcome.
5.2 - Jobs, tasks and the value of work

This section helps to address research question two, how this 2030 workplace landscape will relate
to the values of society, business and professional project managers? It becomes increasingly clear
that in order to attract and retain the best talent in 2030 that organisations may be compelled to
adopt a more socially responsible ethos and to configure work, or enable workers to configure their
work, to be flexible and balanced.
This section also prepares us to answer research question three in Section 6 below.
6 - Core KSAEs that will prepare 2030 workers for their career
This section draws together our analysis of finding from the three identified foresight reports in light
of literature that helps explain the meaning of work and the KSAEs that will be necessary to operate
within the 2030 work landscape.
6.1 – Assumptions underpinning our analysis

Our analysis has mainly focused on responding those the foresight scenarios that suggest that the
nature of the 2030 workplace will be one in which advanced AI and technology and will destroy most
current routine jobs. Jobs that will remain will be non-routine, highly interactive and dynamic and
workers will be creative in the way they orchestrate resources, technology and people. Participants
in this workforce will span four generational cohorts with the majority being Generation Y. If this
cohort’s current general value system does not radically alter over the next decade, then their
workplace culture will one in which corporate social responsibility will be a key competitive
advantage for organisations that seek to attract and retain customers and key talent workers. The
meaningfulness of work for key talent will be linked to their value system. Their necessary KSAEs to
perform their work will reflect and be supported by this ethos of corporate social responsibility.
Figure 2 illustrates anticipated KSAEs necessary for project delivery in 2030 and for workers to build,
develop and sustain their careers. We argue that project delivery will be largely collaborative in
nature and reflect the need for many collaboration KSAEs as well as technical features.

Figure 2 – 2030 core SKAEs (Source adapted from: Walker & Lloyd-Walker, 2011, p12)
Crawford et al. (2006) identified the need for PM people related ‘soft’ skills as well as the need for
‘hard’ technical and PM technique skills. This view has been justified by many others interesting in
PM KSAE topics, including thought leaders (Dainty, Cheng & Moore, 2004; Morris, 1994; Morris,
2013; Muzio, Fisher, Thomas, & Peters, 2007), and it is a widely shared view.
In Figure 2 we identify hard knowledge and skills being needed at the technical discipline level so
that people are aware of best practice and contextual issues that mediate how best practice may be
applied. We also identify cross-discipline knowledge and skills to allow people to share enough
understanding about each other’s context and technical situation to be able to intelligently
contribute in collaborative discussions such as when challenging planned work methods approach
assumptions for example. PM skills and knowledge is also grouped with the hard skills area as
knowing the range of PM tools and concepts is important when deciding how to apply those that are
relevant and applicable. Similarly understanding the organisational context and how the industry
sector operates for a project is also an important skill. These are generally timeless skills and
knowledge, what is new to the 2030 workplace landscape is the scale and depth of AI application
and digital technology tools that will be available. Orchestrating tools and techniques to configure
and design ways to use this resource will require current knowledge of this dynamic area and will be
a vital skill. These knowledge and skills would be necessary in both the technical ‘hard’ area as well
as ‘soft’ people-related aspects by understanding people, their motivation and psychological needs
and behaviours and how that impacts upon collaboration and job performance.

Contributing experience will cover technical, management, inter-disciplinary and cross-cultural
interactions. Experience with the application of digital technologies to enable people to orchestrate
that resource will be vital. Effective reflection upon experience should enhance a person’s ability to
best learn from past successes as well as disappointments. Systems thinking links to experience with
reflection being linked to the understanding the context in which an event was experienced.
Personal attributes are important considerations as they shape the way in which knowledge and
skills may be applied to a situation. They also shape the way that others in a team make sense in
how to respond to them. Trust for example relies upon personal interaction experiences and
inherent values that shape a personality: commitment, reliability, flexibility and open-mindedness,
motivation and confidence, and authority and ability to influence. The ability to deliver and perform
depends not only on skills and knowledge but also how these are applied. That is why clear strategic
and holistic thinking helps to set a context for motivation and action. The way that orchestration
skills may be best deployed relies upon innovative thinking and action and this makes a significant
differentiating factor to most digital technologies that rely on being programmed. Human creative
innovative thinking is the main reason why non-routine tasks will be undertaken by humans and not
technology.
The final quadrant In Figure 2, the relational orientation component, is shown as being impacted by
the other quadrants through the circle that depicts these three quadrants potentially supporting
relationship orientation. It suggests that the way in which core competencies and skills, contributing
experience and personal attributes helps shape that orientation. It may inform the meaningfulness
of tasks or job elements for example through the way that deployed skills may be identified and
matched to a task and how this matching may impact upon its perceived significance, how task
autonomy may be interpreted and how feedback may be reflected upon. Personal attributes are
important in due to their impact of how people relate to each other, understand another person’s
perspectives, priorities and concerns so that true dialogue may take place. Senge (1990, p226)
discusses the concept competitive tension when discussing the process of dialogue He argues that
the purpose of dialogue is not for one party to convince another of a preferred position but rather
that each party explores the issue to explore assumptions that may be challenged: perhaps the
problem may be re-framing and a novel solution found. Competitive tension dialogue leading to out-
of-the-box thinking is not likely to be available using AI in 2030. However, using AI and high levels of
digital technologies may provide the background research capability to better explore and assess
potential options and so AI augments and not replaces people in non-routine work.
This section helps to address research question three, Which core KSAEs will prepare them, sustain
their career and deliver value to their clients? Figure 2, presents a way to visualise KSAEs and how
they link. Figure 2 suggests excellence in each aspect to represent an ideal state not what will be
demanded or required of people. Those who can develop these KSAEs to a high level of excellence
will no doubt stay ahead of AI and digital technologies such as robots or autonomous AI bots.
Conclusions
This paper reflects upon three foresight reports that investigate scenarios and projection of what the
workplace of 2030 may look like and key skills that people who will be employed at that time would
need to have to survive the impact of digital technologies may have on the nature of jobs and

working in 2030. The paper also uses the literature as a theoretical lens to make sense of reported
projections with a focus on PM, project leaders and other team members.
The paper makes several contributions. First it makes a new theoretical contribution by linking the
2030 future workplace with concepts such as the meaningfulness aspect of work and KSAEs for the
collaborative nature of project work in 2030. A review of the literature suggests that there is little if
any work that covers this aspect of PM despite the rapid and continued projectification of work.
It also makes a contribution to practice through Figure 2 by illustrating in detail what KSAEs may be
required in the future. Orchestration of AI, digital technologies and related technology application to
work is a new skill that will be in demand for project work undertaken by people supported by
technology.
The paper also suggests that in 2030 many companies will be concerned about corporate social
responsibility. Therefore, PM workers will need to consider framing and developing their values
orientation towards triple bottom line outcomes. It also suggests that project workers will be
working in far many more collaborative arrangements than is currently the case. Contemporary
literature on collaborative forms of integrated project delivery may provide a useful guide.
The paper has acknowledged limitations. The future is impossible to accurately predict, however, in
projecting to 2030 we are looking ahead at conditions that will emerge in a little over a decade from
now. It was impossible to undertake empirical research on the future and so we relied upon finding
based on surveys of experts undertaken by the authors of the three chosen foresight reports.
We suggest future research. The manner in which project workers orchestrate digital technologies
they currently have access to would provide a sound basis for understanding how that learning may
be enhanced. Also, we suggest that more generational value system research could be undertaken
with a project delivery context because one key assumption of the three reports we based our paper
on, that over 50% of project workers in 2030 will be from Generation Y. It is unknown whether their
current value system will prevail or how it may change during the next decade.
Finally, our analysis suggests that there is good and bad news about project workers prospects in
2030. The good news is that for those working in non-routine roles their work will be more
interesting and rewarding that is the case for today. The bad news is that for workers in routine
work roles, that they will be replaced by advanced digital technology.
References
Andersen, E. S. (2008). Rethinking Project Management - An Organisational Perspective. Harlow, UK
Pearson Education Limited.
Beitz, S. (2015). Developing the capacity to adapt to industry transformation. In C. Committee for
Economic Development Australia (Ed.), Australia’s future workforce? (pp. 156-166).
Melbourne, Australia: Committee for Economic Development Australia, CEDA.
Blaikie, N. W. H. (2000). Designing social research : the logic of anticipation. Malden, MA: Polity
Press.

Bradlow, H. (2015). The impact of emerging technologies in the wrokforce of the future. In C.
Committee for Economic Development Australia (Ed.), Australia’s future workforce? (pp. 38-
47). Melbourne, Australia: Committee for Economic Development Australia, CEDA.
Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared Leadership in Teams: An Investigation of
Antecedent Conditions and Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1217-
1234. doi: 10.2307/20159921
Committee for Economic Development Australia, C. (2015). Australia’s future workforce? (pp.
248pp). Melbourne, Australia.
Crawford, L., Morris, P., Thomas, J., & Winter, M. (2006). Practitioner development: From trained
technicians to reflective practitioners. International Journal of Project Management, 24(8),
722-733.
Dainty, A. R. J., Cheng, M.-I., & Moore, D. R. (2004). A Competency-Based Performance Model for
Construction Project Managers. Construction Management & Economics, 22(8), 877-888.
Dalcher, D. (2016). Rethinking project practice: emerging insights from a series of books for
practitioners. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 9(4), 798-821. doi:
doi:10.1108/IJMPB-03-2016-0027
Davies, A., Fidler, D., & Gorbis, M. (2011). Future Work Skills 2020 (pp. 19pp). Palo Alto, CA Institute
for the Future for University of Phoenix Research Institute.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Gevers, J. M. P. (2015). Job crafting and extra-role behavior: The role
of work engagement and flourishing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 87-96.
Drescher, M. A., Korsgaard, M. A., Welpe, I. M., Picot, A., & Wigand, R. T. (2014). The dynamics of
shared leadership: Building trust and enhancing performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
99(5), 771-783. doi: doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036474
Durrant-Whyte, H. (2015). Future skills,in information technology. In C. Committee for Economic
Development Australia (Ed.), Australia’s future workforce? (pp. 234-248). Melbourne,
Australia: Committee for Economic Development Australia, CEDA.
Durrant-Whyte, H., McCalman, L., O’Callaghan, S., Reid, A., & Steinberg, D. (2015). The impact of
computerisation and automation on future employment. In C. Committee for Economic
Development Australia (Ed.), Australia’s future workforce? (pp. 58-64). Melbourne, Australia:
Committee for Economic Development Australia, CEDA.
Fox, A. (1974). Man mismanagement. London: Hutchinson.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1997). Experiencing Work: Values, Attitudes, and Moods. Human
Relations, 50(4), 393-417.
Gollschewski, M. (2015). Case study: Automation and Australia's future workforce. In C. Committee
for Economic Development Australia (Ed.), Australia’s future workforce? (pp. 65-77).
Gratton, L., & Ghoshal, S. (2003). Managing Personal Human Capital: New Ethos for the ‘Volunteer’
Employee. European Management Journal, 21(1), 1-10.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250-279. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7
Hodgson, D., & Cicmil, S. (2016). Making projects critical 15 years on: a retrospective reflection
(2001-2016). International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 9(4), 744-751. doi:
doi:10.1108/IJMPB-10-2015-0105
King, C. (2012). Project Management Skills of the Future. (PhD Dissertation), Arizona State
University,.
Laursen, M., & Svejvig, P. (2016). Taking stock of project value creation: A structured literature
review with future directions for research and practice. International Journal of Project
Management, 34(4), 736-747. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.06.007
Luhmann, M. (1979). Trust and Power. Chichester: Wiley.

Lundin, R. A., Midler, C., Sydow, J. r., Ekstedt, E., Arvidsson, N., & Brady, T. (2015). Chapter 3 -
Managing in Project Society Managing and Working in Project Society : Institutional
Challenges of Temporary Organizations (pp. 80-128). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An Integrated Model of Organizational Trust.
Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-735.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the Workplace - Theory, Research, and Application.
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, Continuance, and
Normative Commitment to the Organization: A Meta-analysis of Antecedents, Correlates,
and Consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20-52.
Midler, C. (1995). "Projectification" of the firm: The renault case. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 11(4), 363-375.
Midler, C., & Beaume, R. (2010). Project-based learning patterns for dominant design renewal: The
case of Electric Vehicle. International Journal of Project Management, 28(2), 142-150.
Morris, E. A. (2007). From Horse Power to Horsepower. Access, 30,, 8pp.
Morris, P. W. G. (1994). The Management of Projects A New Model. London: Thomas Telford.
Morris, P. W. G. (2013). Reconstructing Project Management. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Müller, R., Packendorff, J., & Sankaran, S. (2017). Chapter 13 Balanced Leadership. In S. Sankaran, R.
Müller & N. Drouin (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Organizational Project Management (pp.
186-199). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Muzio, E., Fisher, D. J., Thomas, R., & Peters, V. (2007). Soft Skills Quantification (Ssq) for Project
Manager Competencies. Project Management Journal, 38(2), 30-38.
PwC. (2017). Workforce of the future: The competing forces shaping 2030 (pp. 42).
Rockwood, K. (2018). 2018 Jobs Report: In A Time Of Change, Demand For Project Talent Will Keep
Rising. PM Network, 32(1), 28-47.
Scott, A. (2015). Northern lights. In C. Committee for Economic Development Australia (Ed.),
Australia’s future workforce? (pp. 240-248). Melbourne, Australia: Committee for Economic
Development Australia, CEDA.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline - The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. Sydney,
Australia: Random House.
Siebert, S., Martin, G., Bozic, B., & Docherty, I. (2015). Looking ‘Beyond the Factory Gates’: Towards
more Pluralist and Radical Approaches to Intraorganizational Trust Research. Organization
Studies (01708406), 36(8), 1033-1062. doi: 10.1177/0170840615580010
Sjöblom, S., & Godenhjelm, S. (2009). Project Proliferation and Governance—Implications for
Environmental Management. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 11(3), 169-185.
doi: 10.1080/15239080903033762
Svejvig, P., & Andersen, P. (2015). Rethinking project management: A structured literature review
with a critical look at the brave new world. International Journal of Project Management,
33(2), 278-290. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.06.004
Svejvig, P., & Grex, S. (2016). The Danish agenda for rethinking project management. International
Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 9(4), 822-844. doi: doi:10.1108/IJMPB-11-2015-
0107
Taylor, N. (2015). The industrial revolution's next wave. In C. Committee for Economic Development
Australia (Ed.), Australia’s future workforce? (pp. 18-30). Melbourne, Australia: Committee
for Economic Development Australia, CEDA.
Tee, B., & Xu, J. (2015). How next-gen computing is changing the way we work. In C. Committee for
Economic Development Australia (Ed.), Australia’s future workforce? (pp. 48-55).
United Kingdom Commission for Employment and Skills. (2014). The Future of Work: Jobs and skills
in 2030 (pp. 198pp): United Kingdom Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES).

Utterback, J. M. (1994). Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation : How Companies Can Seize
Opportunities in the Face of Technological Change. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School
Press.
van der Hoorn, B. (2016). Continental thinking: a tool for accessing the project experience.
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 9(4), 865-891. doi:
doi:10.1108/IJMPB-06-2015-0044
Walker, D. H. T., & Lloyd-Walker, B. (2016). Rethinking project management: Its influence on papers
published in the international journal of managing projects in business. International Journal
of Managing Projects in Business, 9(4), 716-743. doi: doi:10.1108/IJMPB-12-2015-0121
Walker, D. H. T., & Lloyd-Walker, B. M. (2011). Profiling Professional Excellence in Alliance
Management Volume One - Findings and results. In A. Mignot (Ed.), (pp. 76pp). Sydney:
Alliancing Association of Australasia.
Walker, D. H. T., & Lloyd-Walker, B. M. (2015). Collaborative Project Procurement Arrangements.
Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature
Review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii-xxiii.
Wegman, L. A., Hoffman, B. J., Carter, N. T., Twenge, J. M., & Guenole, N. (2018). Placing Job
Characteristics in Context: Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis of Changes in Job Characteristics
Since 1975. Journal of Management, 44(1), 352-386. doi: 10.1177/0149206316654545

The Future of The Management of Projects in The 2030s

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Future of The Management of Projects in The 2030s

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Future of the Management of Projects in the 2030s

Derek H.T. Walker

E217 IJMPiB SI paper V2 Page 1

2 - The Research Approach

E217 IJMPiB SI paper V2 Page 2

E217 IJMPiB SI paper V2 Page 3

These scenarios comprise:

E217 IJMPiB SI paper V2 Page 4

E217 IJMPiB SI paper V2 Page 5

3.1 - 2030 foresight report assumptions and conclusions

3.1.1 Shared report assumptions

E217 IJMPiB SI paper V2 Page 6

E217 IJMPiB SI paper V2 Page 7

3.1.3 The CEDA (2015) Report

E217 IJMPiB SI paper V2 Page 8

E217 IJMPiB SI paper V2 Page 9

3.1.4 PwC (2017)

E217 IJMPiB SI paper V2 Page 10

3.2 - 2030 worker’s KSAEs

E217 IJMPiB SI paper V2 Page 11

E217 IJMPiB SI paper V2 Page 12

E217 IJMPiB SI paper V2 Page 13

E217 IJMPiB SI paper V2 Page 14

5 - Answering research question two

5.1 - Jobs, tasks and the meaningfulness of work

E217 IJMPiB SI paper V2 Page 15

E217 IJMPiB SI paper V2 Page 16

E217 IJMPiB SI paper V2 Page 17

Figure 1 – Job motivation and output/outcome

E217 IJMPiB SI paper V2 Page 18

5.2 - Jobs, tasks and the value of work

6.1 – Assumptions underpinning our analysis

E217 IJMPiB SI paper V2 Page 19

E217 IJMPiB SI paper V2 Page 20

E217 IJMPiB SI paper V2 Page 21

E217 IJMPiB SI paper V2 Page 22

E217 IJMPiB SI paper V2 Page 23

E217 IJMPiB SI paper V2 Page 24

E217 IJMPiB SI paper V2 Page 25

You might also like