PAPERS The Metaphysical Questions Every
Project Practitioner Should Ask
Lavagnon A. Ika, Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Christophe N. Bredillet, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (UQTR), Quebec, Canada
ABSTRACT ■
Project practitioners become so familiar with
the word project that they think about it
more in terms of how it is used, and less in
terms of what it really is. But is there such a
thing as the project being managed? What’s
most real in the project? What’s a project?
We raise these questions to contribute a
subtler understanding of project manage-
ment, and to help project practitioners see
that their metaphysical stance informs their
project management style: A thing-based
understanding leads to a planned project
management style, and a process-based
understanding leads to an emergent man-
agement style.
KEYWORDS: philosophy; metaphysics;
ontology; project reality; project
management practice
Project Management Journal, Vol. 47, No. 3, 86–100
© 2016 by the Project Management Institute
Published online at www.pmi.org/PMJ
86 June/July 2016 ■ Project Management Journal
INTRODUCTION
The Reality of What We Name “Project” Matters
The vision statements put forth by the two main professional bodies in project
management are as follows:
“Worldwide, organizations will embrace, value, and utilize project management and
attribute their success to it.” (The PMI Envisioned Goal)
“Promoting competence throughout society to enable a world in which all projects
succeed.” (Retrieved from http://blog.ipma.ch/ipma-moving-fast-forward-with-new-
strategy-2020/)
Both of these statements make an assumption about the reality of some-
thing named a “project.” For project practitioners, organizations, stakehold-
ers, and society in general, this raises a fundamental question: What is a
project? We wish to make it clear that when Hodgson and Cicmil (2007) state,
“Rather than asking ‘what is a project?’ we should pose the question in these
terms: ‘what do we do when we call something a project?’” they still assume
the existence and reality of something called a “project” (p. 432).
The question about the reality of a project is important, because one of the
most common reasons a project doesn’t deliver the expected results relates to
stakeholders not understanding and not agreeing on what the project really is
(e.g., Morris, 2013). Indeed, a project can be seen as a product, a purpose, a
goal (technical, individual, collective, existential), a process, a change, a con-
cept, a story, an organizing device, a problem-solving approach, a practice,
a set of tasks, a cost, an anticipation (temporal or spatial) of the future, and/
or any combination of these (Bredillet, 2004). As acknowledged by Boutinet
(2001), a project is a polysemic concept, a reality with multiple intertwined
facets. Yet, project practitioners are often unaware of the polysemic nature
of the word project and the plurality of “realities” it covers. Regrettably, this
leads to misunderstandings that carry with them significant socio-politico-
economic consequences, such as perceived magnitude of failure.
Critical Questions
Most project practitioners would admit that their motto is: “just do it.” Yet they
can’t afford to rush headlong into a project. Indeed, they know that projects
are complex to manage, and that the shortest line between two points is not
always the “best” route. To get off to a good start, they may begin by asking
why; by more clearly articulating the reasons the project came into being in
the first place, they hope to improve their chances of success. Other compel-
ling yet simple questions are also worth asking, but their answers are not
simple at all: Is there such a thing as the project being managed? What’s most
real in the project? What’s a project anyway? Philosophers call these ques-
tions “metaphysical.” Getting answers to them is critical. Indeed, just as it is
hard to see the forest for the trees, there
is the need to go beyond the multiple
forms of the project’s physical realities
as we perceive them, and consider the
project’s metaphysics.
The Potential Usefulness of
Metaphysical Questions . . . and
Answers
In philosophy, as Jaspers (1883–1969)
argues, questions are more impor-
tant than answers, and every answer
becomes a question. Russell (1912/1997)
also warns: “Utility does not belong to
philosophy” (p. 153). Furthermore, phi-
losophers such as Hume (1711–1776),
Kant (1724–1804), and recently Ayer
(1910–1989) have severely criticized
metaphysics as being futile and overly
vague (e.g., Hight, 2008).
We argue that metaphysics can help
clarify our underlying ideas about the
world or the universe. We submit that
metaphysical questions are important,
even in project management practice.
If project practitioners don’t know what
a project really is, how can they make
sense of it? How can they understand it?
How can they explain it? How can they
know what makes it a success or a fail-
ure? And above all, how can they create
“theories” about it, learn from the past,
and better manage upcoming projects
in the future?
Considering what philosophers say
about the importance of the nature of
reality, we contend that the metaphysi-
cal stance of project practitioners is not
limited to “their opinion”; it is also part
of the way they “live” the project, and
the foundation of everything they do in
the project (Solomon & Higgins, 2010).
In other words, their metaphysical stance
matters a good deal in their project man-
agement practice (e.g., Whitty, 2013).
Back to the metaphysical questions.
Is there such a thing as the project being
managed? Project practitioners may not
have contemplated this metaphysical
question, but if they do, they will be
faced with the classical philosophical
puzzle that Quine (1948) nicknames
Plato’s Beard: “Nonbeing must in some
sense be, otherwise what is it that there
is not?” (p. 21). Applying this to proj-
ect management, if their project is not
a project, practitioners should not be
dealing with it. Or should they? If the
answer is yes, what, then, is the project?
Most project management practi-
tioners think they know what a project
is and what it is not, in the same way
that they know what is in and out of the
project’s scope. Project management
textbooks often pin this down right
at the beginning, or discuss it when
speculating about project characteris-
tics. Thus, project management practi-
tioners are likely to read that a project
is “a temporary endeavor undertaken
to create a unique product, service or
result” (PMI, 2013, p. 3), or “a time and
cost constrained operation to realise a
set of defined deliverables (the scope
to fulfil the project’s objectives) up to
quality standards and requirements”
(IPMA, 2006, p. 13), or “a unique set
of processes consisting of coordinated
and controlled activities with start and
end dates, performed to achieve project
objectives” (ISO 21500, 2012, p. 3). But
are such taken-for-granted and unques-
tioned definitions of the polysemic and
chameleon-like word project enough to
avoid confusion, ambiguity, and medi-
ocrity in professional practice?
Many observers remain skeptical
(Weaver & Bourne, 2002). Paraphrasing
Pinker (2014) about what he aptly calls
the “curse of knowledge” (p. 71) and,
in this case the underlying cognitive
bias of functional fixity, project prac-
titioners may have become so familiar
with the word project that they think
about it more in terms of how they
use it and less in terms of what the
project looks like and what it is made
of. So, we ask: What is a project really?
Is the project really what it looks like?
Is there any difference between what it
seems to be and what it really is (Russell,
1912/1997)? And what is most real in the
project? In this context, we encourage
project practitioners to take the time
to uncover what lies underneath the
“project” label (Gauthier & Ika, 2012;
June/July 2016
Linehan & Kavanagh, 2006; van der
Hoorn & Whitty, 2015). In addressing
the above-mentioned questions, this
article seeks to contribute a subtler
understanding of project management
practice, and hopes to inspire project
practitioners to understand how their
metaphysical stance influences their
project management style.
To that end, we take a pluralistic
view of the theory and practice of proj-
ect management (Morris, 2013) as a
blessing in disguise. Hence, the article
focuses not on one particular philo-
sophical contribution, but rather ranges
across many because it gives us an
opportunity to shed light on metaphysi-
cal questions pertaining to projects by
fully embracing the diversity, variety,
and richness of a number of insights
from pre-Socratic to Enlightenment phi-
losophers. In so doing, we hope to see
the forest, and not the trees, of project
metaphysics. But this methodological
choice comes at a cost. We cannot dis-
sect and expose at length the specific
contribution of any particular philoso-
pher, nor can we discuss the merits
and demerits of each philosopher’s
metaphysical thoughts. Still, this loss
of depth is offset by a gain in breadth.
Thus, project practitioners and, per-
haps, researchers can learn a good deal,
although in a cursory manner, from
a particular philosopher’s standpoint,
about the breadth of metaphysical
considerations worthy of attention in
project settings. So much for a word
of caution. What is the outline of this
article?
The remainder of this article is struc-
tured as follows. First, we define meta-
physics and consider some of the main
metaphysical problems that can pertain
to projects. Second, we briefly go back
to the roots of the polysemic concept of
a “project.” Third, we explore the prin-
ciples and reality of projects. Fourth, we
discuss the emergence and existence
of distinct realities for projects (project
ontologies), showing how two contrast-
ing metaphysical worldviews of projects
relate to different logics of action. Fifth,
■ Project Management Journal  87
 The Metaphysical Questions Every Project Practitioner Should Ask
PAPERS
and finally, in light of the above, we sug-
gest some metaphysical insights about
projects and their implications for proj-
ect management practitioners.
What Do We Mean by
Metaphysics and What Are Its
Main Problems?
The word metaphysics originates from
the Greek, Ta meta ta phusika, which
can be translated as “the ones after the
physical ones.” Hence, it means going
beyond physics. Metaphysics—a broad
area of philosophy—is the attempt to
study the nature of reality or “being and/
or existence as such,” which includes the
first causes and immutable principles
of things (Craig, 1998; van Inwagen &
­Sullivan, 2015). As such, it explores two
main questions: (1) Are there principles
that apply to everything that is real, to all
that is? and (2) What is most real?
Thus, metaphysics and ontology
(the study of what there is and its nature)
are very closely related—just as the two
main metaphysical questions are inher-
ently linked (Craig, 1998). Indeed, meta-
physics seeks to understand the essence
and existence of things, and the types
of distinct things that fundamentally
exist. This article not only addresses the
essence and existence of projects, and
the emergence and existence of distinct
types (perceptions) of projects or proj-
ect ontologies (Bredillet 2010; Craig,
1998; Gauthier & Ika, 2012; Solomon &
Higgins, 2010; Whitty, 2013), but it also
questions what is most real in projects
or what is ultimately a project.
Overall, the point of metaphysics is
to discover what is most real, what is
most basic, and what is to be accounted
for in terms of “what” (Solomon &
­Higgins, 2010; Whitty, 2013). However,
we are aware that the word ­metaphysics
is not easy to define and that it has
become a catchall concept today that
includes topics such as the relation of
mind and body and the freedom of the
will or personal identity across time.
These are ideas that Aristotle and the
medievals saw as belonging to physics
(van Inwagen & Sullivan, 2015).
88  June/July 2016 ■ Project Management Journal
Among the main metaphysical prob-
lems mentioned by multiple authors
(e.g., Craig, 1998; Mastin, 2008; Seibt,
2013; van Inwagen & Sullivan, 2015),
the following are of particular relevance
to “projects,” as we shall see later and in
Table 2 in particular:
• The nature of being (Parmenides,
539–492 bce; Heraclitus, 536–470 bce),
and the contrast between existence and
essence (Aristotle, 384–322 bce).
• Objects (physical such as materi-
als, and abstract such as emotions
and numbers) and their attributes or
properties (universals existing out-
side of space and time, outside their
instantiation—Plato, 427–347 bce).
• Causation, determinism, and free-
dom. Determinism holds that noth-
ing happens that has not already been
determined. The principal conse-
quence of the deterministic claim is
that it poses a challenge to the exis-
tence of freedom. The problem of free-
dom is whether rational agents exercise
control over their own actions and
decisions (see, for example, Aristotle,
Leibniz, 1646–1716).
• Mind and matter (mental and physical).
The idea of matter and the problem of
the nature of matter was introduced
by Aristotle. Early debates centered on
identifying a single underlying principle
of matter. Water was claimed by Thales
(624–546 bce), air by Anaximenes
(585–528 bce), Apeiron (the Bound-
less) by Anaximander (610–546 bce),
and fire by Heraclitus. Democritus
(460–371, bce) developed an atomic
theory many centuries before it was
accepted by modern science.
• Identity and change. Parmenides denied
that change occurs at all, while Hera-
clitus thought change was ubiquitous:
“You cannot step into the same river
twice.”
• Space and time. A traditional realist
position in ontology is that time and
space exist apart from the human mind.
Idealists claim that space and time
are mental constructs used to orga-
nize perceptions. Leibniz believed that
without physical objects, “space” would
be meaningless because space is the
framework upon which we understand
how physical objects are related to one
another. In ancient times Parmenides
denied the flow of time. Today, funda-
mental laws are seen as time-reversible,
and the arrow of time is thought of as an
“emergent” phenomenon that may be
explained by a statistical understanding
of thermodynamic entropy.
The Roots of the Polysemic
Concept of Project
The concept of “project” comes from
various roots, making its meaning and
reality particularly complex to grasp
(Boutinet, 2001). The Latin language
has no word project, and the best cor-
responding substantive is propositum
(although it comes from a different ety-
mology). In fact, Latins used periph-
rases such as quid cogitant (what they
think), quid mente agitavi (what I am
concerned with), or mihi est propositum
(my purpose is). Ancient Greeks had no
equivalent either, and the closest words
can be found in the opposition between
moral choice (proairesis) and choice
related to a defined purpose (boulèsis).
The concept of “project” was incon-
sistently used until the 20th century;
here are some examples. During the
15th century, the word was used in two
forms of ancient French: pourjet and
project. The words had a spatial meaning
linked to the Latin etymology progicio
(throw forward, throw out). In the world
of architecture and, more specifically,
the Quattrocento period, Brunelleschi
(1377–1446) separated the architectural
design from the execution of the work:
The architect became responsible for
the project and the choice of techniques
used to execute it.
In the 17th and 18th centuries, the
term project was sometimes linked
to social progress, as found in Rous-
seau’s essay (1750) Un jugement sur
le projet de paix perpétuelle (Judg-
ment on Perpetual Peace) and in Kant’s
opuscule (1795) Zum ewigen Frieden.
Ein philosophischer Entwurf (Perpetual
Peace: A Philosophical Sketch), where
the German word entwurf is associated
with the word purpose.
Principles and Reality of a
Project: Some Metaphysical
Considerations
Plato’s Allegory of the Cave
What is ultimately a project? To gain
insight into this question, we tap into the
wisdom of the Allegory of the Cave, writ-
ten by one of the greatest philosophers
of all time, Plato (427–347 bce) in his
famous book, The Republic. Its fictional
dialogue between Plato’s teacher Socrates
and Plato’s brother Glaucon is well known
and full of insights for this article.
For project management, Plato’s
allegory teaches us two important
things: (1) that there are different ways
of seeing or not seeing a project, in
other words, the contrast between Meta-
physical Worldviews of Being Versus
Becoming; and (2) that the project con-
sists of both the physical or material
elements and the eternal or immate-
rial elements that Plato calls “forms”
(­
S olomon & Higgins, 2010), in other
words, the contrast of Ancient Material-
ism Versus Ancient Immaterialism.
Project practitioners may focus on
the physical or material elements of the
project that are experienced through the
senses: inputs such as money, time, and
resources; project artifacts such as char-
ter, scope statement, and plan; and out-
puts such as car, phone, or skyscraper.
In so doing, they spend much of their
time in the ordinary material world, the
world of “shadows,” what Heraclitus
(536–470 bce) calls the world of “becom-
ing” and Bertrand Russell (1912/1997)
calls the “world of existence”: “The world
of existence is fleeting, vague, without
sharp boundaries, without any clear
plan or arrangement, but it contains all
thoughts and feelings, all the data of
sense, and all physical objects, every-
thing that can do either good or harm,
everything that makes any difference to
the value of life and the world” (p. 100).
Things in this world tend to emerge,
change, die, or disappear. That’s the
case of inputs that turn into outputs
throughout the project. To illustrate this
point, we make an analogy between the
project plan and hand-drawing a tri-
angle in an attempt to prove a theorem
of Euclidian geometry about triangles:
Much like one cannot draw a true trian-
gle with straight exact lines and angles,
project practitioners cannot mistake the
plan for the true project. As Plato con-
tends, the perfect project, if there is one,
does not exist anywhere in the material
world. Indeed, in such a diachronic
world, project practitioners deal only
with images of the project, never with
the reality that lies behind it.
Project management practitioners
may wonder where the “perfect” project
exists. Plato would say that it is found in
another world that is more real than the
material world; it is a world that is pure,
eternal, and immaterial, and can only
be known through reason, not through
experience. Parmenides (539–492 bce)
would call it a “being,” permanent, syn-
chronic, and unchanging world. “The
world of being is unchangeable, rigid,
exact, delightful to the mathematician,
the logician, the builder of metaphysi-
cal systems, and all who love perfec-
tion more than life” (Russell, 1912/1997,
p. 100). Which of the two worlds do
today’s project practitioners prefer?
According to our temperaments, we shall
prefer the contemplation of one or of the
other. The one we do not prefer will proba-
bly seem to us a pale shadow of the one we
prefer, and hardly worthy to be regarded
as in any sense real. But the truth is that
both have the same claim on our impar-
tial attention, both are real, and both are
important to the metaphysician. (Russell,
1912/1997, p. 100)
Plato’s Allegory of the Cave brilliantly
and creatively ties together the Greek
and pre-Socratic views of both ancient
materialism that sees the project as con-
sisting of purely stable, physical, or mate-
rial elements (e.g., Thales, 624–546 bce;
Democritus, 460–371 bce), and ancient
immaterialism that sees the project as
nothing more than numbers, minds, or
June/July 2016
spirits (e.g., Pythagoras, 571–497 bce;
Parmenides 539–492 bce; Heraclitus
536–470 bce). Like Pythagoras, who con-
siders numbers more important than
trees and tables, Plato gives primacy
to eternal principles. Like Parmenides,
Plato purports that things in our day-
to-day experience are not truly real
(for example, the project plan), and yet
like Heraclitus, he appreciates the notion
of constant change and its underlying
logic, which Plato captures in what he
calls “form” (Solomon & Higgins, 2010).
Plato’s Allegory of the Cave also illus-
trates the difference between what the
project appears to be and what the project
really is; this is what Russell (1912/1997)
sees as “one of the distinctions that cause
most trouble in philosophy.” (p. 9) In
this context, the more real project (if it
is real at all) is not the project plan, nor
is it something practitioners can sense.
Rather, with experience, project practi-
tioners can construct and shape a project
from the elements they can see, includ-
ing an artifact like the project plan.
Here we have already the beginning of
one of the distinctions that cause the
most trouble in philosophy—the distinc-
tion between “appearance” and “reality”,
between what things seem to be and what
they are. The painter wants to know what
things seem to be, the practical man and
the philosopher want to know what they
are. (Russell, 1912/1997, p. 9)
Plato’s Universals: Implications for
Projects and Project Management
We can take away another lesson from
Plato’s “theory of ideas,”1 which contends
that particulars such as red roses, pens,
and shirts can have things in common—
like “redness” (Quine, 1948), or that there
is a “chairiness” in the idea of a pure
and universal form of a chair (Whitty,
2013). For project management, this
suggests that projects can share some
characteristic—let’s call it “project-ness”
(Quine, 1948). This project-ness includes
1Although Plato sees universals as “ideas,” one cannot con-
sider them ideas in the mind because the notion of “mind”
was not recognized by early philosophers (Russell, 1912/1997).
■ Project Management Journal  89
 The Metaphysical Questions Every Project Practitioner Should Ask
PAPERS
properties, characteristics, or “predi-
cates” (as philosophers call them), such
as having needs, objectives, scope, con-
straints, deliverables, milestones, budget,
time-duration, resources, risks, organiza-
tion structures, roles and responsibili-
ties for project stakeholders, schedules,
and tracking measures. Moreover, “the
more real or perfect project” is also a
universal, a form.
Because project-ness and the more
real project—to name but a few universals—
are not particulars, they cannot exist
in our day-to-day world (“the world of
existence”); “they are things other than
particular things, which particular things
partake of and have characteristics of”
(Russell, 1912/1997, pp. 92–93). The Pla-
tonic universals are very influential in
project management.
There is much Platonic thinking in the
world of project management. Most if not
all drawings of project management pro-
cesses in project management journals
and textbooks such as the PMBOK Guide
are of universal forms. . . . Perhaps like
Plato, we feel that if we identify the uni-
versal forms that comprise projects and
project management, we will in some way
come to know more about the reality of
project and project management. (Whitty,
2013, pp. 99–100)
Aristotle: The Everyday Project World Is
the Real One
Common-sense thinker Aristotle (384–
322 bce) does not reject the all-important
distinction between appearances and
reality, but he strongly disagrees with
his teacher Plato’s two-worldview and,
in a sense, brings Plato down to earth.
From the Aristotelian perspective, the
everyday project world is the real one
and there is no other. He believed that
“formal principles or universals that
form things into what they are could
be found in the substance of the thing
itself and not apart from it” (Whitty,
2013, p. 100). Taking this viewpoint,
the project plan is just a small part of
the project, yet it is the real thing—“the
substance or a thing that exists in its
own right.”
90  June/July 2016 ■ Project Management Journal
An early, extremely influential view about
reality seen in its most general light is that
it consists of things and their properties—
individual things, often called particulars,
and properties, often called universals that
can belong to many such individuals. . . .
Very closely allied to this notion of an indi-
vidual is the concept of substance, that in
which properties “inhere.” (van Inwagen &
Sullivan, 2015, p. 16)
However, just because we under-
stand that small part does not neces-
sarily mean that we grasp the whole
project—“the essence.” Much of project
management today is grounded in
Aristotelian thinking.
Project management processes and prac-
tices (the essential cause of a project) give
the project its identifiable “life-cycle” form.
So the essence of the project, that is to say
those features that make an experience
a project, are inextricable from the prac-
tices and process that are recognizable
as project management. A point to take
from this line of reasoning is that we do
not apply project management to projects,
but rather a body of work is identifiable
as a project because project management
is applied to it. It is project management,
the implementation of particular practices
and processes that cause the form of work
to be identifiable as a project. (Whitty,
2013, p. 103)
In this light, there are two starting
points to explore the question about
what a project ultimately is. Project
practitioners may espouse Plato’s view
that the project is something other than
the day-to-day project things, or they
may accept Aristotle’s view that the
project really is what they can see as a
substance of the daily life of it, such as
the project plan (Solomon & Higgins,
2010). But do these two post-Socratic
metaphysical views tell the whole story?
Berkeley, Leibniz, and Enlightenment
Idealists: Ideas Are the Most Real Part
of a Project
Some might insist that the “mind” should
at least be part of the answer to the ques-
tion about what a project ultimately is.
This is the case for Idealist philosophers
who deeply believe that the mind or con-
sciousness is the whole answer, whether
it is an individual’s mind or that of God.
“The word ‘idealism’ is used by differ-
ent philosophers in somewhat different
senses. We shall understand by it the
doctrine that whatever exists, or at any
rate whatever can be known to exist,
must be in some sense mental” (Russell,
1912/1997, p. 37).
Inspired by Descartes’s argument
(1596–1650) that our ideas are the only
things we can know directly, idealists
would posit that ideas define the project.
If Leibniz (1646–1716) were to consider a
specific project, he would see it as a com-
munity of souls. Berkeley (1685–1753), a
bishop and theistic idealist, would say
the project is simply an idea in the mind
of God and that there is no such thing as
matter at all. In his worldview, the project
consists of nothing but minds (and their
ideas), which “perceive” the matter in the
project. Thus, the project exists because
practitioners experience it in the mind,
as they think and perceive it. His view-
point has merit for project management,
because ideas are clearly important in
projects. Table 1 summarizes what is
most real in the universe and in a project.
Emergence and Existence of
Distinct Realities for Projects
What do project researchers tell us about
a “project” and about what a “project”
really is? Apart from taken-for-granted
acceptations of the word project, how is
a project ultimately defined in the proj-
ect management literature? Ever since
the pre-Socratic philosophers, the onto-
logical views have been presented in an
either/or manner. Project management
literature is no exception.
A Being Versus Becoming Project
Ontology
Much has been written about the
Parmenidean-inspired Democritean,
synchronic, being, thing ontology of an
unchanging and stable reality versus a
Heraclitean, diachronic, becoming, pro-
cess ontology of a changing and emerging
reality (Chia, 2013; Gauthier & Ika, 2012;
 Philosopher Nature of Reality: What Is Most Real? Nature of a Project: What Is Most Real?
Pre-Socratic Era
Ancient materialism: Reality ultimately consists of physical or material elements.
Thales Reality is ultimately water. A project is ultimately inputs.
(624–546 bce)
Anaximander Reality is made of some basic “stuff” that we may not A project is ultimately some basic “stuff” that we
(610–546 bce) experience as such. may not experience as such.
Democritus Reality consists of tiny atoms. A project consists of building blocks.
(460–371 bce)
Ancient immaterialism: Reality ultimately consists of eternal or immaterial elements.
Pythagoras Reality is ultimately numbers. A project is ultimately numbers (e.g., time, cost).
(571–497 bce)
Parmenides Reality is unchanging and unknown to us (the world of being). A project is ultimately unchanging and unknown to us
(539–492 bce) (the being in the project).
Heraclitus Reality is change, but with an underlying logic (the world of A project is ultimately change, but with an underlying
(536–470 bce) becoming). logic (the becoming in the project).
Post-Socratic Era
Plato Reality is the eternal, immaterial and being world of pure A project is ultimately the eternal, immaterial, and
(427–347 bce) forms. being part of it.
Aristotle Reality is the everyday world of “substances:” things, trees, A project is ultimately “substances.”
(384–322 bce) people, and so forth.
Enlightenment Idealists: Reality is ultimately mind or consciousness.
Leibniz Reality is a community of souls. A project is ultimately a community of souls.
(ce 1646–1716)
Berkeley Reality is an idea in the mind of God. A project is ultimately an idea in the mind of God.
(ce 1685–1753)
Table 1: Metaphysical views of the nature of reality: What is “most real” in the universe and in a project?

Koskela & Kagioglou, 2006; Linehan &
Kavanagh, 2006). Here is what Linehan
and Kavanagh (2006) have to say about a
being versus becoming project ontology:
In this worldview, primacy is given to
objects, things, states, events and nouns.
In the context of projects, a being ontology
leads us to talk and think about organisa-
tion structure in an objectified manner.
In other words, our descriptions privilege
static accounts of group structuring—for
instance, the common discussion in proj-
ect management texts and practice about
the taxonomic distinctions between func-
tional, weak matrix, balanced matrix,
strong matrix and projectised structures.
Moreover, these are seen as planned ele-
ments of the project organisation, pre-
existing the actual activities of the project
group. This style of thinking leads us to
consider project organisations as things,
akin to elephants and other organisms,
with functions, parts and structure, and
relationships with similar entities in the
“environment” be they parent organisa-
tions, client organisations, subcontractors
or state institutions. (Linehan & Kavanagh,
2006, pp. 52–53)
In a being ontological worldview,
then, a project consists of isolatable,
stable, and atomistic entities2 that
can simply be located in space-time
(Chia, 2013). This has been the domi-
nant viewpoint in project management.
In contrast, there is the less common
becoming project ontology:
The becoming ontology emphasises pro-
cess, verbs, activity and the construction
of entities. With respect to structure and
2This is the proper term for “things” in philosophy.
organisation, it calls attention to the
dynamics of how such structural and
procedural issues are made relevant and
played out within specific project con-
texts. It focuses our attentions on situa-
tions in which members negotiate their
use of governing principles and structural
arrangements in actual practice. Thus,
rather than speaking about structure and
roles, we instead speak about structuring
and sense-making. (Linehan & Kavanagh,
2006, pp. 54–55)
A Realist Versus Nominalist Project
Ontology
A realist ontology focuses on an objec-
tive project reality that consists of
hard, concrete, and real entities exter-
nal to the individual and independent
from the observer; this is in opposi-
tion to a nominalist (or conventionalist)

June/July 2016 ■ Project Management Journal  91

 The Metaphysical Questions Every Project Practitioner Should Ask
PAPERS
ontology of a project reality external
to the individual but made of nothing
more than conventions (that is, names,
concepts, labels), which we use as tools
to make sense of the project (Burrell &
Morgan, 1979; Gauthier & Ika, 2012).
The thesis that universals exist—or at any
rate “subsist” or “have being” is variously
called “realism” or “Platonic realism” or
“platonism”. . . . The thesis that universals
do not exist—do not so much subsist; have
no being of any sort—is generally called
“nominalism.” (van Inwagen & Sullivan,
2015, p. 9)
As Burrell and Morgan (1979) state
with respect to realism:
Realism, (. . .) postulates that the social
world external to individual cognition is a
real world made up of hard, tangible, and
relatively immutable structures. Whether
or not we label and perceive these struc-
tures, the realists maintain they still exist
as empirical entities. We may not even be
aware of the existence of certain crucial
structures and therefore have no “names”
or concepts to articulate them. For the
realist, the social world exists indepen-
dently of an individual’s appreciation of it.
The individual is seen as being born into
and living within a social world, which
has a reality of its own. It is not something
which the individual creates—it exists
“out there”: ontologically it is prior to the
existence and consciousness of any single
human being. For the realist, the social
world has an existence, which is as hard
and concrete as the natural world. (p. 4)
Here is the description of nominal-
ism, according to Burrell and Morgan
(1979):
The nominalism position revolves around
the assumption that the social world exter-
nal to individual cognition is made up of
nothing more than names, concepts and
labels, which are used to structure reality.
The nominalist does not admit to there
being any “real” structure to the world,
which these concepts are used to describe.
The “names” used are regarded as artificial
creations whose utility is based upon their
convenience as tools for describing, mak-
ing sense of and negotiating the external
92  June/July 2016 ■ Project Management Journal
world. Nominalism is often equated with
conventionalism, and we will make no dis-
tinction between them. (p. 4; italics added)
For nominalists, then, projects are
conventions and, thus, different from
the organization, project settings, and
individual perspectives.
A Materialist Versus Idealist Project
Ontology
Materialism and idealism are two major
historical metaphysical traditions. Both
are ancient. However, though idealism
has held more sway in modern times
(especially in the 19th century), materi-
alism has been on the rise since the sec-
ond half of the 20th century (Craig, 1998).
Both realists and nominalists argue for a
social world external to individual cogni-
tion, so they may be called “materialists”
in a true ancient materialist tradition. If
asked what’s real in a project, material-
ists would name the physical and mate-
rial inputs and outputs.
In contrast, like Blomquist and
Lundin (2010), the idealists would ask:
“Are projects real or virtual?” Hence,
some researchers argue that both real-
ists and nominalists are wrong: They
reject the idea that the project is outside
the mind or consciousness, and believe
it to be the fruit of the mind instead
(e.g., Pellegrinelli, 2011). This is idealist
project ontology, in a true Enlighten-
ment idealist tradition.
Thus, a project manager may either
opt for a materialist ontology or an ide-
alist ontology. Adapting the words of
Russell (1912/1997), we may ask: Is there
a project that has a certain intrinsic
nature and continues to exist when you
are not managing it, or is it a dream-
project in a very prolonged dream or a
mere product of your imagination?
Summary: Two Metaphysical
Worldviews and Related Logics of
Action
Interestingly, two metaphysical world-
views underpin all four main project
ontologies (being, becoming, materialist,
and idealist): a Parmenidean-inspired
Democritean thing (or substance) meta-
physics and a Heraclitean process meta-
physics (Chia, 2013; Gauthier & Ika,
2012; Koskela & Kagioglou, 2005, 2006;
Linehan & Kavanagh, 2006; Rescher,
1996: Seibt, 2013).
We also note that these distinct types
of project realities can be related to spe-
cific goals and logics of action (Kilduff,
Mehra, & Dunn, 2011). For example, the
following logics of action are related to
ontologies rooted in thing metaphys-
ics (that is, being, realism, nominalism,
materialism, idealism):
• Structural Realist: Discover the fun-
damental structure of the universe
through pure research.
• Strong Paradigm: Create a scientific
paradigm and exploit its implications.
• Critical Realist: Emancipate people
from prevailing structures of power
and oppression (Kilduff et al., 2011).
• Pragmatist: Experience the world
through abductive fallible inquiry with
ethical ends-in-view (Martela, 2015).
In contrast, the following logics of
action are related to ontologies rooted
in process metaphysics:
• Foundationalist: Find hidden patterns
in data through induction.
• Instrumentalist: Rely (or use) on Truth-
independent problem solving.
• Critical Realist: Emancipate people
from prevailing structures of power
and oppression.
• Pragmatist: Experience the world
through abductive fallible inquiry
with ethical ends-in-view.
The particular characteristics of criti-
cal realism and pragmatism—integrating,
for instance, pattern finding—make these
logics of action suitable for the types of
realities rooted in both thing and process
metaphysics. In light of the central meta-
physical problems pertaining to projects,
Table 2 contrasts a thing-based under-
standing where the project is seen as a
“thing,” with a process-based understand-
ing where the project is seen as a “process.”

Main Problems Thing Metaphysics
Nature of being, Reality is unchanging being
and the contrast (Parmenides)
between existence Essence: what something is
and essence Existence: that something is
Objects and their Static, time invariant entities
attributes or (material or immaterial, concrete or
properties abstract)
Causation, Determinism holds that every
determinism, and event, including human cognition,
freedom decision, and action, is causally
determined by an unbroken chain
of prior occurrences. Nothing
happens that has not already been
determined.
Regarding the problem of freedom,
i.e., whether rational agents
exercise control over their own
actions and decisions, determinism
tries to understand the relationship
between freedom and causation,
and whether laws of the considered
reality are causally deterministic.
The main consequence of the
deterministic claim is that it
challenges the existence of
freedom, and vice versa
Mind and matter The nature of matter was
questioned in early philosophy, and
the goal was to identify a single
underlying principle. Debate about
the relation between the mind (or
soul) and the body led to opposing
conceptions, such as: substance
dualism, where the mind and
body are essentially different but
interact, versus unity of substance,
where they are seen as a single
principle (the stance of idealists
as they tend to favor the mental
aspect in their monism)
Example of Related General Project/
Process Metaphysics Project Management Aspects
Being is dynamic (Heraclitus) What a project is: a thing or process
Process or dynamicity is an explanatory What project management is:
feature; it is not only something • people are seen as things, i.e., resources,
to be explained (as an “object” of intellectual capital, intelligent decision
investigation), but it can also carry makers in interaction rather than simple
explanations and sensemaking “numbers” or “resources”
processes form organizational • people with mind influencing process
units and occur in a quantitatively • centralized management, distributed
measurable and ordered fashion. management
Dynamic transitions, or alterations and
dynamic permanence, are two basic
forms of dynamicity to be contrasted
The problem of universals changes What the composition and characteristics of
as it gives up “the substance- a project are
metaphysical principle that concrete
entities are fully determinate while
general or indeterminate entities are
abstract” (Seibt, 2013, p. 22)
Dynamic sameness, patterns
The determinism versus freedom issue Function of project management
is blurred. For instance, contrasted Purpose of project management
views can be considered: Project success (definition, criteria)
• Teleological view: toward a positive Causes of success and failure
specific goal/end, pre-established
purposefulness
• Naturalistic view: inner dynamicity
without any directedness toward a
specifiable goal/end, randomness
(Seibt, 2013), mechanism versus
emergence
The mind versus body or mental What is project management (people equal
versus physical problem disappears things, or people with mind influencing
“if all basic constituents of reality are process)
short-lived processes of information
transfer that exhibit both ‘mental’
and ‘physical’ aspects in different
accentuations according to context”
(Seibt, 2013, p. 22)
(continued)
June/July 2016 ■ Project Management Journal  93
 The Metaphysical Questions Every Project Practitioner Should Ask
PAPERS
Main Problems Thing Metaphysics
Identity and Persistence/change and identity
change (whatever makes an entity
definable and recognizable, in
order to exist; an entity that exists
must have an identity): perdurance
(a thing has distinct temporal
parts throughout existence) versus
endurance (a thing is wholly
present at every moment of its
existence)
Space and time The primary entities of reality
(substances) must be static: They
must be what they are at any
instant in time, what is there
(Seibt, 2013).
In the realist lens, space and
time exist apart from the mind;
idealists see them as mental
constructs. The existence of
space is the framework upon
which we can understand how
material entities relate to one
another (Leibniz). The absolute
versus relative debate applies
to both space and time. The
questions of time’s arrow as an
emergent phenomenon, and the
reversibility and symmetry of
time, are subject to debate (e.g.,
the flow of time is denied by
Parmenides). Contrasted views
are also exemplified by the
debate about perdurance versus
endurance
Ontology (distinct Being
types of realities) Realism
Nominalism
Materialism
Idealism
Distinct logics of Structural Realist
action Strong Paradigm
Critical Realist
Pragmatist
Examples of the Thales (624–546 bce)
key philosophers Anaximander (610–546 bce)
Democritus (460–371 bce)
Pythagoras (571–497 bce)
Parmenides (539–492 bce)
Plato (427–347 bce)
Aristotle (384–322 bce)
Berkeley (ce 1685–1753)
Table 2: Contrasting assumptions in project management: Thing versus process metaphysics.
94  June/July 2016 ■ Project Management Journal
Example of Related General Project/
Process Metaphysics Project Management Aspects
Two approaches to the problem of Style of project management: discontinuous,
persistence are offered: “1—by taking abrupt changes between two areas of
persistent entities to be ‘enduring’ stability, planned or continuous, emergent
patterns of processes; 2—by Persistence of the project: perdurance (the
questioning that ‘perdurance’ versus project takes distinct temporal forms over
‘endurance’ accounts of persistence time) or endurance (the project is the same
form a theoretically necessary all the way through)
exclusive dichotomy” (Seibt, 2013,
p. 23)
The process view focuses on becoming What the composition and characteristics of
and what is occurring as well as ways a project are.
of occurring. Function/role of project management:
There are two types of processes: discontinuous, the plan is seen as a
• Some are “postulated as ‘temporal succession of events, a continuous
developments’ that can be analysed emergence
as temporally structured sequences Irreversibility versus reversibility—for
of stages of an occurrence, with instance, the use of standard project finance
each such stage being numerically versus real options approaches
and qualitatively different from any
other.”
• Others are “temporal but non-
developmental occurrences like
activities, or non-spatiotemporal
occurrences that realize themselves
in a developmental manner and
thereby constitute the directionality
of time” (Seibt, 2013, p. 3)
Becoming Underlying paradigm
Constructivism
Idealism
Foundationalist Style of thinking about the project and
Instrumentalist project management: atomistic, material
Critical Realist versus immaterial, analytical versus
Pragmatist relational, dynamic patterns, holistic
Heraclitus (536–470 bce)
Aristotle (384–322 bce)
Leibniz (ce 1646–1716)
Whitehead (ce 1861–1947)
Metaphysical Insights About
Projects and Implications for
Practitioners
In light of the previous discussions, the
question about what is most real in
a project might trigger very different
responses according to the espoused
or in-use metaphysical perspective, be
it thing or process. Table 3 offers a
summary of the key aspects introduced
above, for projects/project manage-
ment, according to the two perspectives
of metaphysics, thing and process.
A Thing-Based Understanding of
Projects and Project Management
In thing metaphysics, projects are fun-
damentally seen as a constellation of
“things”: intrinsically enduring and con-
crete substances and entities that exist
independently of other things. The “thing-
ness” in the project is all there is—that is,
that which endures through change and
does not require anything other than itself
to exist. If that’s what project practitioners
believe projects fundamentally are, then
they think in much the same way as the
pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Democri-
tus did.
Taking Democritus’s view, a project
consists of stable, small, basic particles
or building blocks. Although their under-
lying nature does not change, things and
their properties might change in space
or time (Solomon & Higgins, 2010).
Here’s an analogy with the smartphone:
It can be broken into pieces but the
inputs from which it was made cannot
be destroyed. Indeed, the sapphire crys-
tal used to produce scratch-proof screen
displays is an extremely hard and nearly
indestructible material.
Thanks to Aristotle and respected
physicists such as Newton, thing meta-
physics has dominated thinking for
more than 2,000 years, particularly in
the West. The same holds true in the
world of project management. Simi-
lar to the way physicists think of the
world’s building blocks as quarks—
or a few decades ago as protons, elec-
trons, and neutrons—this Aristotelian
Democritean-inspired kind of thing-
based understanding has led us to

Aspects of Projects/ Relation to Main Problems

Project Management
What a project is
What project management is
What the composition and/or
characteristics of a project are
Function of project management
Purpose of project management
Project success (definition, criteria) Causation, determinism,
Success and failure causes
What is project management
Style of project management
Function/role of project
management
Underlying paradigm
Style of thinking about project and
project management
Table 3: Contrasting perspectives for projects and project management: Thing versus process metaphysics.
of Metaphysics Thing Metaphysics Process Metaphysics
Nature of being, and the contrast Projects are fundamentally things Projects are fundamentally processes
between existence and essence
Nature of being, and the contrast Planning Engaging context, including
between existence and essence stakeholders
Objects and their attributes or Inputs, outputs, structures; scopes, Concepts, names or labels;
properties models assumptions; expectations; flux of
Space and time things; events; occasions of experience
Causation, determinism, ‘Management-as-planned’ ‘Managing and organizing’ philosophy
and freedom philosophy
Causation, determinism, Getting things done Making the best of the evolving context
and freedom
Time, cost, specifications Symbolic and rhetorical assessments of
and freedom a project by stakeholders
Causation, determinism, ‘Weak links,’ poor planning, poor ‘Missed opportunities,’ chance,
and freedom implementation, inadequate happenstance, unintended
resources, etc. consequences
Mind and matter Planning Engaging context including
stakeholders
Identity and change Planned Emergent
Space and time Logico-scientific mode, variance Narrative mode, qualitative accounts
models (plan, uncertainty (initial conditions and emergence,
reduction, optimization, first-order understanding patterns, holistic
complexity) (Tsoukas & Hatch, understanding, second-order
2001) complexity)
Ontology (distinct types of Efficiency, rationality, objectivity, Uncertainty, complexity, politics,
realities) stability, transformation, change, improvisation, creativity,
reductionism, planning managing
Distinct logics of action Analytical thinking Holistic thinking

June/July 2016 ■ Project Management Journal  95

 The Metaphysical Questions Every Project Practitioner Should Ask
PAPERS
consider projects as inputs, outputs,
structures, scopes, and models. Let’s
imagine how this might look for the
iPhone project: Inputs are the things
such as the sapphire crystal, the bud-
get, and the engineers; outputs are the
screen and the iPhone itself; a structure
is the staff that is 100% dedicated to the
project; the scope is the total amount of
work needed to complete the project;
and the models could include a project
plan and a Gantt chart.
In a thing-based understanding of
project management, the project is a
thing, a concrete entity. It has a spe-
cific, external, stable, and consensual
objective: to create an output that will
meet a need within the constraints of
cost, time, and quality. The objective
of project management is thus getting
the job done. If the inputs, project,
and outputs are things, project man-
agement is then the transformation of
inputs into outputs—that is, things into
things. “Transformation, as defined in
economics, is a relationship between
input and output. Both input and out-
put are usually understood as things
or matter. The transformation itself is a
black box, except that we decompose it
into further transformations” (Koskela
& Kagioglou, 2005, p. 38). Hence, the
rule of decomposition is quintessential
in thing-based project management.
Here is how Descartes (1967, p. 11)
describes this rule: “The second (was
to) to divide each of the difficulties that
I was examining into as many parts
as might be possible and necessary in
order to best solve it.”
If there is one project management
tool that embodies the rule of decom-
position, it is the famous work break-
down structure (WBS), which many
consider the single most important tool
(see Koskela & Kagioglou, 2005 for exam-
ple). Indeed, the WBS logically decom-
poses and subdivides project work into
small and manageable chunks and, thus,
creates an organized picture via an out-
line of the project scope. This is analyti-
cal thinking at its best because it focuses
on putting things into categories. No one
96  June/July 2016 ■ Project Management Journal
can downplay the importance of the
WBS; without it, project managers would
not be able to develop sound time, cost,
and quality estimates, nor would they
be able to plan and track the project,
which is why planning is considered the
essence of project management. Project
management is the life-cycle manage-
ment of the project (that is, the plan-
ning, executing, and controlling of the
project), with a focus on both planning
and outputs. Thus, a “management-as-
planned” philosophy underlies project
management (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007).
A typical planned style dominates in a
thing-based understanding of project
management (Lewis, Welsh, Dehler, &
Green, 2002).
Two metaphysical assumptions that
are part of a thing-based understand-
ing of project management are worth
noting: Project activities are considered
similar by essence, and activities are
assumed to be nearly independent and,
thus, they can be predicted.
There are two related assumptions playing
an important role in connection to decom-
position: similarity and independence
of decomposed elements or parts. The
similarity assumption takes it for granted
that the parts are, by nature, similar to
the whole and thus are mutually similar.
The assumption of the independence of
parts follows from the similarity assump-
tions. Namely if our unit of analysis is an
idea, problem or thing in itself, so will all
decomposed parts also be ideas, prob-
lems or things in themselves. (Koskela &
Kagioglou, 2005, p. 38)
Not surprisingly, three practical con­
sequences emerge from these meta-
physical assumptions. First, project
management is built around a rational
and reductionist perspective that tends
to focus on what should be rather than
what is, thus emphasizing the best way
to deliver the project. Second, efficiency
prevails in project management and,
hence, project success can be measured
objectively; this could mean deliver-
ing the project on time, within bud-
get, and to specifications (“the triple
constraint”). When a project fails, it is
because of “weak links” (such as poor
planning, poor implementation, inad-
equacy of resources, and so forth), and
not because of the standard project
management approach. Third, projects
are the same and one size fits all, mean-
ing that you can follow standard project
management procedures, achieve suc-
cess, and “replicate” it in other projects
and project settings. That’s the tradi-
tional project management approach
at its best!
In this context, in a thing-based
understanding of project manage-
ment, projects are, by definition, seen
as a collection of unique processes in
which “a process is a structure of activi-
ties that produces an identifiable out-
put” (Zwikael & Smyrk, 2011, p. 11).
However, these are merely transforma-
tion processes. Things such as inputs,
structures, scopes, models, or even the
whole project may change (for example,
Steve Jobs asked the project team to
change the iPhone screen well after
they started the project). Both “issues”
and “opportunities” might arise that
can lead to change in a project. Change
here means something that happens to
things, and they only happen at certain
points.
Specifically, transformation is related
to change and becoming, but let’s take
a closer look. . . . [T]he transformation
model overcomes the difficulty of repre-
senting change by jumping over it, from
one instance of time, represented by a set
of things, to another instance of time, rep-
resented by another set of things. (Koskela
& Kagioglou, 2005, p. 40)
In contrast, in a process-based
understanding of project management,
change is not merely something that
happens to things, not a mere alteration
in the properties of enduring things in
the project, but rather a sequence of
states, with much internal coherence
to give us the impression of one con-
tinuous thing (Craig, 1998). We turn to
this metaphysical worldview in the next
section.
A Process-Based Understanding of
Project and Project Management
In process metaphysics, projects are
fundamentally a constellation of pro-
cesses, not things. A project is ulti-
mately that which emerges, flows,
develops, grows, and changes. Pro-
cess metaphysics began in the pre-
Socratic era and, more specifically,
with Heraclitus. From Heraclitus’s
perspective, a project consists of ongo-
ing, fluctuating, changing, flowing,
fleeting, and interacting processes.
A project is ultimately more like fire,
always changing and never the same;
what’s most real is that which actually
changes, that which is constantly in
flux. “Process is fundamental: the river
is not an object but an ever-changing
flow; the sun is not a thing, but a flam-
ing fire. Everything in nature is a mat-
ter of process, of activity, of change.”
(Rescher, 1996, p. 10) For Heraclitus,
then, nothing in the project remains
constant, and it is brought into being
as it changes. “Into the same river you
could not step twice, for other ‘and still
other’ waters are flowing.” (Heraclitus,
Patrick, & Bywater, 1969, p. 94)
Order, stability, and identity are but pre-
cariously arrested moments in the relent-
less flux that is reality. In his view, conflict,
struggles and temporary reconciliations
are unavoidably the very stuff of life. Were
this not the case, all of life as we experi-
ence it would not be as it is. Thus, the
universe flows along its own accord, shap-
ing its own destiny regardless of human
intentions. Human actions and interven-
tions are therefore accorded less causal
significance than our egos would have us
believe. (Chia, 2013, p. 41)
Heraclitus is the founder of pro-
cess metaphysics and he inspired many
philosophers, including Leibniz and
Whitehead (1861–1947), and modern
physicists such as Einstein, Bohm, and
Prigogine. Process metaphysics has
gained attention recently in manage-
ment (e.g., Langley, Smallman, Tsoukas,
& Van de Ven, 2013) and in project
management (e.g., Koskinen, 2012;
Packendorff, Crevani, & Lindgren, 2014).
In a Heraclitean-type view of project
management, projects are seen as con-
cepts, labels, or names; assumptions;
expectations; events or occasions of
experience; and changing things.
In a process-based understanding
of project management, the project is
not a set of things but ultimately the
flux of things in a context of change,
ambiguity, complexity, uncertainty,
or chaos. Here, things are not stable,
permanent, and ordered entities, but
rather categories or abstractions that
are used and reused in an attempt to
create order out of disorder and make
sense of the fluid, dense, and complex
project context (Chia, 2013; Koskinen,
2012; Packendorff et al., 2014; Rescher,
1996). In the very way that no project
exists in and of itself, everything in the
project is constantly in the making. The
project is nothing but process; it is in a
continual state of becoming. The proj-
ect presents itself to team members and
other stakeholders in the form of actual
“occasions of experience,” which make
up the ultimate version of project real-
ity (Whitehead, as cited by Solomon &
Higgins, 2010).
A process-based understanding of
project management, thus, focuses on
how processes emerge, develop, grow,
and terminate, or in other words, how
they unfold over time (Langley et al.,
2013). In this context, time, change,
and becoming are ineluctable fea-
tures of projects; so, rather than focus-
ing on projects and their structures,
project practitioners should concen-
trate on “everyday practical coping
actions,” “sense-making efforts,” and the
“coming-into-being” of the project as a
whole (Chia, 2013, p. 48). Thus, these
critical questions should be asked by
project practitioners: What’s happen-
ing in the project over time? What’s
happening in the project at a partic-
ular time? What are the interactions
between activities, people, and technol-
ogy (Koskela & Kagioglou, 2005)?
Here, there is no single, specific,
stable, self-evident, clear, and precise
June/July 2016
objective that would reflect the real-
ity of the project. There are, however,
many unclear, conflicting, or contradic-
tory objectives. The project needs, for
example, may not be fully known in
advance to create a complete and reli-
able project plan—thus, the success of
agile project management approaches,
which favor a process-based under-
standing of projects, in the IT industry
sector.
Project stakeholders have differing
expectations and they tend to construct
project reality through their individ-
ual and collective actions. The essence
of project management, here, shifts to
understanding the context from both
the project team and stakeholder points
of view.
Consequently, the project should
meet the expectations of stakeholders.
To assess project success is to dig into
the stories they tell about the project
in order to understand their underly-
ing symbolic and rhetorical meanings.
The objective of project management
is no longer just about getting the job
done but about making the best of
the project’s larger process: the con-
text. Project management is no longer
merely life-cycle management but con-
stantly coping with a plurality of objec-
tives, needs, expectations, rationales,
uncertainties, complexities, urgencies,
chaos, and emerging context. In other
words, it is the ongoing process of
managing (Mintzberg, 2009; Weick,
1969); thus, the process of “managing”
replaces “project management” (Chia,
2013).
Breaking down the project into parts
might help make sense of it, but this “lab-
yrinth of decomposition” as Mintzberg
(2009, p. 164) would call it, makes project
management more complex. Indeed, that
which has been broken down into parts
must ultimately be put back together into
a coherent whole. In this case, it is not
analytical thinking that dominates, but
rather holistic thinking. “It is easy to see
that ‘analytical’ thinking is subscribing to
the thing ontology and ‘holistical’ to the
process ontology” (Koskela & Kagioglou,
■ Project Management Journal  97
 The Metaphysical Questions Every Project Practitioner Should Ask
PAPERS
2006, p. 3), which is why “managing”
is badly needed and why intuition and
improvisation matter in the process of
managing. A “managing and organiz-
ing” philosophy (Mintzberg, 2009; Weick,
1969) and an emergent project manage-
ment style (Lewis et al., 2002) emphasiz-
ing participative approach, improvisation,
experiential learning, and sensemaking
dominate in a process-based understand-
ing of project management. Here, project
management fundamentally includes the
critical roles that team members play
in a project, and leadership cannot be
reduced to snapshot images of a strong,
heroic, omnipotent project manager and
a project sponsor’s traits, styles, actions,
and competencies (Packendorff et al.,
2014).
From a process philosophical view-
point, project success or failure should
not be solely attributed to “either the
heroism or incompetence of leaders or,
alternatively, to the munificence or per-
niciousness of a pre-existing external
environment.” (p. 47) Instead, project
practitioners should credit “eventuali-
ties to the unexpected turns of circum-
stances brought about through ongoing
interactions that ultimately influence
the fortune and survival of a social unit.
Hence, success or failure, survival or
demise cannot be wholly attributed to
individual decisions made or to pre-
existing environmental forces.” (p. 47)
It is important to acknowledge that
“chance, happenstance and unintended
consequences have much to say in
shaping individual and organizational
destinies.” (Chia, 2013, p. 47) So, success
and failure are intertwined in meaning
and action, and when a project fails (if it
ever fails), it is likely that missed oppor-
tunities and unintended consequences
took their toll on it.
Conclusion
Metaphysical questions are compelling
yet simple questions in project man-
agement practice. But their answers
are far from simple. If one asks project
practitioners if there is such a thing
as the project they are working on,
98  June/July 2016 ■ Project Management Journal
in a true Plato’s Beard tradition they
would likely say that if this were not the
case, they would not be dealing with it
(Quine, 1948).
One may insist and ask them: Is the
project really what it looks like (Russell,
1912/1997)? Some will say that the real
project is an everyday project artifact,
such as a project plan, in a true Aris-
totelian tradition. Others will disagree,
making the Platonic argument that the
real project is not what it looks like.
Then, one may push even further:
What’s most real in their project? What
is a project? Some will let one believe
that the label “project,” as Nietzsche
(1982) would put it, is incomparably
more important than what a project is.
Others might echo project management
literature, suggesting that a project
either consists of stable and unchang-
ing things (“being”), as espoused in
traditional project management, or
it is ultimately a “becoming,” chang-
ing, and flowing reality, as often is the
case in agile project management. Still
others will stick to ready-made defini-
tions such as a project as “a tempo-
rary endeavor undertaken to create a
unique product, service or result.” (PMI,
2013, p.3).
These kinds of metaphysical ques-
tions have been part of philosophical
thinking for over 2,600 years (Solomon
& Higgins, 2010), and using them to
help project practitioners understand
the strengths and weaknesses of their
management style can improve project
management practices. However, for
these age-old questions to be useful, the
project management practitioner needs
to dig to find the deeper truths.
This article deals with the “subtler”
picture or “inner” reality of the project
that will allow practitioners to make
sense of it and discover the wonder
lying just below the surface by showing
the familiar project figure in an unfa-
miliar aspect (Russell, 1912/1997, p. 16
and p. 157). Paraphrasing Whitehead
(as cited in Koskela & Kagioglou, 2005),
we contend that metaphysics matters in
project management practice, and proj-
ect practitioners can benefit from under-
standing their metaphysical stance: No
practice can be more secure than the
unconscious metaphysics which tacitly
it presupposes.3 And, if project prac-
titioners want to know which one of
the two metaphysical worldviews is the
“best,” we encourage them to believe
in the metaphysics of their best project
management practice.
Furthermore, whatever their meta-
physical position, project practitioners
cannot avoid the other end of the spec-
trum. Indeed, “if we subscribe to one
metaphysical position, the other any-
way tends to emerge for filling the gaps
left by that one” (Koskela & Kagioglou,
2005, p. 39). Thus, the challenge is to
transcend one’s metaphysical stance
and manage the tensions that often
occur in projects between Apollonian
order and Dionysian disorder, certainty
and uncertainty, control and improvi-
sation, plan and emergence, stability
and change, being and becoming, tradi-
tional versus agile project management,
and so on.
Ultimately, we suggest that the
above-mentioned awareness can allow
project practitioners to play with the two
metaphysical worldviews: for instance,
embracing a process and becoming view
during the project front end, where the
future is invented, and then shifting to
a thing and being view during the proj-
ect execution (see, e.g., Morris, 2013),
acknowledging that it is more a matter
of relative importance than an “either/
or” alternative.
All in all, paraphrasing Socrates,
we submit that “unexamined project
work is not worth doing”4 and, thus,
we challenge project practitioners and
researchers to examine the influence
of metaphysics on project management
practice.
3“No science can be more secure than the unconscious
metaphysics which tacitly it presupposes.” (Whitehead, 1933,
p. 183)
4“The unexamined life is not worth living” (attributed to
Socrates).
Acknowledgments
The authors express their profound grat-
itude to Vincent Bergeron, Professor of
Philosophy at the University of Ottawa
for his great insights. They also extend
their thanks to the guest editor and the
reviewers for their helpful comments.
References
Blomquist, T., & Lundin, R. A. (2010).
Projects—real, virtual or what?
International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, 3(1), 10–21.
Boutinet, J. (2001). Anthropologie du
projet (6th ed.). Paris, France: PUF.
Bredillet, C. (2004, August 25–27).
Beyond the positivist mirror: Towards
a project management “gnosis.”
International Research Network for
Organizing by Projects—IRNOP VI,
Turku, Finland.
Bredillet, C. (2010). Blowing hot
and cold on project management.
Project Management Journal, 41(3), 4–20.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979).
Sociological paradigms and
organizational Analysis. London,
England: Heinemann.
Chia, R. (2013). Paradigms and
perspectives in organizational project
management research: Implications
for knowledge creation. In N. Drouin,
R. Muller, & S. Sankaran (Eds.),
Novel approaches to organizational
project management research—
Translational and transformational
(pp. 33–55). Copenhagen, Denmark:
Copenhagen Business School Press
Universitetsforlaget.
Craig, E. (1998). Metaphysics. Routledge
encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved
from https://www.rep.routledge.com/
articles/metaphysics/v-1/
Descartes, R. (1637). Discourse on the
method of rightly conducting the reason,
and seeking truth in the sciences.
Gauthier, J.-B., & Ika, L.A. (2012).
Foundations of project management
research: An explicit and six-facet
ontological framework. Project
Management Journal 43, 5–23.
Heraclitus, Patrick, G. T. W., & Bywater,
I. (1969). Heraclitus of Ephesus: An
edition combining in one volume the
fragments of the work of Heraclitus
of Ephesus on nature. Chicago,
IL: Argonaut.
Hight, M. A. (2008). Idea and ontology:
An essay in early modern metaphysics
of ideas. University Park, PA: The
Pennsylvania State University Press.
Hodgson, D., & Cicmil, S. (2007).
The politics of standards in modern
management: Making ‘the project’ a
reality. Journal of Management Studies,
44(3), 431–450.
IPMA. (2006). IPMA competence
baseline, Version 3.0 (ICB 3.0). Nijkerk,
Netherlands: International Project
Management Association.
ISO 21500. (2012). Guidance on project
management. Geneva, Switzerland:
International Organization for
Standardization. ICS: 03.100.40.
Kilduff, M., Mehra, A., & Dunn, M.
B. (2011). From blue sky research to
problem solving: A philosophy of science
theory of new knowledge production.
Academy of Management Review, 36(2),
297–317.
Koskela, L., & Kagioglou, M. (2005).
On the metaphysics of production.
Proceedings International Group
for Lean Construction Conference
(IGLC-13), July, Sydney, Australia, 37–45.
Koskela, L., & Kagioglou, M. (2006).
On the metaphysics of management.
Proceedings International Group
for Lean Construction Conference
(IGLC-14), July, Santiago, Chile, 1–13.
Koskinen, K. U. (2012). Problem
absorption as an organizational
learning mechanism in project-based
companies: Process thinking perspective.
International Journal of Project
Management, 30, 308–316.
Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas,
H., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Process
studies of change in organization and
management: Unveiling temporality,
activity, and flow. Academy of
Management Journal, 56(1), 1–13.
June/July 2016
Lewis, M. W., Welsh, M. A., Dehler, G. E.,
& Green, S. (2002). Product development
tensions: Exploring contrasting styles
of project management. Academy of
Management Journal, 45(3), 546–564.
Linehan, C., & Kavanagh, D.
(2006). From project ontologies to
communities of virtue. In D. Hodgson,
& S. Cicmil (Eds.), Making projects critical
(pp. 51–67). New York, NY: Palgrave.
Martela, F. (2015). Fallible inquiry
with ethical ends-in-view: A pragmatist
philosophy of science for organizational
research. Organization Studies, 36(4),
537–563.
Mastin, L. (2008). Metaphysics. The
basics of philosophy. Retrieved from
http://www.philosophybasics.com/
branch_metaphysics.html
Mintzberg, H. (2009). Managing.
San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Morris, P. W. G. (2013). Reconstructing
project management. Chichester,
England: Wiley.
Nietzche, F. (1982). Daybreak (Trans.
R. J. Hollingdale). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Packendorff, J., Crevani, L., &
Lindgren, M. (2014). Project leadership
in becoming: A process study of
an organizational change project.
Project Management Journal, 45(3),
5–20.
Pellegrinelli, S. (2011). What’s in
a name: Project or programme?
International Journal of Project
Management, 29, 232–240.
Pinker, S. (2014). The sense of style. The
thinking person’s guide to writing in the
21st century! New York, NY: Viking.
Project Management Institute
(PMI). (2013). A guide to the project
management body of knowledge
(PMBOK ® guide) – Fifth edition.
Newtown Square, PA: Author.
Quine, W. V. O. (1948). On what there is.
Review of Metaphysics, 2(5), 21–36.
Rescher, N. (1996). Process metaphysics:
An introduction to process philosophy.
Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
■ Project Management Journal  99
 The Metaphysical Questions Every Project Practitioner Should Ask
PAPERS
Russell, B. (1997). The problems of
philosophy (Ed. John Perry). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press. (Original
work published in 1912)
Seibt, J. (2013, Fall). Process philosophy.
In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford
encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved
from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/
fall2013/entries/process-philosophy/
Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2007).
Reinventing project management: The
diamond approach to successful growth
and innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business Review Press.
Solomon, R. C., & Higgins, K. M. (2010).
The big questions: A short introduction
to philosophy. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth,
Cengage Learning.
Tsoukas, H., & Hatch, M. J. (2001).
Complex thinking, complex practice:
The case for a narrative approach to
organizational complexity. Human
Relations, 54(8), 979–1013.
van der Hoorn, B., & Whitty, S. J. (2015).
A Heideggerian paradigm for project
management: Breaking free of the
disciplinary matrix and the Cartesian
ontology. International Journal of Project
Management, 33(4), 721–734.
van Inwagen, P., & Sullivan, M. (2015,
Spring). Metaphysics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.),
The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.
Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/
archives/spr2015/entries/metaphysics/
Weaver, P., & Bourne, L. (2002).
Project fact or fiction (Will the real
projects please stand up). Presented
at the PMI Melbourne Chapter
Conference—Maximising project
value, Sheraton Towers Southgate,
Melbourne, 21 October. Retrieved from
www.mosaicprojects.com.au
100  June/July 2016 ■ Project Management Journal
Weick, K. E. (1969). The social
psychology of organizing. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Whitehead, A.N. (1933). Adventures of
ideas. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Whitty, S. J. (2013). Thinking in slow
motion about project management. In N.
Drouin, R. Muller, & S. Sankaran (Eds.),
Novel approaches to organizational
project management research—
Translational and transformational
(pp. 95–116). Copenhagen, Denmark:
Copenhagen Business School Press
Universitetsforlaget.
Zwikael, O., & Smyrk, J. (2011).
Project management for the creation of
organisational value. London, England:
Springer.
Lavagnon A. Ika, MSc, PhD, is Associate
Professor of Project Management at the Telfer
School of Management, University of Ottawa. He
holds an MSc in project management from UQO and
a PhD in business administration with specializa-
tion in international development project manage-
ment from the Université du Québec à Montréal, a
Montreal-based joint doctoral program with McGill,
Concordia, and HEC universities. Over the past 16
years, he has taught project management at the
undergraduate and graduate levels in both French
and English, mainly in Canada but also in Europe,
Africa, and the Middle East. He has supervised a
dozen MSc students and has sat on many MSc and
PhD committees all over the world.
Professor Ika’s research topics include what makes
projects complex; what makes projects successful;
why projects fail and what can be done about it;
and the roles of project strategy, supervision, and
management in project success/failure. In addition
to his works on international development proj-
ects, Professor Ika has a genuine interest in the
foundations of project management research. He is
the author of close to 20 papers in peer-reviewed
journals and more than 20 conference proceedings.
Professor Ika’s work has been published in many
journals, including the Project Management Journal ®,
International Journal of Project Management,
International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, International Journal of Project Organization
and Management, and Journal of African Business.
He recently received the Emerald Literati Network
2011 Award for Excellence (Highly Commended
Paper Award Winner) and the IPMA Research
Contribution of a Young Researcher Award in 2012.
He can be contacted at Ika@telfer.uottawa.ca
Professor Christophe N. Bredillet, PhD, DSc,
is Professor of Organizational Project Management
at Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (UQTR). He
is Director of the University of Quebec network of
postgraduate (masters) programs in project manage-
ment. He is the Scientific Director, Société Française
pour l’avancement du Management de Projet (SMaP)
and Adjunct Professor at Queensland University of
Technology (QUT) Project Management Academy. He
specializes in the fields of portfolio, program, and
project management (P3M). From 2012 to 2015, he
was the Director of the QUT Project Management
Academy. Before joining QUT, he was senior
consultant at the World Bank and from 1992 to 2010
he was the Dean of Postgraduate Programs and
Professor of Strategic Management and P3M at ESC
Lille. His main interests and research activities are
in the field of philosophy of science and practice in
P3M, including dynamic evolution of the field, bodies
of knowledge, standards, and their link with capabil-
ity development, capacity building, governance, and
performance. In 2012, he received the prestigious
Manfred Saynish Foundation for Project Management
(MSPM)—Project Management Innovation Award
for his contribution to a philosophy of science with
respect to complex project management. He can be
contacted at christophe.bredillet@uqtr.ca.