The art of project management is the people side of software project management. It is the tailored application of human skills—influencing, negotiation, creating clarity, applying care, and building project-appropriate relationships—within the reality of delivering projects through people.

The lack of clarity is a fundamental issue causing lack of project success. This is on many levels: steering committees operating without clarity of what exactly success is, fuzziness around the exact definition of project deliverables, ambiguous communication, but also down to clarity around what a specific colleague is to achieve by when. The lack of common clarity is a constant threat to project success. Very high on the list of a PM's responsibility is the creation, spreading, and guarding of project clarity. Each day, every day.

Including the people aspect is what is part of the art of project management as well. Projects are delivered through people and create results which will be consumed by people. It is only logical that a strong people focus has to be part of any project management approach. To get to success it is key to address people as humans rather than as project resources that need to be managed.

The reality of any project is that the quality of it is for a large part defined by the talents and output of the people involved. Does your project have the right talent? Is the available talent applied where it matters most? Are the circumstances created such that these people can produce their best? Do they have a safe and supporting environment where they can deliver? The PM is responsible to ensure the experts within your project are in the best position possible to deliver.

I think none of what is stated here so far is new or controversial, it's pretty much common sense. So far the theory. The reality proves to be quite different though. The industry has trained PMs to control, to manage through measuring, to apply methodology rigorously. When projects struggle, the prescribed response is more structure, more oversight, more process. PMs do what they've been taught. And yet, this approach has for large part taken the human aspect out of working together. The results show for it. What I observe is not exclusively true for the project world.

Execution of projects has become a pretty technical exercise which the industry believes can and should be managed to the nth degree. Lack of success is lack of management is the prevailing view. It's understandable that PMs operate this way — it's what's expected of them. And yet the opposite may be true. The overkill in management has resulted in poor project results. The more we manage through methodology, the more clinical a project becomes. The less the experts that actually can make a difference feel connected to the project and its results, the less ownership is present.

Ownership is a critical success element for projects. A project by definition is doing something new; it has unpredictability and insecurity at its core. Ownership and entrepreneurship are key traits needed to deal with this. That can only be achieved by a very personal project approach. Connecting with the different individuals within the project and establishing what is needed for them to be the owner and co-creator of success.

The art of project management is applied sparsely, typically in a random manner. This isn't surprising — there is little awareness and teaching around it. It is not wishy-washy, we-have-to-be-nice. It is the acknowledgement that project success is created by different individuals, bringing different talent, having different desires, having effect on team effectiveness and delivery overall. Integration is what successful application of the art of project management is all about.