| 1. |
- Dymitrow, Mirek, et al.
(författare)
-
Anatomy of a 21st-century project: A critical analysis
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Anatomy of a 21st-century sustainability project: The untold stories. Dymitrow, M. and Ingelhag, K. (eds.). - Gothenburg : Mistra Urban Futures / Chalmers University of Technology. - 9789198416633 ; , s. 205-236
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In this analytical chapter we focus on human factors to shed light on what a 21st-century project might look like from within. Adopting a non-essentialist perspective to project-making, we at the same time acknowledge that the notion of human nature is blurred, dynamic, changeable, heterogeneous, and internally riven. The human condition, hence, always dictates what ontological position a project adopts regarding its subject matter, execution and end results. In this respect, with this book we commit to an open-ended normativity: normative by reluctantly accepting the bias of the project formulas as we have defined their ability to shape the contemporary world, but open-ended with regard to a constant awareness that all knowledge is constructed, fluid and flawed, and that the insights here presented are only some of many possible interpretations. That said, we do not believe that plurality of opinion is intrinsically useful for creating ‘good projects’ – we believe it is an overused statement (cf. de Botton 2019) – but plurality of opinion is possibly the only way to unravel how a project operates and what keeps it afloat, including its silent triumphs and hidden pathologies. Since values and value systems can differ even within very small entities, to truly understand the inner workings of a project requires covering all its nooks and crannies. This methodological approach – autoethnography – is represented in the vast empirical section of this book – top to bottom and side to side, the results of which are discussed in the ensuing nine subsections. When things are whipped up into a sustainability frenzy with a flurry of divergent messages, it is easy to lose track of goal and purpose. For change to happen, we must dare to open a can of worms and find each other in the disenchantment of our broken world. The battle against unsustainability is a war of attrition: words against deeds – and both are enclosed in projects.
|
|
| 2. |
- Dymitrow, Mirek, et al.
(författare)
-
Anatomy of a 21st-century project: A critical analysis
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Anatomy of a 21st-century sustainability project: The untold stories. - Göteborg : Chalmers University of Technology and Mistra Urban Futures. - 9789198416633 - 9789198416633 ; , s. 205-236
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In this analytical chapter we focus on human factors to shed light on what a 21st-century project might look like from within. Adopting a non-essentialist perspective to project-making, we at the same time acknowledge that the notion of human nature is blurred, dynamic, changeable, heterogeneous, and internally riven. The human condition, hence, always dictates what ontological position a project adopts regarding its subject matter, execution and end results. In this respect, with this book we commit to an open-ended normativity: normative by reluctantly accepting the bias of the project formulas as we have defined their ability to shape the contemporary world, but open-ended with regard to a constant awareness that all knowledge is constructed, fluid and flawed, and that the insights here presented are only some of many possible interpretations. That said, we do not believe that plurality of opinion is intrinsically useful for creating ‘good projects’ – we believe it is an overused statement (cf. de Botton 2019) – but plurality of opinion is possibly the only way to unravel how a project operates and what keeps it afloat, including its silent triumphs and hidden pathologies. Since values and value systems can differ even within very small entities, to truly understand the inner workings of a project requires covering all its nooks and crannies. This methodological approach – autoethnography – is represented in the vast empirical section of this book – top to bottom and side to side, the results of which are discussed in the ensuing nine subsections. When things are whipped up into a sustainability frenzy with a flurry of divergent messages, it is easy to lose track of goal and purpose. For change to happen, we must dare to open a can of worms and find each other in the disenchantment of our broken world. The battle against unsustainability is a war of attrition: words against deeds – and both are enclosed in projects.
|
|
| 3. |
- Dymitrow, Mirek, et al.
(författare)
-
Anatomy of a 21st-century project: A quick autopsy
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Dymitrow, M. and Ingelhag, K. (eds.), Anatomy of a 21st-century sustainability project: The untold stories. - Gothenburg : Mistra Urban Futures / Chalmers University of Technology. - 9789198416633 ; , s. 1-12
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We all are accustomed to projects. Projects are everywhere, and everything is basically a project. We have learnt how to deal with projects, for better or worse. Some of us love them, some of us are fed up with them. But projects are here to stay. Projects are far from a new invention, what has changed is the fine-tuning. It has changed to the point that projects of today are virtually unrecognisable from those from days of yore. All projects of today ‘must’ be green. They must have social relevance. They must be innovative, and must leave footprints (not ecological, hopefully). Projects of today are ideally transdisciplinary; wearing blinkers is a thing of the past. Inclusive projects, bottom-up projects, future-minded projects… who would even challenge that? Projects are no longer targeted, planned, structured endeavours; that description no longer suffices. To be able to do projects today, we are trained in project management, project leadership, spreadsheets, GANT charts, swimlanes, Kanban, Scrum, Waterfall, sprints, deliverables, bandwidths, roadblocks, backlogs, agile methodologies and the like. Have you noticed a pattern yet? On the other hand, projects of today are full of pitfalls. Lack of resources, scope creep, poor project handling, unrealistic deadlines, lack of interest from stakeholders or simply not paying attention to warning signs are just some of the most oft-cited reasons why projects fail. With this book, we want to halt this chthonic gallop, and just pause for a while. We want to open the lid to the black box of project-making and let it stay aslant for the time it takes to read this book, so we can peek into what goes on – on the inside.
|
|
| 4. |
- Dymitrow, Mirek, et al.
(författare)
-
Anatomy of a 21st-century project: A quick autopsy
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Anatomy of a 21st-century sustainability project: The untold storie. - Göteborg : Chalmers University of Technology. - 9789198416633 - 9789198416633 ; , s. 1-12
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We all are accustomed to projects. Projects are everywhere, and everything is basically a project. We have learnt how to deal with projects, for better or worse. Some of us love them, some of us are fed up with them. But projects are here to stay. Projects are far from a new invention, what has changed is the fine-tuning. It has changed to the point that projects of today are virtually unrecognisable from those from days of yore. All projects of today ‘must’ be green. They must have social relevance. They must be innovative, and must leave footprints (not ecological, hopefully). Projects of today are ideally transdisciplinary; wearing blinkers is a thing of the past. Inclusive projects, bottom-up projects, future-minded projects… who would even challenge that? Projects are no longer targeted, planned, structured endeavours; that description no longer suffices. To be able to do projects today, we are trained in project management, project leadership, spreadsheets, GANT charts, swimlanes, Kanban, Scrum, Waterfall, sprints, deliverables, bandwidths, roadblocks, backlogs, agile methodologies and the like. Have you noticed a pattern yet? On the other hand, projects of today are full of pitfalls. Lack of resources, scope creep, poor project handling, unrealistic deadlines, lack of interest from stakeholders or simply not paying attention to warning signs are just some of the most oft-cited reasons why projects fail. With this book, we want to halt this chthonic gallop, and just pause for a while. We want to open the lid to the black box of project-making and let it stay aslant for the time it takes to read this book, so we can peek into what goes on – on the inside.
|
|
| 5. |
- Dymitrow, Mirek, et al.
(författare)
-
Making two worlds meet
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Dymitrow, M. and Ingelhag, K. (eds.), Anatomy of a 21st-century sustainability project: The untold stories. - Gothenburg : Mistra Urban Futures / Chalmers University of Technology. - 9789198416633 ; , s. 175-179
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This chapter focuses on the personal experiences of collaborations based on academic–practitioner interactions, which are not always as straightforward as presented in commonplace transdisciplinary theory. By using autoethnographic methodology, this chapter provides some of the most important insights from past and ongoing work from a major sustainability project that uses the ‘Research Forum’ (RF) as a new a means of co-production of transdisciplinary knowledge. The reflections center on the most common modes of interaction observed between academics to practitioners, but also on the pros and cons of everyday work in a overtly transdisciplinary context. The findings reveal that transdisciplinarity is neither a business deal nor a display of unconditional democracy. It is a tricky form of collaboration that takes time, energy and trust to understand, and this level of maturity may be difficult to obtain using the commonplace project format.
|
|
| 6. |
- Dymitrow, Mirek, et al.
(författare)
-
Making two worlds meet
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Anatomy of a 21st-century sustainability project: The untold stories. - Göteborg : Chalmers University of Technology and Mistra Urban Futures. - 9789198416633 - 9789198416633 ; , s. 175-179
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This chapter focuses on the personal experiences of collaborations based on academic–practitioner interactions, which are not always as straightforward as presented in commonplace transdisciplinary theory. By using autoethnographic methodology, this chapter provides some of the most important insights from past and ongoing work from a major sustainability project that uses the ‘Research Forum’ (RF) as a new a means of co-production of transdisciplinary knowledge. The reflections center on the most common modes of interaction observed between academics to practitioners, but also on the pros and cons of everyday work in a overtly transdisciplinary context. The findings reveal that transdisciplinarity is neither a business deal nor a display of unconditional democracy. It is a tricky form of collaboration that takes time, energy and trust to understand, and this level of maturity may be difficult to obtain using the commonplace project format.
|
|
| 7. |
- Dymitrow, Mirek
(författare)
-
The spatial dimension of project-making
- 2019
-
Ingår i: In: Dymitrow, M. and Ingelhag, K. (eds.), Anatomy of a 21st-century sustainability project: The untold stories. - Gothenburg : Mistra Urban Futures / Chalmers University of Technology. - 9789198416633 ; , s. 44-53
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Understanding the spatial dimension of project-making is important because projects are almost always restricted to a spatial focus – they are being spatialised. There are spatial projects referring to the geographical scale of the project, such as global, local or regional projects. There are spatial projects referring to hierarchies of political entities, such as state, county or municipal projects. There are spatial projects referring to the character and quality of the area of deployment, such as rural, urban or nature projects. There are spatial projects referring to the relations between the involved actors, such as national, international or supranational projects. Finally, there are spatial projects referring to specific administrative or functional units, such as Gothenburg, the City Park, Main Street, Lake Victoria or the Amazon. The question, hence, is less whether projects are spatialised, but why and how. A long history of spatial analyses in scholarly literature reveals the problematic nature of thinking about societal projects in terms of spatial demarcations. Spatial thinking before problem thinking could be described as a form of apophenic or pareidolic perspectivism conditioned by the prevalent culture of spatial planning, which may or may not impair sound diagnosis and intervention. In this chapter, I approach the phenomenon of spatial thinking in the context of project-making from several perspectives, each with its own set of assumptions and hidden problems. The purpose of such an approach is to raise awareness about the complicated role space plays in project-making upon our decisions, actions, and the consequences of those actions.
|
|
| 8. |
- Dymitrow, Mirek, et al.
(författare)
-
The spatial dimension of project-making
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Anatomy of a 21st-century sustainability project: The untold stories. - Göteborg : Chalmers University of Technology and Mistra Urban Futures. - 9789198416633 - 9789198416633 ; , s. 44-53
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Understanding the spatial dimension of project-making is important because projects are almost always restricted to a spatial focus – they are being spatialised. There are spatial projects referring to the geographical scale of the project, such as global, local or regional projects. There are spatial projects referring to hierarchies of political entities, such as state, county or municipal projects. There are spatial projects referring to the character and quality of the area of deployment, such as rural, urban or nature projects. There are spatial projects referring to the relations between the involved actors, such as national, international or supranational projects. Finally, there are spatial projects referring to specific administrative or functional units, such as Gothenburg, the City Park, Main Street, Lake Victoria or the Amazon. The question, hence, is less whether projects are spatialised, but why and how. A long history of spatial analyses in scholarly literature reveals the problematic nature of thinking about societal projects in terms of spatial demarcations. Spatial thinking before problem thinking could be described as a form of apophenic or pareidolic perspectivism conditioned by the prevalent culture of spatial planning, which may or may not impair sound diagnosis and intervention. In this chapter, I approach the phenomenon of spatial thinking in the context of project-making from several perspectives, each with its own set of assumptions and hidden problems. The purpose of such an approach is to raise awareness about the complicated role space plays in project-making upon our decisions, actions, and the consequences of those actions.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
