Classic project management meets

panopticism

- How to monitor projects and (try to) secure

quality

By Philip Jæger Pedersen, studynr: 201503522

Classic Project Management and Beyond, 2016, home assignment

Supervisor: Timo Leimbach

Information Science - Master’s degree

Department of Aesthetics and Communication, Aarhus University

The paper consists of 31.228 signs corresponding to 13,0 normal pages

01-06-2016

Reading guide

Because of my professional background based in communication, digital media and information

science, and due to my personal interest, the following paper will focus on project-related work

within the field of IT.

Content Introduction .................................................................................................................................1

Research question ......................................................................................................................2

Research design .........................................................................................................................2

Quality: the overall criteria ...........................................................................................................3

Monitoring in projects - by a classic PM approach .......................................................................3

The monitoring toolbox ............................................................................................................5

The project manager as a fortuneteller? ..................................................................................6

Subconclusion .........................................................................................................................7

The Panopticon ...........................................................................................................................9

So why the panopticon? ........................................................................................................10

The panoptic building structure ..............................................................................................10

“Applying panopticism in 3 simple steps” ...............................................................................12

Self-disciplining ..................................................................................................................12

Are you to treat employees as “slaves”? ............................................................................13

Reflection and perspectivation ...........................................................................................14

Concluding remarks ..................................................................................................................15

Bibliography ..............................................................................................................................16

1

Introduction

Quality seems to be the overall success-criteria of a given project, dictated by the consumer or

customer and achieving this seems to demand a fine balance between systematic management,

trust and employees wanting to contribute (iso.org; Cadle & Yeates, 2008).

Since there’s no golden rule on how to “perform work” and no bulletproof way of setting up a

contract covering all possible risks and scenarios which may cause project-failure and securing

its fulfillment, I seek to discuss the subject of monitoring of project-related work within the classic

project management field by also including literature concerning panopticism, as a possible

alternative or as an expansion to the traditional ways of monitoring. It is not going to be the main-

reason of a project’s success since way too many factors are at risk, but it could possibly help

better the understanding of the monitoring aspects, and thus make decisions for the project

manager easier (or better) and thus help the project. This paper will not focus on why you should

monitor, but acknowledge the premise that it is needed, and therefore focus on expanding its

aspects. The panopticon has in relation to monitoring many promising comforts of fx. Being

economical and bringing error-prevention, but in the shadow of these comforts lurks an

asymmetrical power-relationship that may not be suited for today's workspace.

The outcome of the paper will be of conceptual character since the reality is complex, and solving

issues in project management by simply putting theoretical terms from panopticism to use is not

my agenda. Therefore, if you were hoping for the holy grail of monitoring you will be disappointed,

and if that is the case then; I am sorry. However, perhaps I can comfort you with, that the paper

will open a discussion regarding the subject of monitoring in a controversial way, and thus help

project managers understand some of the ethical problems, which are at risk when having to

control people and the project process.

Sure, the outcome may not be radically new but rather incremental. However fully understanding

and examining the field of monitoring, is important in relation to project-success and the subject

of panopticism could possibly contribute to improving some highly important parts of doing project

management. Both time-used, resources spent and quality-overall could very well be improved

by the regarding subject, but with that said, I acknowledge that there are several ethical concerns

which as well needs to be addressed in the paper.

2

Research question

1. How is the topic of monitoring project-related work addressed in classic project

management (PM) literature?

2. Can the topic of monitoring within the field of PM contribute from the panoptic viewpoint

by Foucault (1995)?

Research design

The paper will be based on literature concerning monitoring of project-related work within the field

of PM and discuss the topic of panopticism and self-disciplining in relation to this.

I intend to discuss the topics by including literature regarding panopticism by Michel Foucault,

which already seems to be covered and included in many other fields (fx. in the form of

Governmentality by Dean, 2006). My focus is not to answer how companies should facilitate a

way of securing people to self-”monitor”, but rather discuss the reasoning behind it and the

possible scenarios which could unfold if companies would do so.

The approach will be paradigmatic, and (hopefully) illustrate the value of combining/discussing

literature of different fields and thereby expanding the PM knowledge-realm.

Due to the text-limitation of the paper, only methodological and theoretical tools from the PM

literature by which I find relevant to discuss in combination with panopticism will be included. This

dictates that the term of monitoring, will be used in relation to the progress and process of projects,

and thus the employees contributing to this.

Moreover, I want to stress, that I am aware of the importance of (fx.) planning, risk-analysis and

management plus many other factors in relation to PM, which as well could influence the project-

success and be used in combination/relation to monitoring; however, there will not be space in

this paper to contain and cover this.

3

Quality: the overall criteria

I will be addressing quality control and management in relation to monitoring, since it not only

focuses on the product or service but also the means to achieve it, and thereby the process

(iso.org). This is not only due to personal interest, but as well since it is suggested, that if you take

care of the process the product will take care of itself (Chung, 1999).

I want to start with an introduction of the term “quality”, since it is quite a subjective matter and

dependent on the industry (Cadle & Yeates, 2008:237). However, the international standard “ISO

8402:1991” describes it as follows: “The totality of features and characteristics of a product or

service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs.” (Cradle & Yeates, 2008:238)

Quality is further described as “(...) the ‘conformance to requirements’ definition that is usually

used and this explains why it is so vital to get a detailed specification of requirements before work

starts.” (Cadle & Yeates, 2008:238). Thereby it as well is fundamental having a well-written plan

and contract (Attrup & Olsson, 2008:242)

With this in mind, the following section will be concerned with how to monitor and aim for quality

in project-related work.

My ambition with the following chapter is to introduce the more general approaches to handling

monitoring during a project and its life cycle, and it will therefore be based on “handbook”-PM

literature with references to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and their

interpretation of quality management and normalization thereof. Although it is not to be

understood as a reductive agenda (iso.org).

Monitoring in projects - by a classic PM approach

Project management and the exercising of control within projects, calls for four basic

elements/stages to consider (model 1) (Cadle & Yeates, 2008:208). When to do the steps should

be in relation to the project plan and the assigned milestones (Cadle & Yeates, 2008; Attrup &

Olsson, 2008: 232)

The stages are interdependent and works in synergy of each other. The first stage dictates an

evaluation of the current situation, and then the second stage to consider various corrective

measures. The third stage calls for the selection and implementation. Finally, the fourth stage

links back into the monitoring process. As mentioned this paper will address the monitoring-

”stage”.

4

Model 1: Monitoring and control cycle (Cadle & Yeates, 2008:208)

This chapter will firstly introduce quality management as an approach to monitoring and discuss

the effect it has on employees. As explained in the reading guide, this paper is developed in the

shadow of my personal interest in IT-projects, for which dictates a primary focus on time-

consumption in relation to IT-projects as it is the main expenditure thereof (Cadle & Yeates, 2008).

Even though the project manager is expected to lead the way, and evidently secure project

success, it is hard to deny the fact that the people behind the “project manager”-title simply are

individuals with very different personalities (Attrup & Olsson, 2008). This will then have an effect

on how they feel about exercising control and monitoring other people. Some might not want to

impose fear or control over others (Attrup & Olsson, 2008: 225). Could panopticism simply be the

solution to this problem? (Foucault, 1995). After having introduced the classic PM approach to

monitoring and quality-securing, the viewpoints of Foucault (1995) and his theory of panopticism

will be presented in order to discuss (some of the problematic aspects of) monitoring.

5

The monitoring toolbox

In order to monitor project-related work there’s a wide range of methods available, and the project

manager is required to know which of these to use, and how/when to use them and even to what

extent, in order to “secure” the quality and outcome of the project (iso.org; Cadle & Yeates, 2008).

The methods range from (fx.) simple and informal self-checking of products by their authors, to

the more detailed walkthroughs and Fagan inspections (Cadle & Yeates, 2008:247). Either of the

methods (tests or inspections) are used to locate and eliminate defects and errors during the

project's lifecycle (Cadle & Yeates, 2008:248).

These errors seems to be the first “great evil” in relation to failure or increased cost of projects.

Model 2: Quality control methods compared (Cadle & Yeates, 2008: 246).

Cadle and Yeates presents the above model to compare various methods of error-prevention.

Where the cost of the approaches are related to how well they may examine the process.

Since the main expenditure (when working on IS-projects) is payment of the staff it then, according

to Cadle and Yeates (2008:195), calls for having the team-members complete timesheets in order

to limit the project-cost. However, Cadle and Yeates do acknowledge, that requiring team

members to do this, brings “(...) political difficulties in the way. Staff, and sometimes trade unions,

may see the completion of timesheets as ‘Big Brother’ spying on them, and others, perhaps the

6

more senior or experienced people, may resent having their work examined minutely in this way.”

(Cadle & Yeates, 2008:192).

Olsson and Attrup (2008) comments further, that also the project manager may feel discomfort

when having to monitor the employees or simply exercise “control”. Therefore, both the workers

and the project managers may find the exercising of control problematic (p.225).

There are other alternatives to control being done by the project manager, fx. By peer-reviews or

external reviews (Cadle & Yeates, 2008:199,201)

What seems to be the foundation of this is that when controlling the project-process to prevent

errors, the project manager has to “create the right climate for quality control to work properly.”

(Cadle & Yeates 2008:197). Since quality control requires monitoring, feedback, tests or

inspections (for example) the risk of employees experiencing the criticism of their work, as being

addressed to them personally is existent which could lead to resistance (Cadle & Yeates,

2008:197).

When mentioning timesheets it’s in the sense of requiring employees to write on a sheet, the

hours they spent on project-related work, which should then also represent an estimate (or

“wishful thinking”) about the the completion of a project.

The big problem with this is that everything seems to be going as scheduled, until activities “(...)

lurch disastrously into overrun.” (Cadle & Yeates, 2008: 193).

The project manager will therefore have to somehow predict the future, and be able to locate the

possible reasons for failure in a neutral and non”witch hunt”-way. (Cadle & Yeates, 2008:193) To

which Olsson and Attrup (2008) also suggests, that employees may want to fake the actual

process, and write what they think the manager wants to read (p.225). A plausible explanation for

why the timesheets are wishful thinking?

The payment (and thus time-spent) is the second great evil in project-related work.

The project manager as a fortuneteller?

The project manager is required to navigate the uncertain in the right direction (Olsson & Attrup,

2008). But, how do you prevent errors when employees might experience criticism negativity, and

how do you make employees monitor their own work in order to limit time-spent with precision

and without delaying bad news?

As with many other aspects of PM, there are no “hard-and-fast” rules to how monitoring in relation

to quality control (always) needs to be done.

In order to monitor the effort spent on a project, it is important being able to evaluate the process

in relation to the plan, and therefore it requires having a time-recording system, wherein each

7

team member should put in how much time they have spent and an estimate of effort left for

completing the activity. With this information, the project manager can assess the process and

consider if corrective actions is required for completing the project with success. Cadle and

Yeates (2008) points out: “(...) Monitoring is by itself not management, and finding out how things

are going is quite useless unless you are prepared to do something to apply corrective action

where it is needed.” (p.207)

Olsson and Attrup (2008:228) suggests, that even though timesheets are being used by certain

companies, it may very well cause delay of the project if not used wisely and thereby just become

time-consuming and bureaucratic. They also add, that employees might think of a timesheet as

an unnecessary evil, where the management just want to “control” them, and thus put in fake

numbers (Olsson & Attrup, 2008:228).

There seems to be an overall paradox centered on the project-process, with the requirement of

performing control, even though it brings ethical concerns, and it being time-consuming (“time is

money”). However, if the project manager should chose to avoid exercising control or requiring

tests/inspections or time-recording, it will then bring the risk of errors and delays, which not only

is costly, but also time-consuming and thus again costly. Indeed it demands a knowledgeable

project manager, who chooses the right approach for the specific context and the workers therein

and to the desired extent. It seems rather utopic.

One of the inspection-methods (the fagan inspection), which is focused on the prevention of

errors, involves a formal critique of inconsistencies of documented work (Cadle & Yeates,

2008:239). My understanding of this approach is that it is most likely developed in relation to

avoiding mixing personal feelings (of the employees) with the work done, just as Attrup and

Olsson (2008) suggested being an issue.

The fagan inspection is further led by an independent chairperson (so not the project manager)

and uses checklists based on historical data. Thereby is the problem with project managers

feeling discomfort when exercising control also vanished (Attrup & Olsson, 2008; Cadle & Yeates,

2008:239). Nevertheless, as the above mode 2 illustrated, along with this approach comes much

higher a cost.

Subconclusion

What is evident so far about monitoring is the fact, that without any action or follow-up, monitoring

is without much value besides the impact it may have on the mind of the workers during the

project-process. Monitoring is an area with many different tools for the project manager to use,

and as always, the project manager is required to use the right one, depending on the project and

8

its context. The complexity (and the “effect”) of the monitoring seems to go hand-in-hand with the

cost of whichever solution is chosen.

However, what seems to be missing, I would argue, is more guiding material in the literature

concerned with how the project manager ought to facilitate monitoring in an “ethical correct”

manner.

Isn’t it quite easy just to claim: “create the right climate for quality control to work properly.”? If

you fail at creating this climate, you must face the consequences of employees who resists the

monitoring or fakes their effort.

Perhaps yet again, you just have to accept, that every project; organization and employee are

unique and must be treated in relation to this.

My ambition of introducing and discussing panopticism, will be done in the following. I chose to

do this since ““Project management and project organization is a complex subject.” (Söderund,

2004:1) It ought to be displayed from several angles, and to also bring justice to its place in the

field of academics (Söderlund, 2004) The following section will therefore contain an introduction

to panopticism by Foucault, why it’s relevant and lastly a discussion of panopticism in relation to

aspects of monitoring project-related work from the field of classic PM.

9

The Panopticon

This chapter will be concerned with the methodological and theoretical aspects of panopticism as

described by Foucault in his work “Discipline and Punish” (Foucault, 1995). The chapter is not

simply to be understood as a theoretical tool-box for which a project manager is to search for

practical elements to put into use, but instead more concerned with the mindset and reasoning

behind panopticism, and thereby more of a structural guideline. The chapter will also include

hypothetical scenarios wherein some elements of the more practical nature of monitoring in

relation to panopticism is put into display.

Picture 1: The cell (utilitarianism.com).

10

Why the panopticon?

According to Foucault: “Whenever one is dealing with a multiplicity of individuals on whom a task

or a particular form of behaviour must be imposed, the panoptic schema may be used.” (Foucault,

1995:205). Therefor my agenda is to put this to a test, and discuss how it today could be done in

a matter of monitoring in project-related workplaces.

Central of panopticism is the term of discipline which Foucault presents in two different ways, but

in relation to panopticism he describes it as: “‘(...) a type of power, a modality for its exercise,

comprising a whole set of instruments, techniques, procedures, levels of application, targets; it is

a ‘physics' or an anatomy’ of power, a technology.” (Foucault, 1995:215). Foucault introduces

panopticism with a story concerning how the plague was handled in towns and by the townsfolk.

The term of power, is in this case, described and facilitated as a necessary situation in order to

fight back the plague where “(...) surveillance is based on a system of permanent registration”

(Foucault, 1995:196).

“Power” in relation to the panoptic-viewpoint is instead more of a generalized understanding of

human nature, and a way of defining power-relations; “(...) in terms of the everyday life of men”

(Foucault, 1995:205). Where in this case, Foucault believed that the shift brought ‘‘the disciplinary

society’’ along with it (Dupont, 2015).

Panopticism, as presented by Foucault, originates from an idea and drawing by Jeremy Bentham

that was then adopted and made famous by Foucault. In Foucault's book “Discipline and Punish”

there’s an entire chapter entitled “Panopticism”, wherein Foucault delivers his answer to the

perfect structure of disciplining subjects. Foucault explains how discipline and power-relations

has evolved during the ages, and then describes how he sees the “modern” society, and the

different organizations in relation to discipline (and panopticism). In the more modern viewpoint

of Foucault, it originates from the “panopticon” building, as presented by Bentham. But to

Foucault, the panopticon is not just a “dream building”, it is a metaphor for facilitating power,

reduced to (what Foucault believed) its perfect form.

The panopticon-building simply operates by increasing the number of people being controlled,

and decreasing the people needed for monitoring the controlled individuals and thus becoming

very economical. (Foucault, 1995).

The panoptic building structure

In the center of a circular building, there is a watchtower; an “all-seeing”-eye, and in the periphery;

the cells.

11

The watchtower was to induce the prisoners with a feeling of being permanently visible to the

guards, and by this assuring “(...) the automatic functioning of power” (Foucault: 1995:201).

The prisoners would not be able to see the guards in the watchtower, which made it unknown for

the prisoners if they were being watched. The result was a constant risk of being observed, which

Foucault believed would make the prisoners behave properly. “He is seen, but he does not see;

he is the object of information, never a subject in communication.” (Foucault, 1995:200). The

prisoners were indeed subjects of being unwillingly controlled. Foucault (1995) believed the

panopticon would force prisoners to behave morally correct. Pretty much the same as we know

from religion with the “all-seeing God” forcing the believers to correct their wicked thoughts before

putting them to action.

Picture 2: Building structure: (security.utexas.edu).

“The real world keeps getting in the way of my plans” (Attrup & Olsson, 2008: 226). In classic PM

literature, “the plan”, as a matter of achieving control, is never a bulletproof way to achieve project

success, and as Olsson and Attrup continues; “Fact is, that no plan survives contact with the real

world”. With this in mind, and the fact projects are not homogeneous, I will discuss the application

12

of panopticism, and hope that the following section will not be understood as the perfect solution

to all problems within the realm of monitoring, but instead open up a discussion regarding the

opportunities and/or concerns it brings.

“Applying panopticism in 3 simple steps”

- A discussion of panopticism in relation to project management

1. Create a circular workspace, 2. Separate workers and 3. Make action visible

Were you to actually apply the classic disciplinary apparatus of the panopticon, the first basic idea

is based upon the panopticons economical structure of power with its circular building and a

central outlook; a single person (project manager) could then easily monitor all workers. The

second objective to strive for is permanent visibility; make sure the workers cannot hide their

actions. Last is the separation of workers in order to fully control them, and exclude opportunities

for their coordination, which could lead to a collective effect. Do this, and Foucault promises “(...)

there are no disorders, no theft, no coalitions, none of those distractions that slow down the rate

of work, make it less perfect or cause accidents.” (Foucault, 1995:201).

As I mentioned previously; in today’s globalized, capitalistic, and rapidly evolving world (of IT as

well), the main expenditures of projects are errors and payment of the staff. So do you simply

follow these steps towards a panoptic workspace?

It is hard to deny that employees working for a given company well willingly might try to resist

such an approach. Panopticism as a theory is indeed mechanic, reductive and without much

consideration of the individual worker and in the shadow of the panopticon remains the question;

whether it, in today's world, would lead to a better workplace and higher productivity, or just bring

resistance and put unnecessary stress on the subjects being monitored. Foucault did not seem

interested in addressing the issue of resistance, which in my opinion, brings quite a plot-hole to

the promise he stated above, and even greater in today's society where employees are working

at a firm by their own will. Just as mentioned by Cadle and Yeates, employees might experience

the simple time sheets as “big brother” spying on them, and the panopticon is, I would argue,

exceeding the surveilling nature of time sheets.

Self-disciplining

“The Panopticon is a marvellous machine which, whatever use one may wish to put it to, produces

homogeneous effects of power” (Foucault, 1995:202).

This statement is based on how Foucault describes the “self-disciplinary” nature of the “machine”.

“He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the

13

constraints of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself; he inscribes in himself

the power relation in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the principle of his

own subjection.” (Foucault, 1995:202-203). What Foucault believed, was the heart of the

panopticon is how it makes the subjects perform “power” or simply; self-disciplinary-action on

themselves. There is then no need for project managers to pursue this action; it is performed “by

itself”. So when a firm may require of a project manager to monitor his co-workers (or employees),

why not just make a classic panoptic workplace-structure? Could the panopticon then cure the

discomfort of monitoring co-workers?

As I mentioned earlier, the project manager would quite possibly feel discomfort monitoring co-

workers, and the panopticon and its structure actually promotes the opportunity to monitor without

the controlled subject watching back, as the cells are constructed with a blind spot. However,

obviously this topic would need more research to conclude anything by. The nature the self-

disciplinary agenda, where people ought to exercise power over oneself, seems to be somewhat

uncertain though and therefore flawed, since just as we know from the “self-checking” of PM-

literature; you could very well be left with a false prediction of the projects process.

Which brings me to, as PM literature suggests; when monitoring employees, they could be

required to produce some kind of “progress-report”, in order to make the work or progress visible

by fx. Completing timesheets or simply by applying checks on their own work (prominent in a total

quality-climate) (Cadle & Yeates 2008:197,198). In the panoptic-viewpoint subjects themselves

are required to be (fully) visible, and therefore it would be possible (for project managers) to

assess performance easily. The project manager would then, in even greater detail, be able to

monitor and evaluate performance.

Foucault describes discipline, in relation to the panopticon, as embodied in the building, which

makes everyone in it easily observed and analyzed, and the operation easily performed. This

basic theory, even though it is relatively outdated, is still today the center of discussions in relation

to IT and surveillance. Here IT is a way of centralizing the power, the observation tool and the

watchtower. In this manner, the monitored persons are to wonder, “Is someone watching through

the system/device?” The exact mindset Foucault wanted. It is however hard to justify the “whip”-

like nature of this approach, and as we know from PM-literature, the carrot is a better tool to put

to use (Attrup & Olsson, 2008).

Are you to treat employees as “slaves”?

The panopticon seems to require a hierarchical work-structure, and indeed promote asymmetrical

power-relationships, from which project-work today has moved away from (Olsson & Attrup,

14

2008:26). The big problem with comparing panopticism with PM then seems to be, that when

subjects were placed in the panoptic prison, they were done so unwillingly and conversely people

working at a firm are (supposedly) doing so willingly. Because of this difference, the monitoring

has to be differentiated from the vision of Bentham and Foucault, where the subjects were under

surveillance unwillingly, and instead to be understood as surveillance facilitated to workers aware

of the monitoring (if you are to implement it). Being aware of the monitoring is important, since it

could be expected that the workers would avoid it, if they, themselves, realized the monitoring.

Think for example of how users of the traditional internet developed and used the “dark web”-

version, in order to avoid surveillance (pcadvisor.co.uk). Regular people are also using more low-

practical methods, when they place tape over their laptops’ webcam (osxdaily.com). The

examples of avoiding surveillance are many.

Sure, an IT-system that registers performance automatically may avoid “lying” and fabricated

numbers, but you might still be left with unhappy employees feeling unnecessary control being

exercised towards them (Olsson & Attrup, 2008:225). Olsson and Attrup (2008:38) also adds, that

you must forget about using the whip as a motivational factor, and states that employees will

move along if it is not fun being at work, instead they introduce the “FEST”schema (of Torbjörn

Wenell), wherein they point towards freedom and trust as key-factors for motivation and project-

success (Olsson & Attrup, 2008:40-41).

The ISO states, “Leaders at all levels establish unity of purpose and direction and create

conditions in which people are engaged in achieving the organization’s quality objectives.” (ISO,

2015:8). The workspace of today does not seem suited for the panoptic-approach. The ISO even

continues to say that organizations should strive for shared values, fairness and ethical models

for behavior, and to establish a culture based on trust and integrity, in order to make all individuals

strive for contributing towards the goal of “quality” (ISO, 2015:9).

Reflection and perspectivation

Since the panopticon is far from new nor modern, and the building-structure thereof doesn’t

exactly encourage teamwork, it would most likely be better suited for project managers or

organizations, to consider using the newer and more technological version that of the “electronic

panopticon”, fx. In the form of CCTV (politics.co.uk).

Besides, since Foucault's publication of Discipline and Punish, several interpretations of his work

has been made, where one of them is of Shoshana Zuboff, the author of “In the Age of the Smart

Machine”. In Zuboffs work, she presented an ethnographic study of the impact of IT in

organizations, and the impact of IT when used as panopticism. (shoshanazuboff.com).

In this matter, the internet (or a given electronic system) allows for a panoptic form of observation.

The system will then track the “users”, and thus impose self-disciplinary action.

15

The system's objectivity can still have a psychological impact on the workers, both good and bad,

since workers then would feel a need to satisfy the system rather than doing their best work

(shoshanazuboff.com). It is however still a “whip”-like approach to management, which is not

exactly welcomed by today's standards in the workplace (Attrup & Olsson, 2008).

Concluding remarks

In classic project management, topics like motivation, fairness and ethical concerns are

prominent. The literature suggests, that you need some form of control or monitoring of the project

process in order to avoid errors and time-delay, but you must do this without it becoming

bureaucratic or time-consuming and within the right climate. Furthermore monitoring must be

done without imposing employees with the feeling of being spied on or being the subjects of

unnecessary control.

What seems evident by the introduction of panopticism and the discussion thereof, is the fact

panopticism requires an asymmetrical power-relationship and dictates a hierarchical work-

structure, which of today's standard is no longer suited; “the carrot is the better choice” than the

whip. Besides, fully integrating a panoptic workplace, would dictate the separation of workers,

which obviously is in contrast with today's nature of teamwork.

Since projects per definition are not some single nor standardized process, it is for this very reason

hard to generalize and create the perfect solution for monitoring or doing quality control (Olsson

& Attrup, 2008: chapter 1, 2). The uniqueness of projects is the curse of them. It will as always be

required for the project manager to know about the different approaches and make a suitable

decision regarding which tools to put to use or if a combination is required. The reality is complex;

the plan does not survive contact with the real world; synonyms for stressing the importance of

reflective use of PM-tools.

The journey is forever uncertain. The course however still important.

16

Bibliography

Alvesson, M., Kärreman D. (2004) Interfaces of control. Technocratic and socio-ideological control in a global management consultancy firm. Accounting, Organizations and Society 29 (2004) 423–444.

Attrup, M. L. & Olsson, J. R., (2008). Power i projekter og portefølje, 2. udgave, 11. oplag. Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag. Gothersgade 137, 1123 København K. Printed in Denmark 2014.

Cadle, J., Yeates, D. (2008). Project Management for Information Systems 5th edition. ©

Pearson Education Limited 2008, Edinburgh Gate, Harlow Essex CM20 2JE, England.

Dean, M. (2006). Governmentality - Magt og styring i det moderne samfund. Forlaget Sociologi

2006. ℅ Forlaget Samfundslitteratur. Rosenørns Allé 9. 1970 Frederiksberg C. Foucault, M. (1995). DISCIPLINE AND PUNISH: The Birth o f the Prison: Chapter 3: Panopticism 2nd edition. Vintage books, a division of random house, inc. New York.

Dupont, B. (2015) "Hacking the panopticon: Distributed online surveillance and resistance" In Surveillance and Governance: Crime Control and Beyond. Published online: 09 Mar 2015; 257-278.

ISO1 (2016) ISO 9000 - Quality management. Last visit: 31-05-2016: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/management-standards/iso_9000.html

ISO (2015) Quality management principles. Central Secretariat Chemin de Blandonnet 8 Case Postale 401 CH – 1214 Vernier, Geneva Switzerland

Lyon, D. (1992) The new surveillance: Electronic technologies and the maximum security society. Crime, Law and Social Change 18: 159-175, 1992. (~) 1992 Kluwer Academic

Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Osxdaily.com. (2016) The FBI Director Puts Tape Over His Webcam, Should You? Last visit:

31-05-2016: http://osxdaily.com/2016/04/18/put-tape-on-web-camera-yes-no/

Pcadvisor.co.uk (2016) What is the Dark Web? How to access the Dark Web. What's the difference between the Dark Web and the Deep Web? Last visit: 31-05-2016: http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/how-to/internet/what-is-dark-web-how-access-dark-web-deep-joc-beautfiulpeople-3593569/

Politics.co.uk (2011) CCTV. Last visit: 31-05-2016: http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/cctv

Security.utexas.edu. Last visit: 31-05-2016: https://security.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/styles/large_retina/public/panopticon%20%20pointsdactu-dot-org.jpg?itok=gTL_soMw

Söderlund, J. (2004). Building theories of project management: past research, questions for the future. International journal of project management, 22(3), 183-191.

17

Shoshanazuboff.com. Zuboff, S. In the Age of the Smart Machine. Last visit: 31-05-2016: http://www.shoshanazuboff.com/new/books/in-the-age-of-the-smart-machine/

Utilitarianism.com. Last visit: 31-05-2016: http://www.utilitarianism.com/panopticon.jpg