Building the Case for Historical Project Management 1

Building the Case for Historical Project Management

Abstract
This paper addresses common misperceptions about historical project management such as these projects
had an unlimited budget, predominant slave workforce, and unlimited time lines. These misperceptions
leave an impression that what was practiced in the past is not relevant to todays projects. It sets the
notion that these projects are so different, from a project management standpoint, they cannot be taken
seriously for comparative purposes. It also infers that modern project management is unique, unconnected
to the past, and started recently (twentieth century).

This paper will show that historical projects dealt with comparable issues and had similar characteristics
of modern projects: the multiple competing constraints of scope, schedule, budget, quality, resources, and
risk. Some of these landmark historical projects delivered in timescales, and levels of quality that we
would struggle with today. Hence, these projects should not be dismissed but embraced.

Keywords: History of Project Management, IRNOP 2011

Introduction
Conventional wisdom around 30 years ago viewed dinosaurs as slow lumbering creatures. The name
terrible-lizard inferred large, cold blooded reptiles that lived in a hot tropical climate. This was a long
held view initiated by Richard Owen 130 years earlier. Fast forward to today and conventional wisdom
views dinosaurs as agile, warm blooded creatures, closer to birds than reptiles, that lived in the extremes
of hot and cold climates. Why this shift in views? What has changed in 30 years? You could argue the
influx of new technologies has had an impact. For example, X-ray computed tomography (CTs),
computer generated imagery that provides biomechanical simulations, comparative anatomy with modern
animals in similar ecological niches. However, foremost the biggest change was reviewing the known
evidence more carefully, objectively and logically.

Paper Objective
The objective of the paper is to highlight that today's view of historical project management is inaccurate,
biased, and unrealistic. It has been badly distorted by fiction, the media and pop culture. Based on recent
archaeological evidence the view needs to be updated in a similar way the view of dinosaurs has changed
in the last 30 years.
Building the Case for Historical Project Management 2

This paper will examine some of the most important historical projects, through a modern project
management lens and the nine PMBoK Guide Knowledge Areas that are central to project management.
Landmark historical projects such as the Giza Pyramid, the Greek Parthenon, the Roman Colosseum,
Hagia Sophia, and Chartres Cathedral will be reviewed. It will address common misperceptions about
historical project management and that the aforementioned projects had unlimited budgets without an
economic return, a predominant slave workforce, unlimited time lines, and used concepts not associated
with modern project management. The paper will start to reinterpret historical project management so that
we can connect or equate it to modern project management, and see it as a natural evolution.

Where do these Mis-Perceptions Arise?

These misperceptions are only now being recognized as the need to find a more balanced view of
historical projects is becoming more pressing. Both researchers in project management (Garel, 2004) and
business historians (Scranton, 2008) call for the development of a history of projects and project
management. Existing literature on project history is biased toward large, US, military and space projects
of the 20th century (Sderlund and Lenfle, 2010). The misperceptions stem from a generalized view of
ancient regimes as being autocratic and authoritarian in nature. This has been shaped by the modern
culture through fiction and cinema. There are potential other misperceptions, other than the four presented
in the paper, but these fall out of the scope of this paper.

What are the Sources to these Misperceptions?

These are based on qualitative research and observations:
There is a lack of literature that ties modern with historical project management. There is much
literature that concentrates on the outputs or the final deliverables of historical projects but
exclusive to fields like architecture, or engineering. There is little reference to project
management in as much how the project was initiated, planned, executed, controlled and closed.
Project management conferences carry very few case studies on historical projects. These
typically provide a very shallow interpretation of historical projects and this is selective to
support a particular principle.
General conversations within the project management community with many project managers
(PMPs).
Building the Case for Historical Project Management 3

Definition of "Historical and Modern Project Management"

In the context of this work historical project management is not of the modern age that is before 1940.
Modern project management is that what comes after 1940.

Selection of Historical Projects

Why these five historical projects? What is the justification behind them? This paper cannot provide
endless examples of project management practices from all projects. Therefore, it looks at the five
landmark historical projects which were carefully selected by certain critera, namely:
they were truly influential on all projects that followed,
they can be held as definitive examples of successful projects,
they were firsts in the use of a particular technology (material or tool), or process,
there is good ethno-history around these projects,
there is on-going archaeological research.

Sources for the Paper

The sources of historical data are unconventional as they come from outside of project management. For
example, through:
Archaeologists and egyptologists (Brier, Lehner)
o Egyptologist Mark Lehner and the dig at Gizas workers cemetery and village (Shaw, 2003).
o Egyptologist Bob Brier, and Jean-Pierre Houdin research and the computer modeling of the
Giza Pyramid to support the internal ramp theory (Brier, 2008).
Engineers (akmak)
o Professor Ahmet akmak (professor emeritus in earthquake engineering at Princeton
University) work on the construction of Hagia Sophia (Hughes, 2006).
Architectural detectives (Korres, Fitchen, Macauley)
o Associate Professor of architecture Manolis Korres (at the National Technical University of
Athens) and a leading Parthenon scholar, work on the Parthenon restoration project ($90
project million to repair and restore the structure) which has opened up the window on the
building practices of the Ancient Greeks (Hadingham, 2008, P.1-3).
o David Macauley, author and illustrator, and faculty member at the Rhode Island School of
Design, illustrated the construction of a Pyramid, Gothic cathedral, Roman city, and
Medieval castle.
Building the Case for Historical Project Management 4

The above research is widely published and verified within specific communities, and can be seen as
reliable. These are not project managers, and would be unfamiliar with for example the PMBoK.

Background Information about the Five Historical Projects

Based on the selection critera the following five historical projects were selected in historical sequence:
The Giza Pyramid Project (2550-2530 BCE) had enormous technical challenges, from the
creation of a perfectly level base, to building the burial chambers, to completing the last third and
mounting the cap stone. It remained the tallest structure till the completion of the Eifel Tower.
The Greek Parthenon Project (447-438 BCE) was a public works project to keep the
unemployed off the streets, and stimulate the economy. It was completed in 9 years, remarkable
when considering the quality of the finished deliverable. It set the notion that it was possible to
deliver esthetically pleasing buildings within the scope of a project. It was widely copied.
The Roman Colosseum Project (69-79) built in a swamp, used new technologies and materials,
like concrete to create extensive arches, barrel vaults, and domes. Completed in 10 years the
project shored up the emperors shaky regime and was delivered by four contractors.
The Hagia Sophia Project (532-537) was successfully delivered in only 5 years. Built in an
earthquake zone it has withstood multiple earthquakes because of its intelligent design and use of
flexible materials. It was widely copied in the Muslim world.
The Chartres Cathedral Project (1145-1220) was built in a race to complete the tallest cathedral
were the world record was broken 5 times within 62 years. Built beyond the financial means of
the town the challenge was to sustain the project over several generations.

Discussion

Misperception #1 Historical projects had unlimited budgets without an economic return

The first misperception relates to the funding behind the project. The premise being that the project had
unlimited resources poured in, little accountability, with no expenses spared, at the cost of everything
outside of the project which caused societal deterioration. In return there was no real economic return or
benefits to the majority with the exception of a few benefits for the project sponsor.
Building the Case for Historical Project Management 5

The counter argument to this view is that projects in the past as today needed a budget to get started with,
but had to have some sort of a return on investment for the project stakeholders. Otherwise it would have
been very difficult to initiate the project.

The Giza Pyramid Project (2550-2530 BCE)

Ancient Egypt is recognized as the first nation state and this project helped unify it by the economic
returns it provided. This state sponsored project employed a vast workforce of up to 20,000 at any time.
With a high proportion of unskilled versus skilled workers, the former came in lieu of village taxes in the
quite time, when the fields were flooded and agricultural work took a break. The workforce was rotated in
a modular team-based kind of organization (Shaw, 2003, P.99). This workforce had to be supplied not
just with the vast quantities of materials and tools for the project but everything else to keep them going
day-to-day, including food, refreshments, clothing, housing, health care, and entertainment (Smith, 1999,
P.9). This required a huge supply chain that engaged a very large portion of the population of one million.
So the project economic return was immense, it put a lot of people into the project payroll, put food on the
table, and quelled any discontent. But most importantly it helped unify the nation. Accountability came in
the form of Hemienu, the chief architect responsible for the project, but also the prime minister.

The Greek Parthenon Project (447-438 BCE)

As many notable projects this project was initiated after an event, the Greek victory at the Battle of
Mycale. Pericles, the victorious military leader took the initiative to restore the destroyed parts of the city
of Athens. The project financing came from a war chest (the treasure of the Delian League) from any part
that was not used for the common defence. Pericles also had to make substantial personal investments
himself. He argued the project would beautify what he deemed the legitimate capital of a magnificent
empire. Sophisticated public buildings were important as they underpinned the Greek public institutions
and commitment to democracy. The economic returns of the project were it stimulated the Athenian
economy by creating a number of important feeder industries, and by putting the whole city into state-pay
(Bramann, 1999, P.1). It also kept the unemployed workers off the streets. The Athenians were very
conscious of accountability. Today surviving fragments of the project financial accounts are still found
inscribed in stone for public scrutiny (Hadingham, 2008, P.2).

The Roman Colosseum Project (69-79)

The Emperor Flavian Vespasian, a very successful general, was under pressure to restore confidence and
wipe away the memory of Emperor Nero. As Rome grew, swelled by immigrants, the state policy of civic
control was through free benefits (bread) and entertainment (circuses) (Hopkins, 2005, P.28). The
Building the Case for Historical Project Management 6

economic returns of the project were it would create a vast and permanent place of entertainment which
would appeal to the masses. In the past smaller temporary structures were erected and then torn down
after the event. Another economic return was a vast workforce (20,000 to 30,000) would be employed
which would solve many of the unemployment problems of Rome. This was a public works project that
shored up the emperors shaky regime, as the Roman Empire was close to ruin. Vespasian was very
accountable for this highly visible public project. The project funding came from booty captured in the
Jewish War by Vespasian. Roman political propaganda required these buildings to be showcases and also
to emphasize that Rome was at the center of a vast empire.

The Hagia Sophia Project (532-537)

During the riots of 532 many fires were started which destroyed large parts of the city including a
predominant church, the Church of the Holy Wisdom (Hagia Sophia). Its destruction provided Emperor
Justinian an opportunity to create spectacular new buildings. He ordered the construction of a cathedral at
Hagia Sophia. As the principal stakeholder he set the project charter that the cathedral was to be a
showpiece. His ambitions were to re-establish the Roman Empire, but from the east. During his reign he
conquered territories to the east, and in North Africa. He also brought Italy under the empire. The project
would help showcase the capability of the Eastern Roman Empire, and establish Constantinople and
himself as the successor to the might of Rome. One of the principal economic returns of the project was it
would attract visitors and pilgrims to the city.

The Chartres Cathedral Project (1145-1220)

The Gothic cathedral boom in France was spurred by the competition for pilgrims between cities. The
cathedrals had a major impact on the prosperity and importance of the city as they attracted thousands of
pilgrims. The merchants in a city recognized the economic return the project could bring, and they were
the principal sponsors for the project along with the church. In this period world record fever gripped the
cities as they poured in resources for their own cathedral projects. It was broken 5 times within 62 years.
The Church typically initiated the finance of the projects from its own revenues derived from church
owned land and also from the community. The Chapter, responsible for the project would send out
collectors to raise money, and also put out appeals. The church could also send its holy relics on tour,
which would raise donations. The challenge was to financially sustain the project over several generations
where the original participants would never see it to completion. Very few of these Gothic cathedral
projects were achieved in one continuous campaign of building (Fitchen, 1986, P.49). Accountability
came in the form of chapter, completely responsible for the completion of the project.
Building the Case for Historical Project Management 7

Misperception #2 Historical projects had a predominant slave workforce

The second misperception relates to use of slaves with for example the Great Pyramid at Giza. This
project conjures up images of thousands of slaves serving a merciless pharaoh and toiling in inhospitable
conditions.

The counter argument to this view is that in the projects of the past labor was not an inexhaustible supply,
but came at a higher price. One of the most challenging areas of project management is Human Resource
management, and creating a conducive environment to get the best out of people.

The Giza Pyramid Project (2550-2530 BCE)

The Giza Pyramid was constructed within a 20 year period entirely by humans and with no animal muscle
power. There is little evidence that in the Fourth Egyptian Dynasty hordes of ill fed slaves existed. The
precision of the building and the efficiency needed to erect it swiftly required the skills of craftsmen
(Schoch, 2005, P.90). The workforce was organized according to the skills of the workers. With 200 years
of experience with Pyramid projects helped identify workforce size, and the mix of trades, and skills
needed. The skilled workforce was made up of surveyors, stonecutters, mason, mortar makers, and
carpenters. They worked all year around either on site or in the quarries. They benefited from a system of
privileges. The unskilled workforce or labourers were not slaves, but mostly farmers. They worked on the
project between July and November when their fields were flooded. The workers village, uncovered
recently, highlights that the workers were well looked after. The excavated workers graves found bones
that were mineralized, indicating the workers ate meat which was the food of the Egyptian middle classes.
There are scores of bakeries and breweries flanking the galleries, as well as an abundance of animal bones
from sheep, and cows. Mark Lehner wrote at the end of the 2002 season:
There were slaves in Egypt but the discovery that pyramid workers were fed like royalty
buttresses other evidence that they were not slaves at all, at least in the modern sense of the
word. (Shaw, 2003, P.99)
This was a public works project initiated to help the people of the nation (Schoch, 2005, P.301).
Building the Case for Historical Project Management 8

Figure 1. The workers village at the Giza Pyramid site (Foley, 2001).
Building the Case for Historical Project Management 9

The Greek Parthenon Project (447-438 BCE)

The project was a public works project to keep the unemployed workers off the streets, and stimulate the
Athenian economy by creating a number of important feeder industries. That is why slave were not used.
Public support for the project was high partly because it stimulated the local economy, and incorporated
local small businesses which helped the local unemployed. It utilized the flourishing artistic talent along
with the unemployed (Hurwit, 2004). The project workforce consisted of a broad array of artisans and
tradesmen including smiths and carpenters, molders, founders and braziers, stone-cutters and
stonemasons, dyers, goldsmiths, ivory-workers, painters, embroiderers, and turners.

The Roman Colosseum Project (69-79)

Slaves existed in ancient times in fact there were 21 million in the Roman Empire. These slaves were
mainly owned by private families and individuals, and used as household servants or concubines.
Therefore, these slaves would have been ill suited for the project. Major projects contracted companies
and local workers (citizens) rather than slave labor. In the large scale government projects of the Roman
era the main construction force was made up of contractors (the Colosseum project had four (Weever,
2007, P.5)), who used the guilds for their workforce. Aside from these, the employment of soldiers from
the Legion and some government slaves (Servi Caesaris were the most renowned, who were on the path
to manumission) were used (Pipes, 1981, P.11).

The Hagia Sophia Project (532-537)

The project employed two of the most famous architects of the age. A vast project workforce of 10,000
was brought together and divided into two teams of 5,000, each under 50 master-builders. The project
hierarchy was run on the lines of the Roman guilds (Ousterhout, 2008, P.50). As this was a time sensitive
project, run in a confined environment with little space, the pace of the project delivery was dependent on
the guilds and the use of skilled labourers. The project was delivered in a remarkably short 5 years, when
compared to cathedral projects of Europe that would have had a much smaller workforce (a twentieth of
the size). A slave force would have inhibited the pace of the project.

The Chartres Cathedral Project (1145-1220)

The project was run by a system of guilds (up to 43) each made up of specialized workers, for example
stonecutters and masons, blacksmiths and carpenter. Each guild had a number of laborers to help them,
called servants or assistants who had no particular trade or skill. Records show the work given to the
laborers varied: they made mortar and plaster (Gimpel, 1992, P.60), they transported cask wood for
carpenters, dug the quarries or the foundations, carried a variety of materials in baskets (panniers) on their
Building the Case for Historical Project Management 10

backs and took the tiles to the roofs, and any heavy work. They were at the bottom of the medieval ladder,
but had the opportunity to better themselves. They could become a specialized craftsman or save money
and set themselves up as a contractor. The project had significant impact on the employment of a town.

Figure 2. Masons (specialized workers) had teams of laborers to help them (Macauley, 1981)

Misperception #3 Historical projects had unlimited timelines

The third misperception relates to the timelines for historical projects which extended for decades or even
centuries. Yes there were projects such as this, notably some of the Gothic Cathedral projects, which were
planned with extended timeframe.
Building the Case for Historical Project Management 11

The counter argument to this view is that projects of the past were initiated by project sponsors who were
looking for the project benefits to be delivered within a timeframe when they were still in a position of
power, so that they would reap the benefits and glory of the project. Typically, 5 to 15 years.

The Giza Pyramid Project (2550-2530 BCE)

Planning for the Pharaoh Khufus pyramid started as Sneferus body was being embalmed. Khufu was 40
years old so there was not a lot of time to complete the project:
Adult life expectancy was about 35 for men and 30 for women. For a Pharaoh it would have been
between 60 to 70 (Filer, 1996)
The project had to be delivered before the pharaoh died which was estimated to be within 20 years. It
would have been embarrassing, to the whole project team, if the Giza Pyramid was not completed on
time. The most recent evidence from the Giza site suggests that the scope of the project was smaller than
initially thought and is based on a more accurate count of the stone blocks, realization the foundation was
built inside a quarry, and that an internal ramp would have shortened the size of the external ramp
considerably (Brier, 2008). Also there is a better understanding of the techniques and tools used in the
quarrying, finishing, and hauling the blocks into position. A reduced scope would have required a much
smaller workforce and a shorter time line. The original estimate was for a workforce of 100,000. Smith
surmised that there was a full-time workforce of about 4,000 to 5,000, not including the workers
responsible for cutting limestone at the distant quarries, transporting it to Giza, and bringing it to the site.
Smith (1999, P.9) concluded that the total project required an average workforce of 13,200 persons and a
peak workforce of 40,000, over a 10-year duration.
Building the Case for Historical Project Management 12

Figure 3. An internal ramp would have shortened the size of the external ramp and reduced the volume of
material required, and hence the size of the workforce (Dassault Systemes, March 2007)

The Greek Parthenon Project (447-438 BCE)

Pericles, the principal stakeholder for the project made a personal investment. It was a showcase building
that also had a political purpose to put Athens on the map as the center of an empire. Records were kept
and the project was completed in 9 years which was quite remarkable considering the quality of the
finished deliverable. The short time frame was important to Pericles as he wanted to reap the benefits in
his lifetime. The project was able to achieve this short time frame for several reasons. According to
Korres one key factor was naval technology, the use of ropes, pulleys and wooden cranes for hauling and
lifting of the marble blocks. Also the ancient Athenians created chisels and axes that were sharper and
more durable than those available today, and could carve marble at more than double the rate of todays
craftsmen (Hadingham, 2008, P.2). Many buildings have followed in the Parthenons influence,
particularly with the harmonious and integrated way it was architected.
Building the Case for Historical Project Management 13

Figure 4. The use of naval technology - ropes, pulleys and wooden cranes on the Parthenon project
(Engineering an Empire, 2006)

The Roman Colosseum Project (69-79)

This was a political project initiated by the government to highlight its generosity, and to give back
something to the people. It was the states policy of civic control through free benefits (bread) and
entertainment (circuses) (Parker, 2010). Any delays would have been problematic for maintaining the
principal stakeholders (the Emperor Vespasian) power and position. The project shored up the
emperors shaky regime as the Empire was close to ruin, following Neros reign, and held back a revolt in
the Empire. According to records the project was completed in 10 years.

The Hagia Sophia Project (532-537)

This project was an important symbol of power for the emerging Eastern Roman Empire. The project had
to be successfully delivered in a short time frame and remarkably it took 5 years. A large project
workforce of 10,000 was assembled which helped deliver the project in the shorter time frame but was
more difficult to manage. The workforce was divided into two teams that competed with each other as
they built the two halves of the structure. The competitive nature of the project teams would have helped
sustain the pace of the project.

The Chartres Cathedral Project (1145-1220)

It may appear that many Gothic cathedral projects had unlimited timelines because the complete structure
of the cathedral was finalized over decades and even centuries. But in reality the projects were in a race in
this period as world record fever gripped cities to build the tallest cathedral (Gimpel, 1992, P.32, P.149).
Building the Case for Historical Project Management 14

In France the record was broken 5 times within 62 years. There was also great competition for the
pilgrims and so to make the cathedrals viable they were built in sections where the completed sections
were put into use right away. For example, for church services, or indoor markets and as a result they
provided an economic return (Huerta Fernndez, 2006, P.1623). Also this encouraged further collections
and as more project funding became available remaining sections were completed. This overall project
approach was planned for from the outset.

Misperception #4 Historical projects had used concepts not associated with modern project
management
The fourth misperception relates to the approach used by projects of the past and whether they were
delivered without concepts that we associate with modern project management. For example, the use of
management concepts (or knowledge areas in PMI vernacular) such as integration, scope, time, cost,
quality, human resources, communication, risk, and procurement. The argument being that these concepts
had not been formalized or even documented, and were probably too advanced and complex for use.
Besides where is the real evidence of project management, in the form of written documentation, or
records of a project manager? For example, where are the work breakdown structures for the Colosseum
project or the project schedule for the Giza Pyramid project?

Projects in the past, as today, without comprehensive project management could not have been delivered
with the constraints of relatively short timeframes, limited budgets, limited workforce, and predefined
quality levels.

The engineering complexity of the end deliverable for all the landmark historical projects would even be a
challenge for todays projects. These historical projects were pushing the technology of the time to its
limits (especially the structural height and stability), materials management and supply chains, and the
ability to organize a vast workforce.

Integration Management

Many projects (such as the Giza Pyramid or the Colosseum) were targeting a specific project end date,
often for political reasons. To successfully deliver a project in a short time frame required a clear project
Building the Case for Historical Project Management 15

objective and project charter. The other aspect of Integration Management, change control, was in the
hands of the overseer of works to monitor the project and control the budget (Smith, 1999, P.6). Project
overruns, and overspends were as problematic then as they are today. This was where strong leadership
through a project sponsor was required as in the case of Emperor Vespasian and the Colosseum project, or
Emperor Justinian and the Hagia Sophia project.

Scope Management
There is strong evidence that the master-builders on historical projects (the Giza Pyramid, the Colosseum,
and the Gothic cathedrals) had a comprehensive and intuitive grasp of the totality of their projects, the
entire building operation, including all the major activities, and the concept of a work breakdown
structure (Fitchen, 1986, P.60). Otherwise with the complexity of these historical construction projects
they would have been very difficult to manage and deliver in an acceptable timeframe.

Time Management

Historical projects did not have inordinate amounts of time, and the time pressures to complete were in
keeping to a deadline and targeting a project end date. The leaders on these historical projects required a
comprehensive grasp of the complete project for all the major activities undertaken by the various guilds,
and all their ramifying complexities. With this understanding they could plan and coordinate the sequence
of activities most efficiently and with the least disruption. A good example was the quarrying of the
granite for the Giza Pyramid project and scheduling its delivery. One of the first critical path activities
was dispatching a quarrying team of 500 men 800 kilometers (500 miles) to Aswan to quarry the massive
granite blocks that would take 10 years to deliver (Brier, 2008, P.69).

Cost Management

Historical projects relied on investments and loans as do projects today. For example, one basic need was
the workforce required some sort of a regular payment. Julius Caesars initiative for funding massive
construction projects began when he took back from money changers the power to coin money, and then
created a plentiful supply of money. The Romans were very much aware of the impact of costs on
projects and effectively managed costs by employing different strategies. For example, they exploited
local materials (tufa, bricks, stones), and then used varying types of concrete for the core, over which a
veneer of marble was attached. This approach provided a low cost way of constructing buildings of high
quality. Other examples were the incorporation of labor saving devices (cranes), or material saving
techniques such as the arch. With the Gothic cathedral projects the Chapter controlled the finances. Some
of the statement of accounts have survived till today such as for the Cathedral at Autun (Hunt, 1999,
P.44). These provide a very good indication of the scale of the project budget and the on-going project
Building the Case for Historical Project Management 16

procurements that include providing the working site with raw materials, manufactured goods, and the
transporting of goods, and the cost/organization of workmen.

Figure 5. The Roman used various labor saving devices scaffolding, ropes, pulleys and wooden cranes
(Colosseum Museum of Rome)

Quality Management
All historical projects took a non-empirical approach and as a result far greater attention had to be paid
during the project to the integrity of the construction and structure. This did not restrict historical projects
in their approach to quality management. There is much evidence that many elements of todays quality
management existed in historical projects. The Giza Pyramid project required incredible accuracy over
distance where if the base was off by one inch and not perfectly level it would mean being off by yards at
the top, a lesson they learned from the Bent Pyramid. Quality planning had to be at the forefront to avoid
costly mistakes later on.
the dimensions of the pyramid are extremely accurate and the site was levelled within a
fraction of an inch over the entire 13.1-acre (5.3 hectares) base. This is comparable to the
accuracy possible with modern construction methods and laser levelling. That's astounding. With
their rudimentary tools, the pyramid builders of ancient Egypt were about as accurate as we are
today with 20th Century technology!
(Smith, 1999)
Building the Case for Historical Project Management 17

For projects going as far back as the Parthenon the project workforce was made up of skilled and
unskilled workers. The skilled were specialists and organized by guilds. The guilds were self policing and
used their governance frameworks to pass the responsibility of tight quality control with the skilled local
workforce to maintain at an individual level. The Guilds prided themselves on their work and a system of
inspections was predominant through these projects. It is unlikely the guilds would have needed much
leadership.

Human Resource Management

The management of people and the ability to organize a vast workforce has been fundamental to all
historical projects. Practically all the early projects took a note from the military and were organized on
these lines and the system of guilds. The Romans who ran a long line of projects, very much exemplify
this, and the guilds (defined by Theodosian Code) were fundamental to the success of their projects. In
the large scale government projects of the Roman era the main construction force was made up of
contractors, who used the guilds for their workforce. Aside from these projects employed soldiers from
the Legion and some government slaves (Servi Caesaris were the most renowned) were used (Pipes,
1981, P.11).

Communications Management
Historical projects with an extremely large workforce (in excess of 10,000) needed very effective
communications management across the project site facilities such as quarries, workshops, and
construction sites, as well as the offices, and the workers villages. The hierarchy of the trade guilds and
master-builder provided a logical way to organize, and hence communicate along. Project communication
tended to be face to face (verbal), primarily to keep knowledge in house within the guilds. Other forms
communicated ideas and design through templates and models to all project areas. This reduced the need
for lots of documentation.

Risk Management

In historical construction projects risk management played a big part in how the projects were delivered
as the primary concern was safety. Injuries and deaths were very bad for project morale. A simple
examination of historical projects shows that over time civilizations took on projects with increasing
amounts of risk, knowingly. For example, Romans over time quickly pushed concrete technology in their
buildings to the limit with extensive arches, barrel vaults, and domes as seen in the Colosseum and
Pantheon. Project architects became more comfortable with the increased level of risk and more effective
Building the Case for Historical Project Management 18

in managing it. Historical projects used a trial and error approach to construction based on experimental
construction knowledge that was not theoretical.

Procurement Management

This PMBoK Guide knowledge area has been constantly critical from ancient to more recent projects. It
is not surprising with the volume of materials required for some of the ancient projects. For example, both
the Giza Pyramid and Colosseum projects were located within or close to quarries as materials had to be
procured for the project. The Giza Pyramid project was central to an extensive supply chain of many
millions of tons of materials. Historical projects leaders were very much aware of the impact of costs on
projects and effectively managed these by employing different strategies. The Colosseum project was
delivered by four contractors (Weever, 2007, P.5). Their contracts detailed specifications of the work,
requirements for guarantees, and the methods of payment and time. The Governments of the Roman
Empire mandated that public works projects went through a procurement process.

Conclusion
This paper seeks to challenge four commonly held views related to historical project management labelled
as misperceptions. The misperceptions stem from a generalized view of ancient regimes as being
autocratic and authoritarian in nature. The paper strives to challenge this interpretation of history. The
starting point is to look at five landmark projects and understand their purpose, and the driving factors or
motivation behind initiating these. Typically, the driving factors behind these projects were to create
public works projects that would unify a society or nation, get the unemployed off the streets, and
generally placate a society by giving something of significant value back to the people.

In reality, projects then as today were initiated to deliver on time, within scope and on budget, with high
levels of quality. Success was based on creating a conducive, surrounding environment, to support and
allow the project to proceed successfully without getting caught up in red-tape or morale sapping politics.
This was established by leaders, particularly sponsors, who could provide the project a sharp focus such
as Emperor Justinian with the Hagia Sophia project. However, a certain empathy had to exist between the
project leaders and the workforce in the encouragement of finishing in the job on time.

Where does this lead us to today? Viewing these historical projects without these misperceptions makes it
even more evident that it is a mistake to dissociate historical from modern project management. Across
Building the Case for Historical Project Management 19

history, the method and practices of project management are not that different from what we practice
today.

In summary, this paper shows that historical projects did follow many principles of todays projects. Thus
these historical projects have contributed to the overall literature as they laid a foundation to modern
project management.

This paper is based on the book The History of Project Management which analyses 25 historical
projects, and takes a comprehensive approach in building a case for historical project management. Each
project is viewed through a project management lens of the nine PMBoK Knowledge Areas that are
central to project management today.

References
Bramann, Jorn K., 1999, The Unexamined Life, http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/Athens.htm
Brier, Bob, and Houdin, Jean-Pierre, (October 14, 2008), The Secret of the Great Pyramid, HarperCollins
Colosseum Museum of Rome, Building the Colosseum Exhibit
Dassault Systemes (March 30, 2007), 3D computer image released by French company
Engineering an Empire (October 2006), 3D computer image from Greece: Age of Alexander, Discovery
channel
Filer, Joyce (1996), Disease. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.
Fitchen, John (1986), Building Construction Before Mechanization, MIT Press
Foley, Don (October, 2001) Worker's village at Giza, Discover Magazine
Garel G. 2003. Pour une histoire de la gestion de projet. Grer & Comprendre(74): pp. 77-89
Gimpel, Jean, (1992), The Cathedral Builders, Perennial
Hadingham, Evan, February 2008, Unlocking Mysteries of the Parthenon, Smithsonian magazine,
Hopkins, Keith, and Beard, Mary, 2005, The Colosseum, Harvard University Press
Huerta Fernndez, Santiago, and Ruiz, Antonio, 2006, Some Notes on Gothic Building Processes: the
Expertises of Segovia International Congress on Construction History,
Hurwit, Jeffrey M., (2004), The Acropolis in the Age of Pericles, University of Oregon
Hughes, Virginia, (September 2006), NATURE|Vol 443|28. Investigation of the Hagia Sophia Project by
akmak, Ahmet, a professor emeritus in earthquake engineering at Princeton University.
Hunt, Edwin S., and Murray, James M., (1999), A history of business in medieval Europe, 1200-1550,
Cambridge University Press
Building the Case for Historical Project Management 20

Macauley, David (1975) Pyramid, and (1981) Cathedral: The Story of Its Construction, Graphia, and
DVD (1985) Cathedral
Ousterhout, Robert G., (2008), Master builders of Byzantium, Princeton University Press
Parker, John Henry, 2010, The Flavian Amphitheatre, Commonly Called The Colosseum at Rome: Its
History and Substructures compared with Other Amphitheatres, BiblioBazaar.
Pipes, Daniel, (Mar. 1, 1981), Slave Soldiers and Islam: The Genesis of a Military System, Yale Univ
Press
Schoch, Robert M, 2005, Pyramid Quest
Scranton P. 2008. Le management projet. Nouvel objet de l'histoire d'entreprise. Revue Franaise de
Gestion 34 (188-189)
Shaw, Jonathan (July-August 2003) Who Built the Pyramids? Not slaves Not slaves. Archeaologist Mark
Lehner, digging deeper, discovers a city of privileged workers. Havard Magazine, P.45-49
Smith, Craig B., P.E., Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall (DMJM) (June 1999) Project Management,
Pyramids. Civil Engineering Magazine
Sderlund, Jonas and Lenfle, Sylvain (Dec 2010), Special Issue: Project History, International Journal of
Project Management
Weever, Patrick, (Dec 2007), Origins of Modern Project Management, PM World Today
http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF_Papers/P050_Origins_of_Modern_PM.pdf.
Weaver, P.R.C., (1972), Familia Caesaris. A Social Study of the Emperor's Freedmen and Slaves.
Cambridge, University Press