IT projektledelse og panoptisme

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%20points
dactu-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

IT projektledelse og panoptisme

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Destaque

Destaque (6)

Semelhante a IT projektledelse og panoptisme

Semelhante a IT projektledelse og panoptisme (20)

IT projektledelse og panoptisme