My last post was an observation on the absence of “teams” in popular definitions of project management.  But it’s not just that the term itself is missing essential elements.  I’m beginning to believe that “project management” is a term as broad as “general population.”

Here’s what I mean.  Drinking coffee the other day, I ran into a lively retired salesman named Mark, who owns a bulldog appropriately named Churchill.  Mark and I struck up a conversation on entrepreneurship, and I mentioned I was working with my husband on launching a new product called Fellowstream.  I said it was “an online project management tool.”

Mark got this funny look on his face.  Digging deeper and explaining that Fellowstream was “individual to-do lists meets Facebook groups,”  he snapped his fingers.  “Ah now I get it!” he exclaimed.  “I thought you were talking about constructions projects.”

Later that day, my sister Jennifer called me up to ask how work on Fellowstream was going.  Up until that point, she had only heard that Jacob had quit his day job to build an online project management tool.  When I started to explain that we were creating a software tool that allowed people to not only to manage their daily tasks, but also have a top-level view of how any project or team was progressing, she immediately got it.  “I could use that to manage the hygienists at Northwest Children’s Dentistry,” she said, referring to her own small business.

I thought that everyone defined “project management” as “working in teams to get stuff done.”  Obviously, that’s not the case.  Ask 100 people what project management is, you’re likely to get 100 different responses, all correct in their own way, but not 100% compatible.

This leaves me with the challenge: what words do resonate for Fellowstream.  Maybe “team management” is a better term?  “Collaboration management?”  Or maybe it’s the word “management” that everyone’s getting hung up on.

Back to the wordsmithing board!

-Deborah Fike

Share and Enjoy