Limiting the domain (when and where)
PM extant theory’s domain is constricted to PPGE; it fails to address when the unpredictable will occur and where the complex realities exist. In other words, the PM theory is only applicable or limited to temporality and projects’ lifecycle contextualization. Regardless of desperate environmental complex nature of projects, the escalation of neologisms such as projectification, programification, and globalization, PM theory continues to espouse the view that a project’s objective of completing deliverables is only achieved by sequentially following specific predetermined phrases and prescriptive formats or templates. These formats include completing project according to scope, time (schedule), cost (budget), and quality management. The phrases are initiation, planning, execution or implementation, monitor and control, and termination of projects. The limited vista of PM theory regarding PPGE makes its predictability inutile (Parker, Parsons, & Isharyanto, 2015)
Moreover, while the multitudinous complex activities, policies, formal or informal rules that practitioners make and must deal with within mega or transnational projects limit PM current theory to completely describe, explain, and make predictions about these diverse PM phenomena, PMT 2.0 domain is capable of fully explaining PPGE-based organizational activities. The where of a theory domain is the place and location that events occur in the lifecycle of the project or organization.
The PMT 2.0 postulates that knowledge is a game changer between an utterly chaotic situation and achieving a project or business success. An accurate understanding of complex and nonlinear phenomena reduces the risk of misalignment and mismatch between theory and practice. It also increases the power of the predictability of PPGE events (Hartman et al., 2013; Thamhain, 2013).