Applying Rhetorical Grease to the Squeaky Dialectics of IS Project Management

While the importance of establishing effective communication between the multiple and often conflicting stakeholders in a typical IS project is non-controversial and well supported in the IS project management literature, this paper argues that the traditional approach to achieving this goal is limited by its ontological and epistemological view of what constitutes effective discourse. Specifically, this paper asserts that while the prevalent dialectical approach to project management serves as a useful tool to help structure and create homogenous project discourse, it is nevertheless an inadequate a tool for managing the friction produced by the inevitably heterogeneous and conflicting discourses of an IS project. To make its case this paper shares insights developed from a yearlong longitudinal study that examined the role that argumentation played in the implementation of a health information exchange initiative in Southeast USA. The paper applies Toulmin’s dialectical theory of argumentation to illustrate its case and suggests the application of Perelman Olbrechts-Tyteca’s “New Rhetoric” as a more flexible means for managing project discourse.