However, other practitioners are skeptical, arguing that technology is just one element in the overall mix of people, processes and tools, and that Web 2.0 doesn’t and can’t address key elements of project management.

The interactive and collaborative character of Web applications, social networking sites, blogs, discussion forums, wikis and other Web 2.0 technologies can dramatically improve project management efficiency, said Ryan Endres, lead project manager, project management office, department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences at the University of Wisconsin Madison.

As proof of Web 2.0’s ability to improve efficiency, Endres cites his office’s widespread use of Microsoft SharePoint, a large suite of collaborative, web-based products built on a document-management platform. SharePoint enables users to host websites that access shared workspaces, information stores and documents, as well as host applications such as wikis and blogs. Users can manipulate proprietary controls called "Web parts" or interact with pieces of content such as lists and document libraries.

“We use SharePoint primarily to build small databases very quickly,” said Endres. “We can build a database with 20 pieces of information in about 15 minutes. Before SharePoint, each database took us up to three months to build.”

In addition to the speed of building databases, Endres praises SharePoint’s ability to enhance workflow and automation of projects. This is critical to Endres and his team, which currently manages 35 projects for clinical trials dispersed throughout 41 countries.

Technology and tools have their place in project management, but are inferior in value to the role of people and processes, said Glen Alleman, vice president of Strategic Consulting and Performance Management, Lewis & Fowler, a project management and consulting firm in Niwot, CO.

“Web 2.0, or PM 2.0, has little to do with increasing the probability of success of a project,” said Alleman. “Tools may increase the productivity of the users, but they don’t address the key questions of project management.”

Those key questions, said Alleman, are:

Do you know what "done" looks like in terms of testable and verifiable outcomes? Is "done" traceable to the needed business or mission capabilities? Are the technical and operational requirements derived from these capabilities found in some description of "done?"

Do you know what this will cost in the end? In other words, can you tell the customer that you have some notion of the total end-to-end cost of getting to "done?"

What are the impediments to getting done and what are you going to do about them along the way, and how much that will cost?