Today, project management relies on proven methodologies, recognised frameworks and widely standardised processes. There is no shortage of tools, training opportunities are abundant, and best practices are well documented.
Yet despite this methodological arsenal, the same difficulties persist decisions made at the wrong time, project phases challenged mid-course, constantly shifting priorities and, all too often, expertise overlooked whenever it suits certain stakeholders.
Why does project delivery remain such a complex exercise? The answer is surprising. The problem rarely lies in the technical aspects. It resides almost entirely in human relationships, power dynamics, perceptions and individual behaviours. How can this paradox be explained when most projects have an essentially technical and tangible dimension?
The answer lies in a fundamental misunderstanding that accompanies most projects: everyone believes they understand the project, its objectives, its constraints and their role within it, whereas the actual expectations of the stakeholders involved are often divergent, and sometimes even contradictory.
On paper, a project’s logic appears straightforward. It generally follows a relatively clear path: business case, feasibility phase, project initiation, tendering process, execution, completion and review.
Matters are often quite different. Decision-making bodies add or remove requirements, alter priorities, redefine objectives or reinterpret project boundaries according to circumstances, personal sensitivities or, at times, power relationships. It is usually at this point that the first deviations begin to emerge.
In most cases, experienced Project Managers and PMOs succeed in bringing the project back on track. They absorb tensions, reconcile competing interests and maintain direction despite the turbulence. This capacity for adaptation is rarely recognised for its true value, even though it demands considerable energy, diplomacy and, at times, a substantial degree of resilience.
A few fundamental principles are therefore worth revisiting.
-
The Business Case A business case should incorporate all the project’s structural elements and involve the appropriate experts from the outset. When assumptions are incomplete, or when they are developed without the input of the relevant stakeholders, future disappointment is no longer a possibility; it becomes a certainty.
-
Governance Governance defines who makes decisions, on which matters and within what limits. The principle may seem self-evident. Yet experience shows that it is often one of the most difficult to apply. Individual interests, political agendas, conflicting visions and organisational rivalries regularly obscure decision-making processes. Effective governance is, above all, governance that is respected.
-
Programme and Scope Objectives, volumes, scope and exclusions must be clearly defined from the outset. In theory, these elements should evolve only in the event of a major change in circumstances. In practice, every Project Manager knows that no project remains entirely static. Change is a permanent reality; the challenge is not to prevent it, but to manage it effectively.
-
Accountability When senior management or a project sponsor approves a project, they must accept that an estimate produced during the business case phase is not intended to provide the same level of accuracy as a detailed execution budget. Assumptions evolve, constraints emerge and operational realities inevitably surface. Expecting a Ferrari for the price of a Mini reflects either a misunderstanding of project delivery or a lack of maturity in project governance.
-
Trust When an organisation surrounds itself with competent professionals, it must also place its trust in them. No one benefits from a project’s failure. Quite the opposite. Over the years, I have had the opportunity to work with teams demonstrating remarkable levels of professionalism, resilience and commitment. These qualities are often the true success factors behind complex projects.
- Control and Verification Projects cannot be managed on autopilot. Every stage should provide an opportunity to verify that the original objectives remain relevant, that technical aspects are under control and that financial balances are preserved. Change is legitimate; it is part of every project’s lifecycle. However, it must be documented, assessed, approved and monitored.
All of this may sound like little more than common sense. Yet more than thirty years spent participating in and leading projects have often demonstrated otherwise. Without firm, consistent and accountable leadership, and without clear respect for individual roles and responsibilities, even the best methodologies in the world are not enough.
Ultimately, project management is not primarily about processes or tools. It is, above all, about people. And that is precisely what makes it both so fascinating… and so challenging.
Enjoy the read.