By: Laszlo J. Kremmer MBA, CLC, CSM®, CSPO®, PMP® - Member of PMI Ethics Advisory Team
Early in my project management career, I worked on an ERP implementation project that shaped my thinking about leadership, accountability, and ethics to this day. It was not the largest project I would ever see, but it was large enough to matter deeply to the people involved and complex enough to expose weaknesses in both delivery and conduct. The project involved 25 named users across two locations, each of whom would be directly affected by the implementation. It also required coordination across multiple functions, managing competing priorities, and a level of change readiness that, in retrospect, we did not fully appreciate.
At the outset, the project appeared manageable. The scope was defined, the users were known, and the organisational footprint was limited to two sites. From a planning perspective, it seemed like a project that could be structured, tracked, and delivered through disciplined execution. But what I learned very quickly was that the visible scope of a project does not always reveal the full ethical and operational challenge underneath it.
As the project progressed, cracks began to show. Delays emerged. Some decisions took longer than expected. Some dependencies were not resolved when they should have been. And once the project encountered difficulties, a troubling pattern emerged. Key people became less available. Some project support weakened. Subject matter experts were harder to reach. Momentum slowed, but the need for ownership increased. Instead of the project receiving stronger engagement as risks became more visible, it often felt as though accountability became less clear, exactly when it was needed most.
At that stage in my career, I experienced this primarily as a delivery problem. Looking back now, I see that it was also an ethical one.
ERP implementations are rarely just technology projects. They reshape how people work, how data is managed, how decisions are made, and how operational control is exercised. Even with only 25 named users, this project had a significant impact because each user depended on the project team to make sound decisions, properly prepare the organisation, and communicate clearly across both locations. When that does not happen, the consequences are not abstract. They are felt directly by the people expected to adopt the new system and continue business operations through the change.
The PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct provides a useful lens for reflecting on what happened. Its four core values, responsibility, respect, fairness, and honesty, offer more than a set of ideals. They provide a practical standard for assessing how project professionals behave when a project becomes difficult.
Responsibility was the value most visibly tested. In an ERP project, responsibility means more than maintaining a task list or reporting status. It means owning outcomes, actively managing risks, preserving continuity, and ensuring that unresolved issues do not simply become someone else's burden. On this project, one of the clearest problems was that when delays occurred, ownership did not always strengthen. In some areas, it became weaker. Questions remained open longer than they should have. Dependencies sat unresolved. Critical input was not always available when needed. The project still moved, but not with the level of accountable leadership that the situation required.
Respect was also at stake, though I understood that more clearly only in hindsight. The 25 named users across the two locations were not passive recipients of a system rollout. They were people whose work routines, confidence, and effectiveness would be directly affected by the implementation. Respect in that context meant giving them realistic timelines, complete preparation, clear communication, and confidence that the project team was present and engaged. It also meant respecting colleagues by not leaving them to manage ambiguity without adequate support. When key contributors become difficult to access during a challenging phase of delivery, the impact is not only operational. It signals a lack of respect for the people carrying the work forward and for the users who depend on a successful outcome.
Fairness appeared in a more subtle but equally important way. As often happens in struggling projects, the burden did not fall evenly. A smaller group of engaged people ended up carrying more of the work, more of the uncertainty, and more of the responsibility to keep progress moving. Others became less visible as the project became more difficult. That imbalance matters ethically. Fairness is not only about impartial decisions or equal treatment in formal terms. It is also about whether risk, workload, and accountability are being shared appropriately. When some people quietly disengage, and others compensate for that disengagement, the project may continue for a time, but it does so on an increasingly unfair foundation.
Honesty may have been the most important value of all. ERP projects can absorb setbacks if they are surfaced early and discussed honestly. What makes them dangerous is not delay alone, but the lack of candour that often surrounds delay. One of the central ethical lessons from this experience was the need to clearly state what is happening, what is at risk, and what the consequences may be if unresolved issues persist. Early in my career, I saw how easy it was for teams to use softer language than the situation warranted. A dependency becomes "in progress." A missing decision becomes "under discussion." A growing risk becomes "something we are watching." Sometimes that language protects relationships in the short term, but it can also obscure reality. Honesty requires more discipline than that. It requires naming the issue as it is and not as we hope it will become.
The PMI Ethics Framework is especially useful in situations like this because it encourages structured reflection before action. Looking back, several questions should have been asked more often and more directly. Who is affected if we continue without resolving this issue? Are we being transparent enough about readiness across both locations? Are we placing an unfair burden on a few reliable contributors? Are we making decisions based on evidence, or are we allowing optimism to replace judgment? These are not only project controls questions. They are ethical questions.
To be continued...
