Voices on Project Management

by Peter Tarhanidis, Ph.D.

Today’s hybrid work environments, ethical demands, stakeholder complexity, and organizational pace require new success criteria. According to PMI’s 2024 Pulse of the Profession report, only 34% of projects are considered successful by traditional measures of scope, time and cost. For leaders to thrive in this new reality, project guardrails must be modernized to inspire autonomy while aligning purpose, ethics, and sustainable outcomes.

Rethinking Guardrails: From Control to Catalysis
Traditional project governance structures emphasize compliance, change control, and rigid escalation paths. But in environments characterized by complexity, ambiguity, and constant change, rigid control can undermine innovation and engagement.

McKinsey & Co.’s research shows that projects with adaptive governance outperform peers by 25% in delivery of value and 30% in stakeholder satisfaction. Leaders must introduce guardrails that promote empowered decision-making within clearly communicated boundaries, and encourage distributed leadership and agility without sacrificing accountability.

5 New Guardrails for Today’s Project Leaders

1. Value Over Output: PMI’s 2023 Global Megatrends shows organizations that prioritize value over delivery metrics achieve a 42% higher rate of strategic goals. Teams that connect features to customer outcomes develop deeper alignment with mission and increase stakeholder confidence. These leaders define value-centric KPIs rather than milestone attainment.
2. Ethics Over Expediency: Edelman’s 2024 Trust Barometer indicates 71% of employees expect their companies to take a public stand on ethical issues, expect their leaders to anticipate unintended consequences, and apply ethical analysis into key decisions. Ethically governed projects report 30% fewer incidents of rework and stakeholder backlash (MIT Sloan Management Review, 2023). Empowered teams build a culture of integrity and long-term resilience. These leaders add ethical risk as part of project risk registers, ethical checklists and stakeholder impact maps.
3. Psychological Safety Over Hierarchical Control: Harvard Business School’s Amy Edmondson shares teams with high psychological safety are 27% more effective in cross-functional collaboration while enabling openness, faster error detection, and greater innovation. Projects with psychologically safe environments complete 18% faster and report 35% greater team engagement (Google’s Project Aristotle). Team members are more likely to raise early red flags and offer solutions without fear of reprisal. These leaders model curiosity, not criticism. Shifting to questions such as “What can we learn?” versus “Who’s accountable?”
4. Agility Over Certainty: Only 16% of organizations report that traditional planning methods are effective in today’s fast-paced environment (PMI, 2024). Agile projects are 2.5 times more likely to succeed than waterfall counterparts in dynamic sectors like tech, finance and healthcare (Standish Group CHAOS Report, 2023). Teams working in short feedback loops are more responsive to customer needs and regulatory changes, resulting in better user adoption. These leaders use rolling-wave planning and commit to decision-making during sprint steering reviews.
5. Stakeholder Integration Over Stakeholder Management: The modern stakeholder is no longer a passive recipient but an active participant. Projects that actively engage stakeholders experience 29% fewer change requests and 41% greater satisfaction scores (IBM Business Value Institute, 2023). When stakeholders are engaged early, then resistance turns into advocacy. These leaders manage stakeholders by listening and integrating their inputs. Use stakeholder empathy interviews and involve them in prototype testing or solution design.

Making Guardrails Operational
Putting these principles into action requires a shift in mindset and structure. Here are five ways to support your practice:

1. Formalize guardrails. Document in project charters and playbooks the team norms, governance models, and onboarding practices.
2. Measure guardrails. Use KPIs like Net Promoter Score, stakeholder sentiment, innovation speed, and compliance metrics.
3. Empower coaches and champions. Appoint internal coaches or culture champions to reinforce these behaviors during stand-ups, reviews, and retrospectives.
4. Build guardrails into decision trees. Create frameworks where teams can operate with autonomy while escalating only when critical guardrails are approached.
5. Conduct quarterly guardrail health checks. Conduct quarterly “guardrail health checks” to audit, reflect and adapt. Use team surveys and external facilitators to refine policies and culture.

Conclusion
Now more than ever, project success requires leaders who can lead with precision and principle. This requires one to balance execution with empathy, speed with substance, and strategy with stewardship. The new project guardrails of value, ethics, safety, agility and integration do not constrain; rather they are cultural enablers that empower high-performance delivery within purpose-driven boundaries. These guardrails provide structure for leaders where trust replaces control, adaptability replaces rigidity, and purpose becomes the new metric of success.

What actions will you take to ensure guardrails turn from control to catalysis?

References

1. Pulse of the Profession: The Future of Project Work, PMI (2024)
2. Unlocking the Power of Agile Governance, McKinsey & Company (2023)
3. Creating a Culture of Psychological Safety, Harvard Business Review (2023)
4. CHAOS Report: Project Success Rates, Standish Group (2023)
5. The Stakeholder Experience Advantage; IBM Business Value Institute (2023)
6. Trust Barometer: Expectations of Ethical Leadership, Edelman (2024)
7. Ethical Decision-Making in Fast-Paced Projects, MIT Sloan (2023)

By Peter Tarhanidis, Ph.D.

Many leaders accept failure as part of their learning to enhance their future and mature outcomes. At the beginning of a new year, we must reflect on the past year’s successes and failures. Reflecting on project failures in 2024 offers leaders valuable insights to foster success in 2025. Understanding these challenges, supported by data and examples, is crucial for leaders aiming to enhance project outcomes in 2025.

Here are some notable quotes and perspectives on failure and resilience:

• Failure as the stepping stone to success: "Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." — Robert F. Kennedy.
• The power of perseverance: "The secret of life is to fall seven times and to get up eight times." — Paulo Coelho
• The need to take risks: "Risk is not to be evaluated in terms of the probability of success but by the value of the goal." — Ralph D. Winter

Leaders should reflect on 2024 project failures with a focus on identifying root causes, assessing systemic issues, and implementing actionable lessons. Below are examples of challenges organizations and leaders faced or continue to struggle with:

1. Poor resource management: Inefficient allocation of resources led to project delays and budget overruns. TeamStage’s 2024 survey cites 60% of respondents identified poor resource management as their biggest challenge. Prosymmetry illustrates this impact; the Denver International Airport's automated baggage handling system faced severe delays and budget overruns due to inadequate resource allocation and management.
2. Lack of defined project management methodologies: The absence of standardized processes resulted in inconsistent project outcomes. Plaky’s 2024 survey indicates that 42% of project managers do not follow a defined project management methodology, making their projects 15% less likely to meet goals and stay within budget. Prosymmetry 2024 shares an example of when the Ford Edsel project failed due to the absence of a clear project management methodology, resulting in misaligned objectives and market misjudgment.
3. Unrealistic deadlines: Setting unattainable timelines leads to compromised quality and team burnout. Tempo 2024 states that 31% of project managers reported unrealistic deadlines as a top challenge. A key highlight noted by the Project Management blog is when the FBI's Virtual Case File project was abandoned after four years and $170 million spent, primarily due to setting unattainable deadlines that led to incomplete and faulty deliverables.
4. Insufficient budget: Unsurprisingly, underfunded projects struggled to procure necessary resources, affecting deliverables. Exploding Topics 2024 survey notes that 17% of project managers cited insufficient budget as a significant challenge. ProjectManager blog cites the California DMV's IT modernization project was canceled after $135 million was spent over nine years, largely due to chronic underfunding and budget mismanagement.
5. Poor project quality: Without the voice of the customer, deliverables failed to meet stakeholder expectations, necessitating costly revisions. This was noted by the Exploding Topics 2024 survey by 13% of project managers, who identified poor project quality as a major issue. ProjectManager blog notes the Healthcare.gov website launch in 2013 suffered from numerous glitches and downtime due to inadequate testing and quality assurance, leading to a poor user experience.

2025 Strategies to Ensure Success

1. Implement defined project management methodologies: Adopt a standardized framework like agile or waterfall to provide clear guidelines and improve project outcomes. Tempo 2024 confirms projects are 15% more likely to meet goals and stay within budget when following a defined methodology.
2. Set realistic deadlines: Engage stakeholders in setting achievable timelines based on resource availability and project scope. Leaders will reduce the risk of team burnout and maintain quality standards.
3. Ensure adequate budget allocation: Conduct thorough cost estimations during the planning phase to secure necessary funding. Leaders can prevent resource shortages and maintain project momentum.
4. Enhance project quality: Implement quality assurance processes and continuous improvement practices. Organizations can deliver products that meet or exceed stakeholder expectations, reducing rework.
5. Invest in resource management tools: Utilize project management software to optimize resource allocation and track progress. This will aid leaders in improving efficiency and in meeting project objectives.

By addressing these challenges with targeted strategies, leaders can build project maturity and drive more successful outcomes in 2025. What project challenges did you have in 2024, and what actions will you take to ensure success in 2025?

References

1. https://teamstage.io/project-management-statistics
2. https://www.prosymmetry.com/blog/4-famous-project-management-failures-and-what-to-learn-from-them
3. https://www.tempo.io/blog/failed-projects
4. https://plaky.com/learn/project-management/project-management-statistics
5. https://www.projectmanager.com/blog/failed-projects
6. https://explodingtopics.com/blog/project-management-stats

By

Peter Tarhanidis, Ph.D.

Project management methodologies have evolved significantly over the years, with waterfall and agile emerging as two of the most prominent approaches. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, making them suitable for different types of projects and organizational needs.

• Waterfall is a linear, sequential approach to project management. It is characterized by distinct phases; each phase must be completed before the next begins with limited ability to revisit or revise previous stages. Waterfall is effective for projects with well-defined requirements and a clear path to completion, such as construction or manufacturing projects.
• Agile is an iterative, incremental approach designed to accommodate change and foster continuous improvement. It emphasizes collaboration, customer feedback, and small, manageable units of work called sprints. Agile is well-suited for projects where requirements are expected to evolve, such as software development or other innovative fields.

Surveys indicate:

• 51% of companies implement waterfall and 71% of companies utilize agile.
• PMI’s 2020 Pulse of the Profession® report Ahead of the Curve: Forging a Future-Focused Culture indicated that 11.4% of investment is wasted due to poor project performance.
• The Standish Group’s CHAOS report showed only a 31% project success rate.
• Harvard Business Review estimated a $3 trillion annual global financial loss, wasted resources, missed opportunities, and negative societal impacts due to project failures.

Given these statistics, you may ask which method is best for a given project. Many organizations find value in blending these methodologies to create a hybrid approach, leveraging the structured planning of waterfall and the flexibility of agile. This hybrid model can offer a balanced framework that enhances efficiency, adaptability, and customer satisfaction.

While waterfall's structured approach provides clear milestones and accountability, its rigidity can be a drawback in dynamic environments. Agile's flexibility and responsiveness to change make it ideal for such settings, but it can struggle with scope creep and lacks the clear, long-term planning of waterfall.

The hybrid approach seeks to combine the best of both worlds, providing a structured framework that remains flexible and adaptable. By relying on a competency and development framework, management can highlight the key components of hybrid—consistently applying best practices to mature success and project outcomes.

Key components of hybrid project management include:

1. Phase-based structure with iterative execution: Projects are divided into phases similar to waterfall, but within each phase, agile sprints are used to execute tasks. This allows for detailed planning and requirements gathering upfront, followed by iterative development and testing.
2. Defined milestones with flexible deliverables: Hybrid project management sets clear milestones to track progress and ensure alignment with overall goals. However, the deliverables within each milestone can be adjusted based on iterative feedback and changing requirements.
3. Customer collaboration and feedback loops: Regular interactions with customers and stakeholders are maintained to gather feedback and make necessary adjustments. This aligns with agile’s emphasis on customer collaboration and helps ensure the project remains on track to meet user needs.
4. Comprehensive documentation with adaptive planning: Initial project documentation and planning follow a waterfall approach to establish a clear roadmap. Throughout the project, adaptive planning is used to refine and update this documentation based on iterative insights and changes in scope.

Steps for implementing a hybrid model:

1. Assess project requirements and environment: Evaluate the project's nature and complexity, and the environment in which it will be executed. Projects with stable requirements and clear end goals may lean more toward waterfall, while those with uncertain or evolving requirements may benefit more from agile practices.
2. Define phases and iterations: Establish major project phases with clear objectives and timelines. Within these phases, implement agile sprints or iterations to manage work increments, allowing for continuous assessment and adjustment.
3. Foster collaboration and communication: Create a culture of open communication and collaboration among team members, stakeholders, and customers. Regular meetings, such as daily stand-ups and sprint reviews, can help maintain alignment and address issues promptly.
4. Balance documentation and flexibility: Ensure that initial project plans and requirements are well-documented but remain open to revising them as the project progresses. Use documentation as a living document that evolves with the project.
5. Monitor progress and adapt: Use waterfall’s milestone tracking to monitor overall progress, and agile’s sprint reviews to assess interim deliverables. Be prepared to adapt plans and strategies based on feedback and performance metrics.

The leadership required in hybrid project management has a blend of strategic oversight and adaptive facilitation to balance the structured rigor of waterfall with the dynamic responsiveness of agile. Effective leaders in this context must embody several key traits and skills to ensure project success:

1. Visionary thinking: Leaders must articulate to the team a clear vision of the project’s goals. They need to establish long-term objectives while accommodating short-term adjustments, maintaining alignment with overall project aims.
2. Flexibility and adaptability: Leaders must pivot between structured planning and iterative development. They must be comfortable with change and capable of guiding their team through unexpected challenges and shifts in project scope.
3. Strong communication skills: Open, transparent communication is essential. Leaders must facilitate continuous dialogue among team members, stakeholders and customers. Regular updates and feedback loops are crucial for maintaining alignment and addressing issues.
4. Collaborative mindset: Encouraging a culture of collaboration is vital. Leaders should promote teamwork, ensuring that all voices are heard and valued. This involves fostering an environment where team members feel empowered to contribute ideas and solutions.
5. Strategic decision-making: Effective hybrid project leaders must be adept at making informed decisions quickly, balancing the need for detailed planning with the flexibility to adapt plans based on real-time insights and feedback.
6. Risk management: Proactively identifying and mitigating risks through both structured risk assessment and iterative reviews is crucial. Leaders must be vigilant and responsive, adjusting strategies as necessary to keep the project on track.

By embodying these qualities, leaders can successfully navigate the complexities of hybrid project management, ensuring that projects are both well-organized and adaptable to change. The overall benefits of hybrid project management provide for:

1. Enhanced flexibility: Combining structured phases with iterative sprints allows for greater adaptability to changes in project scope, requirements and market conditions.
2. Improved stakeholder engagement: Regular feedback loops and collaborative practices ensure stakeholders are consistently involved and satisfied with the project’s direction.
3. Risk mitigation: The hybrid approach can identify and address risks earlier in the process through iterative reviews, reducing the likelihood of major issues arising late in the project.
4. Balanced planning and execution: It provides a comprehensive planning framework while maintaining the flexibility needed for creative problem-solving and innovation.

In conclusion, hybrid project management offers a robust framework that leverages the strengths of both waterfall and agile methodologies. By blending structured planning with iterative execution, organizations can achieve greater efficiency, adaptability, and customer satisfaction, making it a versatile approach for a wide range of projects.

Please share in the comments how your organization defined hybrid project approaches and any case studies that you would like to share.

References

1. PMI Pulse of the Profession®: Ahead of the Curve: Forging a Future-Focused Culture
2. The Standish Group: Benchmarks and Assessments
3. It’s Time to End the Battle Between Waterfall and Agile
4. Agile vs Waterfall: Which Approach Should You Choose for Your Project
5. Waterfall vs Agile Methodology: What’s Better for Your Project?

By Peter Tarhanidis, Ph.D.

In the ever-evolving landscape of corporate strategic planning, organizations face the perpetual dilemma of choosing between capital spending for growth—and optimizing operations for efficiency. Striking the right balance amidst economic trends and leveraging organizational strengths becomes paramount when navigating through strategic projects. Meeting shareholder and stakeholder needs, while aligning with the organization's mission, presents a constant challenge.

To anticipate potential initiatives, project managers must consider global macroeconomic conditions and CEO outlooks. A preliminary assessment based on the United Nations World Economic Situation and Prospects and OECD Economic Outlook reports for 2024 reveals a projected global economic growth slowdown from 2.7% to 2.4%. This trend suggests a delicate balance between slow growth and regional divergences. Key considerations include:

• Global inflation showing signs of easing from 5.7% to a projected 3.9%
• Slowed global investment trends due to uncertainties, debt burdens and interest rates
• Fading global trade growth attributed to shifting consumer expenditure, geopolitical tensions, supply chain troubles, pandemic effects and protectionist policies
• Notable regional examples include the United States expecting a GDP drop from 2.5% to 1.4%, China experiencing a modest slowdown from 5.3% to 4.7%, Europe and Japan projecting growth rates of 1.2%, and Africa's growth expected to slightly increase from 3.3% to 3.5%

Examining the corporate landscape, a survey of 167 CEOs in December 2023 indicated a confidence index of 6.3 out of 10 for the 2024 economy—the highest of the year. The CEO upsurge assumes inflation is under control, the Fed may not raise interest rates and instead reverse rates, setting up a new cycle of growth. Furthering the CEO agenda, McKinsey & Co. identified eight CEO 2024 priorities:

• Innovating with GEN AI to dominate the future
• Outcompeting with technology to drive value
• Driving energy transition for net zero, decarbonization, and scaling green businesses
• Cultivating institutional capability for competitive advantage
• Building out middle managers
• Positioning for success amidst geopolitical risks
• Developing growth strategies for continued outperformance
• Considering the broader macroeconomic wealth picture for identifying growth

As project managers, navigating the uncertainty of economic shifts necessitates staying vigilant. The year may bring variables and predictions that impact the execution probability of strategic projects. Shifting between growth plans and efficiency drivers demands different preparation. To stay prepared, consider the following:

• Regularly monitor global economic indicators and CEO outlooks
• Foster agility within the team to adapt to changing priorities
• Develop scenario plans that account for potential economic shifts
• Collaborate with key stakeholders to gather real-time insights
• Continuously reassess project priorities based on evolving economic conditions

In an environment of perpetual change, proactive monitoring, adaptability and strategic collaboration will be key to successfully steering projects through the dynamic economic landscape.

How else can you stay prepared as the demands shift on you and your team?

References

1. JP Morgan: Economic Trends
2. Economic outlook: A mild slowdown in 2024 and slightly improved growth in 2025
3. UN: World Economic Situation and Prospects 2024
4. McKinsey: What matters most? Eight CEO priorities for 2024
5. CEOs Gain Confidence About 2024 On Hopes Of Lower Rates

by Lynda Bourne

The dictionary defines a paradox as a statement or group of statements that, despite sound reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems to defy logic or intuition. An example of a paradox is: “This statement is false”—if it is, it is not; and if it isn’t, it is.  

A well-known project management example is Cobb’s Paradox: “We know why projects fail; we know how to prevent their failure—so why do they still fail?” The apparently true statement is that we know how to prevent project failure, but do we really know how to make projects successful?  And if we do, the illogical element is, why do we let them fail?

This concept extends into the realm of project management. Virtually every management system generates a range of contradictions that can be removed by better design. It also creates a series of paradoxes that can’t be removed because both factors that create the paradox are important, but at the same time contradict each other.

This type of management paradox is defined as “a persistent contradiction between interdependent elements that resist a simple binary choice between the elements.”

Some of the more common paradoxes found in most organizations include:

• The need to manage the tension between consistency (following the rules) versus flexibility (creativity to enhance outcomes)
• The need to mitigate risk to provide certainty versus the need to take risks to seize opportunities
• The need for planning and control versus the need for agility to respond to issues
• The need for standard operating procedures to maximize quality versus the need for continuous improvement to enhance quality

The persistent nature of every paradox means the decision maker has to get used to living with contradictions. Dealing with the paradox requires intuitive judgment to decide on the best balance to strike between the competing elements in the current situation.

Group decision making, diversity, and consensus can help achieve the best judgment call. But there will always be viable alternatives—and any change in the situation will usually require the judgment to be adjusted. The problem with any intuitive judgment is that different people will arrive at different conclusions because they apply a different frame of reference to the problem.

The final element that makes paradox hard to live with is hindsight.  Regardless of the decision made, balancing the competing elements in a paradox involves a compromise and different people will have differing opinions of the optimum balance point.

When circumstances at a later date show there was a better balance point, criticizing the original decision (and the decision maker) is very easy. The 20/20 vision afforded by hindsight rarely matches the uncertain fog that surrounded the possible futures confronting the decision maker. 

Math does not help either; binary decisions have a 50/50 chance of being correct and these odds can be improved by the application of good decision-making processes. A paradox presents a continuum of choice. That means there is an almost unlimited array of possible options and the one chosen is highly unlikely to be the best in hindsight—the best outcome one can hope for is one that is reasonably close to the optimum.

This type of decision presents a real challenge to trained engineers and technical managers who expect to find the right solution for every problem.

Generally, at the technical level, there are correct solutions. But, if not, in most cases you know a decision is needed and can choose the lesser of two evils.

Good managers decide—lucky ones get it right (and you can usually correct wrong decisions).

The further up the organizational ladder you move, the more you will be exposed to paradox. Every decision you make to balance the competing elements in a paradox will be open to criticism.

It’s a tough place to be. How would you deal with a paradox in your environment?