Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Over the past few years, we've witnessed an explosion of roles in the project space:
- Project Manager, Product Owner, Scrum Master, Agile Coach, Business Analyst, Service Designer...
Each with its own certifications, tools, frameworks, and reporting structures.
But are we really gaining efficiency — or just fragmenting the system and losing the big picture?
It reminds me of modern medicine:
- So many specialists... and almost no one looking at the whole patient.
- Tons of tests... very little listening.
- High technicality... low situational judgment.
In project management, I see a similar pattern emerging:
- More meetings, less time to think.
- More templates and governance layers, less focus on purpose.
- More roles, less clarity on who really integrates decisions and value.
So I ask the community:
- Has this fragmentation truly delivered more value — or more bureaucracy?
- Do we still have holistic thinkers who connect purpose, people, value, and execution?
- Is it time to bring back the “whole-system project leader”, instead of relying on narrowly defined technical roles?
I’d love to hear your thoughts.
- What examples (good or bad) have you seen?
- How do you deal with this growing complexity in your project environments?
The other challenge this presents, Luis, is diffusion of accountability. The proverbial buck doesn't stop at one individual but rather with a committee.
Kiron
...
1 reply by Luis Branco
Jul 30, 2025 11:33 AM
Luis Branco
...
Kiron Bondale You're absolutely right — and that's a critical dimension of the problem, thank you for highlighting it.
When roles are narrowly defined and responsibilities are sliced too thinly, we often end up with what I call “distributed confusion” instead of shared leadership.
Everyone is involved… and yet, no one truly owns the outcome.
The "buck stops with a committee", as you said — which means:
- Less accountability,
- Slower decisions,
- And often, diluted impact.
In high-performing environments, I’ve seen a growing need for systems integrators -people who don’t just manage tasks or artifacts, but who connect purpose, people, progress and learning.
Not necessarily a "super-role", but someone who sees the whole and ensures that responsibility and coherence are not lost in the noise.
It’s time to revalue that integrative thinking - and rebuild trustworthy ownership structures inside teams.
Have you seen any models or setups where this worked well?
Saving Changes...
Thomas WalentaGlobal Project Economy ExpertHackenheim, Germany
Luis,
For me, the role of the PM is still to 'make it happen.' In a Chapter meeting this Monday, I heard from others the same; they feel the full accountability, like the woman in charge of building an apartment complex, and one said he is struggling to meet these expectations of himself and his boss.
Yes, we still need to tailorize work, ask and employ specialists, but under our leadership. Not micromanaging and fingerpointing, but integrating, supporting, deciding, instilling trust and much more. Just do it.
And yes, project management as a profession faces challenges both from external and internal sources. Externally, it is challenged by other 'professions' that often overlap with PM but do not accept the same level of accountability. Internally, it is challenged by the continual expansion of the scope of PM, including aspects like value delivery, strategy, and governance. There is a growth rate in projects, and we need a huge pipeline of new PMs coming onboard, which requires providing them with opportunities to learn and mature.
I see a PM deliver a unique product in a defined timeline as the core. Everything else is distracting new PMs.
...
1 reply by Luis Branco
Jul 30, 2025 11:49 AM
Luis Branco
...
Thomas Walenta Thank you for such a rich and grounded contribution.
I fully agree.
The project manager is still, fundamentally, the one who makes it happen.
Not by doing everything, but by creating the conditions for integration, alignment, and trust so that others can deliver at their best.
I found your example of the woman building an apartment complex very telling.
That sense of ownership, of carrying the weight and coherence of the project, is exactly what seems to be missing when roles get overly diluted or fragmented.
You also raise a crucial point about the internal and external tensions:
- Externally, we’re often challenged by adjacent roles that don’t carry the same accountability.
- Internally, we’re expanding the definition of PM to include strategy, value, governance… often without preparing people to grow into it.
In the name of agility and adaptability, we sometimes forget that what really makes a difference is someone who sees the whole, feels responsible for the outcome, and knows how to lead across complexity — without micromanaging.
That’s why I also believe we must support new PMs not just with certifications or tools, but with real opportunities to practice judgment, make mistakes, and grow into the role.
Clarity of role, maturity of leadership, and courage to integrate - these are the anchors we can’t afford to lose.
Would love to hear more about how you’ve seen this play out in your own projects.
Especially when expectations were high but the structure was fragmented.
Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Jul 30, 2025 8:57 AM
Replying to Kiron Bondale
...
The other challenge this presents, Luis, is diffusion of accountability. The proverbial buck doesn't stop at one individual but rather with a committee.
Kiron
Kiron Bondale You're absolutely right — and that's a critical dimension of the problem, thank you for highlighting it.
When roles are narrowly defined and responsibilities are sliced too thinly, we often end up with what I call “distributed confusion” instead of shared leadership.
Everyone is involved… and yet, no one truly owns the outcome.
The "buck stops with a committee", as you said — which means:
- Less accountability,
- Slower decisions,
- And often, diluted impact.
In high-performing environments, I’ve seen a growing need for systems integrators -people who don’t just manage tasks or artifacts, but who connect purpose, people, progress and learning.
Not necessarily a "super-role", but someone who sees the whole and ensures that responsibility and coherence are not lost in the noise.
It’s time to revalue that integrative thinking - and rebuild trustworthy ownership structures inside teams.
Have you seen any models or setups where this worked well?
Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Jul 30, 2025 9:39 AM
Replying to Thomas Walenta
...
Luis,
For me, the role of the PM is still to 'make it happen.' In a Chapter meeting this Monday, I heard from others the same; they feel the full accountability, like the woman in charge of building an apartment complex, and one said he is struggling to meet these expectations of himself and his boss.
Yes, we still need to tailorize work, ask and employ specialists, but under our leadership. Not micromanaging and fingerpointing, but integrating, supporting, deciding, instilling trust and much more. Just do it.
And yes, project management as a profession faces challenges both from external and internal sources. Externally, it is challenged by other 'professions' that often overlap with PM but do not accept the same level of accountability. Internally, it is challenged by the continual expansion of the scope of PM, including aspects like value delivery, strategy, and governance. There is a growth rate in projects, and we need a huge pipeline of new PMs coming onboard, which requires providing them with opportunities to learn and mature.
I see a PM deliver a unique product in a defined timeline as the core. Everything else is distracting new PMs.
Thomas Walenta Thank you for such a rich and grounded contribution.
I fully agree.
The project manager is still, fundamentally, the one who makes it happen.
Not by doing everything, but by creating the conditions for integration, alignment, and trust so that others can deliver at their best.
I found your example of the woman building an apartment complex very telling.
That sense of ownership, of carrying the weight and coherence of the project, is exactly what seems to be missing when roles get overly diluted or fragmented.
You also raise a crucial point about the internal and external tensions:
- Externally, we’re often challenged by adjacent roles that don’t carry the same accountability.
- Internally, we’re expanding the definition of PM to include strategy, value, governance… often without preparing people to grow into it.
In the name of agility and adaptability, we sometimes forget that what really makes a difference is someone who sees the whole, feels responsible for the outcome, and knows how to lead across complexity — without micromanaging.
That’s why I also believe we must support new PMs not just with certifications or tools, but with real opportunities to practice judgment, make mistakes, and grow into the role.
Clarity of role, maturity of leadership, and courage to integrate - these are the anchors we can’t afford to lose.
Would love to hear more about how you’ve seen this play out in your own projects.
Especially when expectations were high but the structure was fragmented.
