In July I launched a poll asking "How much control do you have over the project methodologies, frameworks, or lifecycles you use in your role as a project manager?" While the results were not statistically significant, the response selected by 67% of the respondents was:
Moderate – Some influence within constraints - I can adapt or tweak the existing approach to suit the project, but within established boundaries.
As a follow-up to the poll, I have a few questions:
- What are your constraints to adapting the project approach?
- Who do you work with to tailor the approach to the project?
- Do you need approval, or are you able to operate freely within established boundaries?
- How is this received by the project team? Do they notice? Saving Changes...
Sort By:
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Thanks for following up on this essential question, Aaron Porter.
That 67% response (“some influence within constraints”) perfectly captures the everyday balancing act many of us face: navigating between what’s possible and what’s permitted.
Let me offer some reflections from experience:
Constraints?
The most common constraints I encounter are:
- Organizational governance (standard frameworks and templates dictated by PMOs or quality systems)
- Contractual scope and client expectations (especially when methods are embedded in the SOW)
- Cultural resistance to change (“This is how we’ve always done it”)
Tailoring with whom?
Tailoring is never a solo exercise. I usually work with:
- The core project team (to understand delivery needs and capacity)
- Sponsors or PMO leads (to align governance and strategic outcomes)
- Occasionally, external stakeholders or product owners when delivery models need to reflect changing business realities
- Do I need approval?
It depends.
In environments with mature governance, we operate within a “freedom within a frame” model, adaptation is allowed, even encouraged, as long as core controls are respected.
But for deeper changes (e.g., switching delivery model midstream), formal approval is typically needed, especially if compliance or auditability is at stake.
How do teams respond?
Teams absolutely notice. Especially when the approach:
- Reduces unnecessary overhead
- Adapts to their workflow
- Honors their voice and experience
Adapting with the team (not for the team) is a powerful trust-builder.
When the method fits the reality, energy and ownership increase noticeably.
Ethical Insight
Sometimes, adapting the approach isn't just a technical decision, it's an ethical one.
Following rigid procedures in a changing or human-centric context can lead to:
- Misaligned delivery
- Frustrated teams
- Reduced stakeholder trust
I often draw on a principle I call regenerative trust, ensuring that decisions serve not only compliance, but also clarity, collaboration, and long-term purpose.
Sometimes, what’s approved isn’t what’s right.
And sometimes, adapting with integrity is the most ethical choice a project leader can make.
Thanks again for keeping this conversation going. Looking forward to hearing how others navigate these tensions.
Project Manager | Driving Clean Energy Innovations for a Sustainable Future| Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Ontario, Canada
In my case, I usually work within a company’s standard framework, but I adapt how we apply it depending on the project’s size, risk, and stakeholders. The main constraints are organizational standards and leadership expectations, so I make changes in agreement with the sponsor or PMO when needed. Most of the time, I don’t need formal approval for small tweaks — things like adjusting reporting frequency, stand-up structure, or documentation depth. The project team often appreciates the flexibility, even if they don’t notice all the adjustments behind the scenes. Saving Changes...
I adapt my project approach by first understanding the team’s capacity and the environment. My main constraints are organisational standards and stakeholder comfort. I usually align with my sponsor or PMO before tailoring. I do not need heavy approvals, but I stay transparent. Teams usually appreciate a lighter and more practical approach that fits their reality. Saving Changes...
From what I’ve seen, most project constraints are usually about people. Culture, leadership expectations, and old habits usually set the boundaries for how much we can actually adapt.
When I tailor an approach, I loop in the people closest to the work. They can tell you what will break, what will quietly improve everything, and what’s just cosmetic change dressed up as progress.
Do I need approval? Depends. Sometimes you get room to experiment, sometimes you’re explaining why a small change won’t break the whole system. Clear intent helps you move faster.
And yes, the team notices. Not because the framework changed, but because their day-to-day either becomes smoother or more complicated. At the end, adapting the approach is really about removing friction so the team can do better work, not just changing labels on a process. Saving Changes...
"More than any time in history mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other to total extinction. Let us pray that we have the wisdom to choose correctly."
Community Champion
