Product Operations Program ManagerBarcelona, Cataluña, Spain
Project management language is full of terms that sound sensible but collapse under scrutiny.
Take lessons learned. If the same issues recur project after project, were the lessons actually learned, or merely documented? In many cases, “lessons learned” becomes a ritual of closure rather than a mechanism for change.
Shared accountability can dilute responsibility until no one is truly accountable.
Even project success becomes an oxymoron when success is declared despite burned-out teams, degraded quality, or benefits that never materialize.
I’m interested in how other PMs and corporate leaders interpret these terms: do you see them as useful shorthand for complexity or as warning signs that we’ve normalized practices that don’t quite add up?
"Risk management" is another example of this as very few organizations do a good job of actually managing project risk. They may identify and analyze them and even in some cases respond to risks, but very very few do this frequently enough and with effective enough responses and feedback loops to boast that they are managing risk. In most cases, it is merely risk awareness.
Kiron Saving Changes...
Ming YeungAdjunct Professor & Acting COO/CPO/CRO (contract)| Blockchain Venture Capital Inc.Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Thank you, Eduard, for the refreshing post. You are Kiron are both highlighting how PM language often masks dysfunction. Many terms sound rigorous but hide gaps between intent and practice.
Beyond “lessons learned,” “shared accountability,” and “risk management,” I also nominate light-heartedly these terms as oxymorons: accurate estimates (rarely accurate), firm deadlines (constantly moved), resource availability (never truly available), agile governance (often rigid), committed backlog (always changing), controlled change (frequent chaos), predictive forecasting (mostly guesses), stable scope (never stable), continuous improvement (episodic at best), and strategic prioritization (politics disguised as strategy).
These phrases reveal more about culture than methodology.
Thoughts?
Ming
...
1 reply by Eduard Hernandez
Jan 13, 2026 5:11 AM
Eduard Hernandez
...
Really liked your list, Ming!
In a way, it reminded me of Groucho Marx’s famous line: “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others.”
The words themselves aren't really oxymorons; the problem is in how they're applied, or misapplied. Context is key for the definition; application is key for execution.
Consider lessons learned. Some lessons learned are only applicable to specific scenarios on the project where they were learned. Others could apply to multiple projects, today and in the future. Some are more informational. Some require action. Some never need to be considered, again, once the project is over. Some may need to be asked at the beginning of every project for the next two years. It becomes challenging when all the data is dumped into one document, which then sits in a repository that nobody checks because they can never find anything. From a process perspective, this is easily overcome. Getting people to change might be a different story.
Is there a singular definition for project success? I've seen companies try to tie it to the triple constraint. I've worked at a company where just completing a project was celebrated as a success. You can do everything right on a project and the product/service can still fail. It's become more common to conflate the definition of project success with the definition of product success. When you consider that what a project delivers is actually the potential for success, the triple constraint actually becomes more important - did you deliver the project in time, at a low enough cost, and with features that put the company in a position to use the product to produce value? This isn't a perfect measure, however. You can deliver a product late, over budget, and missing scope, and it may still produce value. You can deliver a product on time, within budget, with full, tested scope, and the product can still fail. One possibility is that it wasn't a good idea to begin with - the project didn't fail, company decision-making failed. Burn-out is rarely caused by a single project. This, again, is more likely a decision-making failure. I'm not trying to shift the blame, just pointing out that it is a complex question and the context goes beyond project management.
Conflating accountability with responsibility is the fasted way to dilute accountability. They're not the same thing. I neither use nor practice shared accountability. There can be multiple people responsible for performing the work, but only one person accountable for either success or failure. Saving Changes...
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
They’re less oxymorons and more warning signs. I think the issue isn’t the words, but the gap between what they claim and how work actually happens. When terms like “lessons learned,” “shared accountability,” or “project success” don’t drive real decisions or behavior, they become rituals that hide governance and ownership gaps. Hollow language usually signals a system problem, not a wording problem.
...
1 reply by Eduard Hernandez
Jan 13, 2026 5:20 AM
Eduard Hernandez
...
100%!
When terminology feels magical, it’s usually because it’s doing concealment work for the system, not because the words themselves are flawed!
Project Manager| AWR Development (BD) Ltd. Cox's Bazer , Bangladesh
Strong observation, Eduard. I agree—terms like “lessons learned” or “shared accountability” can easily become rituals if they don’t lead to real change. When language replaces action, it hides dysfunction instead of fixing it. The real test is whether behaviors and decisions actually change after the words are written.
Golam
...
1 reply by Eduard Hernandez
Jan 13, 2026 5:14 AM
Eduard Hernandez
...
Indeed, Golam!
I’ve noticed that some individuals don’t fully understand the concept of accountability and assign multiple A’s to the same work package or deliverable in the RACI matrix. When this is pointed out, they often insist on the idea of shared accountability (which, as we all know, simply doesn’t work).
Product Operations Program ManagerBarcelona, Cataluña, Spain
Jan 07, 2026 12:23 PM
Replying to Ming Yeung
...
Thank you, Eduard, for the refreshing post. You are Kiron are both highlighting how PM language often masks dysfunction. Many terms sound rigorous but hide gaps between intent and practice.
Beyond “lessons learned,” “shared accountability,” and “risk management,” I also nominate light-heartedly these terms as oxymorons: accurate estimates (rarely accurate), firm deadlines (constantly moved), resource availability (never truly available), agile governance (often rigid), committed backlog (always changing), controlled change (frequent chaos), predictive forecasting (mostly guesses), stable scope (never stable), continuous improvement (episodic at best), and strategic prioritization (politics disguised as strategy).
These phrases reveal more about culture than methodology.
Thoughts?
Ming
Really liked your list, Ming!
In a way, it reminded me of Groucho Marx’s famous line: “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others.” Saving Changes...
Product Operations Program ManagerBarcelona, Cataluña, Spain
Jan 07, 2026 10:33 PM
Replying to Md. Golam Rob Talukdar
...
Strong observation, Eduard. I agree—terms like “lessons learned” or “shared accountability” can easily become rituals if they don’t lead to real change. When language replaces action, it hides dysfunction instead of fixing it. The real test is whether behaviors and decisions actually change after the words are written.
Golam
Indeed, Golam!
I’ve noticed that some individuals don’t fully understand the concept of accountability and assign multiple A’s to the same work package or deliverable in the RACI matrix. When this is pointed out, they often insist on the idea of shared accountability (which, as we all know, simply doesn’t work). Saving Changes...
Product Operations Program ManagerBarcelona, Cataluña, Spain
Jan 07, 2026 8:43 PM
Replying to Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa
...
They’re less oxymorons and more warning signs. I think the issue isn’t the words, but the gap between what they claim and how work actually happens. When terms like “lessons learned,” “shared accountability,” or “project success” don’t drive real decisions or behavior, they become rituals that hide governance and ownership gaps. Hollow language usually signals a system problem, not a wording problem.
100%!
When terminology feels magical, it’s usually because it’s doing concealment work for the system, not because the words themselves are flawed! Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
This post hits an uncomfortable but very real nerve. When language starts to sound reasonable yet no longer drives action, it usually means a dysfunction is being normalized.
M.O.R.E. is a good example. It addresses real tensions, but it relies on oxymorons that can either clarify reality or conceal problems, depending on how they are operationalized:
Objective management of perception can be a mature acknowledgment of political reality, or simply narrative management.
Continuous optimization within a single system ignores the fact that flows compete, and that optimizing everything means sub-optimizing the system.
Planned emergent benefit works only if benefits are treated as hypotheses, not as defensive promises.
Expanded focus is powerful as a question, but destructive when turned into a moral obligation for every project.
Like lessons learned or shared accountability, these terms are not inherently wrong. The issue arises when they replace clear criteria, hard choices, and explicit responsibility.
For me, the test is simple: if a concept helps people decide, it adds value. if it helps them avoid decisions, it’s a warning sign. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
