I'm curious about the challenges that caught you completely off guard - the ones that weren't in any PM textbook or that your planning didn't account for. Maybe it was a dependency you didn't see coming, a resource constraint that appeared out of nowhere, or something cultural/organizational that threw everything off.
More importantly: What did you actually do about it? I'm especially interested in unconventional solutions or creative workarounds you came up with when the standard playbook didn't work.
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Sandeep, during COVID, we were already dealing with severe supply-chain disruptions and labor shortages. What also completely caught us off guard was a major flooding event near one of our projects in British Columbia. Overnight, access routes were cut off, suppliers were shut down, and material lead times became essentially meaningless. The original project plan assumed delays but not a full breakdown of logistics and regional infrastructure.
Instead of reacting project by project, we took a more unconventional, system-level approach. We established a centralized construction and procurement hub, allowing us to bulk-purchase critical materials well in advance and store them centrally rather than relying on just-in-time delivery. This reduced our exposure to supplier volatility and gave us flexibility to reallocate materials quickly as priorities shifted across projects.
On the labor side, when external manpower dried up, we pivoted to hiring and developing local sub-trades rather than waiting for out-of-region crews who were impacted by travel restrictions. This wasn’t the fastest option initially, but it created more reliable capacity and stronger local partnerships that paid off over time.
Looking back, the biggest lesson wasn’t just about contingency planning but about changing the operating model entirely when the environment breaks the assumptions your plan is built on. We stopped trying to optimize individual schedules and focused instead on stabilizing the ecosystem around the projects. That shift made the difference between continuous disruption and controlled recovery.
...
1 reply by Sandeep Kashyap
Feb 18, 2026 1:06 AM
Sandeep Kashyap
...
Thanks for sharing this, Rami. These are exactly the stories I was hoping to surface. Traditional risk management can handle delays, disruptions, and even failures, but it assumes the world around your project stays functional. When that breaks, no framework can save you. The unconventional steps you took, that’s wisdom. You can't learn that from a textbook.
Sandeep - good question. When I worked as a PM in the construction-adjacent industry, something that I didn't account for was the difference between contractors and employees who were unioned vs. not. There were clear rules because how we could complete RFPs, offer work, determine labour hours, etc. which made it for a very interesting project!
...
1 reply by Sandeep Kashyap
Feb 18, 2026 1:06 AM
Sandeep Kashyap
...
Jacob, I'd love to hear more about this. What was the moment you actually realized the union rules were going to be a problem? And how did you handle it when it did?
One challenge I once faced was the sudden resignation of a team member. It was painful and unsettling: this person was bright and capable, a clear and promising plan of activities was in place, and we shared many common aspects that made me feel close.
Looking back, I did not manage it well, and I still regret not having seen some of the signs or even considering this as a possibility. I was focused on plans, deliverables, and outcomes, and underestimated what was happening beneath the surface. What I learned — and it’s a hard one — is that people often don’t resign because of the project itself, but because of their n+1.
Since then, I try to be attentive to what people say, and just as importantly, to what they don’t say.
...
1 reply by Sandeep Kashyap
Feb 18, 2026 1:07 AM
Sandeep Kashyap
...
Gwenola, this is incredibly honest and something many leaders learn the hard way. Plans and frameworks give us comfort, but people's dynamics ultimately determine execution.
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
For me, it wasn’t capacity or skills, it was availability that only existed on paper. Key people were “allocated” to multiple initiatives, but in reality they were context-switching, overloaded, and stuck between priorities. Plans looked fine; delivery wasn’t. What worked was treating focus as the real scarce resource. We reduced parallel work, made trade-offs explicit with sponsors, and had honest conversations about what was actually sustainable. Some dates moved, but delivery stabilized fast.
...
1 reply by Sandeep Kashyap
Feb 18, 2026 1:07 AM
Sandeep Kashyap
...
Lissette, this resonates deeply. Availability on paper versus availability in reality is one of the most underestimated risks in modern organizations. We often treat time as a static resource, but in reality, focus and cognitive bandwidth are the real constraints.
Sandeep, during COVID, we were already dealing with severe supply-chain disruptions and labor shortages. What also completely caught us off guard was a major flooding event near one of our projects in British Columbia. Overnight, access routes were cut off, suppliers were shut down, and material lead times became essentially meaningless. The original project plan assumed delays but not a full breakdown of logistics and regional infrastructure.
Instead of reacting project by project, we took a more unconventional, system-level approach. We established a centralized construction and procurement hub, allowing us to bulk-purchase critical materials well in advance and store them centrally rather than relying on just-in-time delivery. This reduced our exposure to supplier volatility and gave us flexibility to reallocate materials quickly as priorities shifted across projects.
On the labor side, when external manpower dried up, we pivoted to hiring and developing local sub-trades rather than waiting for out-of-region crews who were impacted by travel restrictions. This wasn’t the fastest option initially, but it created more reliable capacity and stronger local partnerships that paid off over time.
Looking back, the biggest lesson wasn’t just about contingency planning but about changing the operating model entirely when the environment breaks the assumptions your plan is built on. We stopped trying to optimize individual schedules and focused instead on stabilizing the ecosystem around the projects. That shift made the difference between continuous disruption and controlled recovery.
Thanks for sharing this, Rami. These are exactly the stories I was hoping to surface. Traditional risk management can handle delays, disruptions, and even failures, but it assumes the world around your project stays functional. When that breaks, no framework can save you. The unconventional steps you took, that’s wisdom. You can't learn that from a textbook.
Sandeep - good question. When I worked as a PM in the construction-adjacent industry, something that I didn't account for was the difference between contractors and employees who were unioned vs. not. There were clear rules because how we could complete RFPs, offer work, determine labour hours, etc. which made it for a very interesting project!
Jacob, I'd love to hear more about this. What was the moment you actually realized the union rules were going to be a problem? And how did you handle it when it did? Saving Changes...
One challenge I once faced was the sudden resignation of a team member. It was painful and unsettling: this person was bright and capable, a clear and promising plan of activities was in place, and we shared many common aspects that made me feel close.
Looking back, I did not manage it well, and I still regret not having seen some of the signs or even considering this as a possibility. I was focused on plans, deliverables, and outcomes, and underestimated what was happening beneath the surface. What I learned — and it’s a hard one — is that people often don’t resign because of the project itself, but because of their n+1.
Since then, I try to be attentive to what people say, and just as importantly, to what they don’t say.
Gwenola, this is incredibly honest and something many leaders learn the hard way. Plans and frameworks give us comfort, but people's dynamics ultimately determine execution. Saving Changes...
For me, it wasn’t capacity or skills, it was availability that only existed on paper. Key people were “allocated” to multiple initiatives, but in reality they were context-switching, overloaded, and stuck between priorities. Plans looked fine; delivery wasn’t. What worked was treating focus as the real scarce resource. We reduced parallel work, made trade-offs explicit with sponsors, and had honest conversations about what was actually sustainable. Some dates moved, but delivery stabilized fast.
Lissette, this resonates deeply. Availability on paper versus availability in reality is one of the most underestimated risks in modern organizations. We often treat time as a static resource, but in reality, focus and cognitive bandwidth are the real constraints. Saving Changes...