Describe the project (what you can), what “success” meant at the time, and what you later realized leadership or customers actually cared about. What would you do differently now?
Product Operations Program ManagerBarcelona, Cataluña, Spain
I have sometimes observed that the customer was willing to cut out corners in quality in order to honor the iron triangle constraints. Sometimes it was almost impossible to not give in. With more experience, I got to learn that quality is non-negotiable.
...
1 reply by Aaron Porter
Feb 06, 2026 9:42 AM
Aaron Porter
...
Thanks for the reply! I would agree that there is a minimum level of quality that should be non-negotiable. It's important to be able to quickly determine when and how to make trade-offs that aren't arbitrary. Making a product unusable or less desirable solely for the sake of going faster is never a good trade-off. Delivering a usable and meaningful product increment so that you can meet a new constraint or otherwise changing circumstances reflects organizational awareness and flexibility that is often needed in pursuit of organizational objectives.
Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
I realized this quite early, the first time a project I “delivered perfectly” quietly failed in the real world.
The project met scope, schedule and budget. At the time, success meant exactly that. Clean closure, happy steering committee, lessons learned filed. Six months later, the solution was barely used. The business had changed direction, priorities had shifted, and the project outcome no longer mattered.
What leadership and customers actually cared about was not delivery compliance, but relevance, timing and adaptability. They cared about whether the project helped them make better decisions, reduce risk, or create options for the future.
What I would do differently now is simple, but not easy. I would redefine success continuously, not just at the start. I would treat assumptions as living hypotheses, not fixed truths. And I would spend far more time validating value with stakeholders during the project, even if that meant revisiting scope or stopping early.
Finishing a project is an operational achievement. Helping the business succeed is a strategic responsibility. Confusing the two is comfortable, but costly. Saving Changes...
It was the first project I led where I understood the difference between delivering the agreed upon scope and achieving the expected business outcomes. It was early in my career and it focused on enabling physicians to quickly access lab test results for their patients. The original scope was to create an interface between the lab system and the physicians portal but along the way a key stakeholder recognized that there was a much simpler method of providing this access and pulled the blinders off my face so that I could support his recommendation to the sponsor to cancel the project.
I have sometimes observed that the customer was willing to cut out corners in quality in order to honor the iron triangle constraints. Sometimes it was almost impossible to not give in. With more experience, I got to learn that quality is non-negotiable.
Thanks for the reply! I would agree that there is a minimum level of quality that should be non-negotiable. It's important to be able to quickly determine when and how to make trade-offs that aren't arbitrary. Making a product unusable or less desirable solely for the sake of going faster is never a good trade-off. Delivering a usable and meaningful product increment so that you can meet a new constraint or otherwise changing circumstances reflects organizational awareness and flexibility that is often needed in pursuit of organizational objectives. Saving Changes...
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
I realized it the first time I delivered a project exactly as planned, on scope, on time, on budget, and still saw the business move on without really using it. At that point, “success” meant clean delivery and formal closure, but what leaders actually cared about was relevance, timing, and whether the outcome helped them adapt or make better decisions. Since then, I focus much more on validating value throughout the project, revisiting assumptions as conditions change, and being willing to adjust or even stop if the work no longer supports the business direction. Finishing well matters, but staying relevant matters more. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
