Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Francisco, the first thing I always do is meet key stakeholders individually to understand their expectations, success criteria, and current pain points before making any changes because that early alignment prevents surprises later and helps shape a realistic roadmap.
On the other hand, a common mistake I’ve seen repeatedly and learned from is jumping straight into execution or restructuring without fully understanding the program’s strategic intent, existing commitments, and informal influence networks. Moving too fast without listening first can create resistance and misalignment that takes months to unwind.
...
2 replies by Francisco Herrera and Jacob Vu
Feb 23, 2026 7:48 PM
Jacob Vu
...
Great points and to add on, I'd re-visit the roadmap / program to see if it still fits in to what your stakeholders are looking for and if it still aligns with strategic goals.
Feb 24, 2026 11:16 AM
Francisco Herrera
...
Rami Kaibni I really value this forum because it helps me reaffirm what I’m doing right and calibrate what I need to improve.!
Your advice is very timely. I have been doing exactly that: meeting individually with IT execution leads and Project Managers from programs's initiative to truly understand the program before be involved in execution. I agree that 'listening first' is the best way to avoid resistance and ensure that the roadmap is actually realistic. Thanks for sharing these lessons!! Francisco
Francisco, the first thing I always do is meet key stakeholders individually to understand their expectations, success criteria, and current pain points before making any changes because that early alignment prevents surprises later and helps shape a realistic roadmap.
On the other hand, a common mistake I’ve seen repeatedly and learned from is jumping straight into execution or restructuring without fully understanding the program’s strategic intent, existing commitments, and informal influence networks. Moving too fast without listening first can create resistance and misalignment that takes months to unwind.
Great points and to add on, I'd re-visit the roadmap / program to see if it still fits in to what your stakeholders are looking for and if it still aligns with strategic goals. Saving Changes...
When I start a new program, my first action is to learn the real expectations behind the charter and build early trust with key stakeholders. It avoids surprises later. A common mistake is rushing into planning before alignment. If leaders and teams don’t share the same understanding of success, the program struggles from day one. Saving Changes...
Program Manager, PPM&PMO Specialist.| Coppel, Mexico.Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico
Feb 23, 2026 7:39 PM
Replying to Rami Kaibni
...
Francisco, the first thing I always do is meet key stakeholders individually to understand their expectations, success criteria, and current pain points before making any changes because that early alignment prevents surprises later and helps shape a realistic roadmap.
On the other hand, a common mistake I’ve seen repeatedly and learned from is jumping straight into execution or restructuring without fully understanding the program’s strategic intent, existing commitments, and informal influence networks. Moving too fast without listening first can create resistance and misalignment that takes months to unwind.
Rami Kaibni I really value this forum because it helps me reaffirm what I’m doing right and calibrate what I need to improve.!
Your advice is very timely. I have been doing exactly that: meeting individually with IT execution leads and Project Managers from programs's initiative to truly understand the program before be involved in execution. I agree that 'listening first' is the best way to avoid resistance and ensure that the roadmap is actually realistic. Thanks for sharing these lessons!! Francisco Saving Changes...
If I had to add one “Day 1” discipline that has saved me more than once, it’s this:
Before touching the roadmap, clarify three structural things explicitly:
1️⃣ What problem is this program actually absorbing?
Often the charter says one thing, but the real organizational pain is something else — missed commitments, executive visibility gaps, cross-functional friction, etc.
If you don’t identify the real pressure source, you end up solving the wrong problem very efficiently.
2️⃣ Where does decision authority actually live?
Not on paper — in practice. Who can say no? Who can change scope? Who can re-sequence work?
Programs struggle less from planning issues and more from unclear decision rights.
3️⃣ What commitments already exist (spoken or unspoken)?
Inherited promises, political tradeoffs, informal agreements.
Day 1 is often less about building a plan and more about mapping the invisible constraints around the plan. The common mistake I’ve seen (and made early in my career) isn’t just moving too fast — it’s assuming the program starts clean.
It rarely does.
Most programs begin mid-stream in someone else’s context.
Taking a week to understand the structural realities usually saves months later.
Curious how others surface these “invisible” dynamics when stepping in. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
