Program Manager, PPM&PMO Specialist.| Coppel, Mexico.Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico
Hi colleagues!
We all know the standard roles in a program (Program Manager, Sponsor, Steering Committee, etc.). However, in practice, the lines often get blurred, leading to governance gaps or duplicated efforts.
I’m currently reviewing our Roles and Responsibilities (R&R) matrix, and I’ve realized that some of the most critical roles aren't always in the official manuals.
I’d love to learn from your experience:
The "Missing" Role: Based on your lessons learned, is there a specific role or responsibility that you now always include because its absence caused a failure in the past? (e.g., a dedicated Change Management lead or a Cross-Project Integration architect).
The Friction Point: Which two roles usually have the most conflict regarding "who does what," and how did you resolve it?
Real-world Lesson: What is one "lesson learned" that changed the way you define responsibilities at the program level?
I believe that sharing these "unwritten rules" helps us all become better Architects of Coherence. Looking forward to your insights!
Project Manager| AWR Development (BD) Ltd. Cox's Bazer , Bangladesh
Great reflections, Francisco. In my experience, one “missing” role is often an integration or coordination lead who ensures alignment across projects. Without that, efforts easily become fragmented. I’ve also seen the most friction between project managers and functional leads, which usually improves once responsibilities are clarified early through a clear RACI or governance structure.
...
1 reply by Francisco Herrera
Mar 09, 2026 6:37 PM
Francisco Herrera
...
Md. Golam Rob Talukdar even though an Integration Lead might seem like an obvious role to have, organizations often assume that coordination will happen 'naturally.'
However, in my experience, if you don't assign someone specifically to that role, no one takes true ownership of the cross-project alignment. It is much better to formalize it from the start rather than dealing with fragmented efforts later. Like you mentioned, a clear governance structure is the best way to prevent friction and ensure everyone is moving in the same direction. Francisco.
One pattern I’ve seen in large programs is that roles rarely fail because they’re undefined in theory — they fail because the integration responsibility isn’t owned in practice.
Most program structures define the usual players:
Program Manager Workstream Leads Sponsors Steering Committee
But what’s often missing is someone explicitly responsible for cross-initiative integration.
Not technical integration — execution integration.
When that role isn’t clearly owned, a few predictable things happen:
• dependencies surface late • teams optimize locally instead of globally • decisions get escalated repeatedly because no one owns the tradeoffs
In smaller programs the Program Manager can usually absorb this. In larger ones, the integration function often needs to be explicit.
On the friction point, the tension I see most often is between program leadership and functional leadership.
Program leaders are accountable for the outcome.
Functional leaders are accountable for their people and their priorities.
The real conflict isn’t responsibility — it’s decision rights.
When priorities collide, who actually decides?
RACI charts help, but the programs that run smoothly tend to define decision paths, not just responsibilities.
One lesson that changed how I think about program roles:
Programs rarely struggle because people don’t understand their roles.
They struggle because the organization hasn’t made it clear how tradeoffs will be resolved when priorities conflict.
Once that’s clear, most role ambiguity disappears.
...
1 reply by Francisco Herrera
Mar 10, 2026 1:57 PM
Francisco Herrera
...
Imran Afzal thanks for your valuable reflection. I especially like how you distinguish between technical integration and execution integration. You hit the nail on the head: it’s not that roles are undefined, it’s that ownership of the tradeoffs is often missing.
Your point about decision paths vs. RACI charts is good. I’ve also seen many programs where the RACI is perfect, but the project still stalls because no one knows who actually decides when priorities collide. Focusing on how conflicts are resolved, rather than just listing tasks, is a great lesson I will definitely apply. Thanks for sharing this insight! Francisco
Program Manager, PPM&PMO Specialist.| Coppel, Mexico.Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico
Mar 06, 2026 4:52 PM
Replying to Md. Golam Rob Talukdar
...
Great reflections, Francisco. In my experience, one “missing” role is often an integration or coordination lead who ensures alignment across projects. Without that, efforts easily become fragmented. I’ve also seen the most friction between project managers and functional leads, which usually improves once responsibilities are clarified early through a clear RACI or governance structure.
Md. Golam Rob Talukdar even though an Integration Lead might seem like an obvious role to have, organizations often assume that coordination will happen 'naturally.'
However, in my experience, if you don't assign someone specifically to that role, no one takes true ownership of the cross-project alignment. It is much better to formalize it from the start rather than dealing with fragmented efforts later. Like you mentioned, a clear governance structure is the best way to prevent friction and ensure everyone is moving in the same direction. Francisco. Saving Changes...
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
One role I’ve learned to formalize is cross-project integration ownership. Someone must actively track dependencies, conflicts, and sequencing across projects. Without that, alignment between initiatives easily breaks down.
A common friction point appears between project managers and functional leads over decision authority and resource ownership. Clarifying decision rights early and documenting escalation paths usually reduces that tension.
...
1 reply by Francisco Herrera
Mar 13, 2026 1:51 PM
Francisco Herrera
...
Formalizing cross-project integration is the only way to prevent initiatives from breaking down. Your point about the friction between PMs and functional leads is very relatable. In my experience, clarifying decision rights and having a clear escalation path is exactly what's needed to move from tension to collaboration. These are great lessons to keep in mind for program governance. Thanks for sharing! Francisco.
Program Manager, PPM&PMO Specialist.| Coppel, Mexico.Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico
Mar 07, 2026 1:24 AM
Replying to Imran Afzal
...
One pattern I’ve seen in large programs is that roles rarely fail because they’re undefined in theory — they fail because the integration responsibility isn’t owned in practice.
Most program structures define the usual players:
Program Manager Workstream Leads Sponsors Steering Committee
But what’s often missing is someone explicitly responsible for cross-initiative integration.
Not technical integration — execution integration.
When that role isn’t clearly owned, a few predictable things happen:
• dependencies surface late • teams optimize locally instead of globally • decisions get escalated repeatedly because no one owns the tradeoffs
In smaller programs the Program Manager can usually absorb this. In larger ones, the integration function often needs to be explicit.
On the friction point, the tension I see most often is between program leadership and functional leadership.
Program leaders are accountable for the outcome.
Functional leaders are accountable for their people and their priorities.
The real conflict isn’t responsibility — it’s decision rights.
When priorities collide, who actually decides?
RACI charts help, but the programs that run smoothly tend to define decision paths, not just responsibilities.
One lesson that changed how I think about program roles:
Programs rarely struggle because people don’t understand their roles.
They struggle because the organization hasn’t made it clear how tradeoffs will be resolved when priorities conflict.
Once that’s clear, most role ambiguity disappears.
Imran Afzal thanks for your valuable reflection. I especially like how you distinguish between technical integration and execution integration. You hit the nail on the head: it’s not that roles are undefined, it’s that ownership of the tradeoffs is often missing.
Your point about decision paths vs. RACI charts is good. I’ve also seen many programs where the RACI is perfect, but the project still stalls because no one knows who actually decides when priorities collide. Focusing on how conflicts are resolved, rather than just listing tasks, is a great lesson I will definitely apply. Thanks for sharing this insight! Francisco Saving Changes...
Program Manager, PPM&PMO Specialist.| Coppel, Mexico.Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico
Mar 10, 2026 9:58 AM
Replying to Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa
...
One role I’ve learned to formalize is cross-project integration ownership. Someone must actively track dependencies, conflicts, and sequencing across projects. Without that, alignment between initiatives easily breaks down.
A common friction point appears between project managers and functional leads over decision authority and resource ownership. Clarifying decision rights early and documenting escalation paths usually reduces that tension.
Formalizing cross-project integration is the only way to prevent initiatives from breaking down. Your point about the friction between PMs and functional leads is very relatable. In my experience, clarifying decision rights and having a clear escalation path is exactly what's needed to move from tension to collaboration. These are great lessons to keep in mind for program governance. Thanks for sharing! Francisco. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
