Project Management

Please login or join to subscribe to this thread

How do PMs operate in organizations shifting from projects to product models?

linkedin twitter facebook   Product Management  
avatar
Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa
Community Champion
Program Manager| HARPER SRL Santo Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic

Product thinking emphasizes continuous delivery, while projects are finite. This creates tension in structure, funding, and accountability.
Sort By:
avatar
Robert Snyder Founder & President| Innovation Elegance, LLC Chicago, Il, United States
I welcome exploring this, but I'd love to clarify the problem(s) you are trying to solve.

Project 1 and Project 2 have time-related partitions and boundaries. Both contain a sense of closure. You see this as bad.

Product 1 and Product 2 have no time-related partitions or boundaries. Products have no sense of closure. You see this as a good thing.

As you can see, I'm not yet grasping the problem(s).

If executives want to shape a culture of low structure, partitions, and boundaries, I'm happy to do that. Frequency isn't free, but I'm happy to schedule go-live events on a daily or hourly basis.

"Continuous" is a peculiar word. It avoids an explicit frequency. It's purposely ambiguous, so perhaps what constitutes success is that go-live events are frequent, spontaneous, and as unscheduled as possible.
...
1 reply by Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa
Jul 24, 2026 5:57 PM
Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa
...
The challenge I was referring to is how PMs adapt when organizations move from funding and managing temporary initiatives to supporting long-lived products. The goal, instead of just eliminating projects, would be to balance the need for continuous product evolution with the governance, planning, and coordination that projects still require.

That transition often changes roles, funding models, and measures of success, which is where I see many organizations facing challenges.
avatar
Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa
Community Champion
Program Manager| HARPER SRL Santo Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
Jul 22, 2026 2:31 AM
Replying to Robert Snyder
...
I welcome exploring this, but I'd love to clarify the problem(s) you are trying to solve.

Project 1 and Project 2 have time-related partitions and boundaries. Both contain a sense of closure. You see this as bad.

Product 1 and Product 2 have no time-related partitions or boundaries. Products have no sense of closure. You see this as a good thing.

As you can see, I'm not yet grasping the problem(s).

If executives want to shape a culture of low structure, partitions, and boundaries, I'm happy to do that. Frequency isn't free, but I'm happy to schedule go-live events on a daily or hourly basis.

"Continuous" is a peculiar word. It avoids an explicit frequency. It's purposely ambiguous, so perhaps what constitutes success is that go-live events are frequent, spontaneous, and as unscheduled as possible.
The challenge I was referring to is how PMs adapt when organizations move from funding and managing temporary initiatives to supporting long-lived products. The goal, instead of just eliminating projects, would be to balance the need for continuous product evolution with the governance, planning, and coordination that projects still require.

That transition often changes roles, funding models, and measures of success, which is where I see many organizations facing challenges.

Please login or join to reply

Content ID:
ADVERTISEMENTS

I don't have a good apartment for an intervention. The furniture, it's very non-confrontational.

- Jerry Seinfeld

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsors







Newsletters

Aug 5: Invisible Work, Visible Problems
Jul 22: Your AI Onboarding Problem
Jul 8: Stop Negotiating, Start Reframing

See all newsletters