Should we expect project management to eradicate business dysfunctions? Many of the biggest dysfunctions originate outside the project - in strategy, governance, organizational design, incentives, or leadership. Project management can expose those issues and help mitigate their impact, but expecting it to eliminate them may be expecting it to solve problems that belong to the organization as a whole.
Organizational problems tend to be cyclical rather than eliminated. Unlike diseases, they aren't caused by a single pathogen; they emerge from people, incentives, culture, governance, and changing business conditions. The biggest successes have come from institutionalizing good practices through processes, technology, and culture. Even then, those practices have to be maintained. Otherwise, organizations end up having to relearn the same lessons every few years. Saving Changes...
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
I don't think any major project management challenge has been completely eradicated. Many issues, such as poor communication, unclear requirements, or unrealistic expectations, have become easier to manage with better practices and tools, but they still reappear in different contexts. The goal is often continuous improvement rather than permanent elimination. Saving Changes...
Robert SnyderFounder & President| Innovation Elegance, LLCChicago, Il, United States
I think ideas for behavior change to improve culture can come from anywhere.
Project managers are as well positioned as any role or title for awareness, appetite, incentives, and skills to reduce dysfunction.
I agree. Very few dysfunctions are project-specific.
Dysfunctions, by definition, are systemic and systematic.
Most employees don’t push for culture change. They work “in the business.”
But some employees push for culture change – for less dysfunction. They work “on the business.”
What dysfunction persists? Could be a long list, and we could explore the “least paths of resistance.”
·Incompetence still happens.
·Dishonesty still happens
·Low dependability still happens.
·Malevolence still happens.
Grouping these, untrustworthiness still happens.
Systemic and systematic tolerance for untrustworthiness.
People make mistakes – sampling errors. I find these very forgivable.
But systemic errors and systematic errors related to trustworthiness. I don’t see these as forgivable.
Confronting untrustworthiness.
We have persistent (systemic) problems and persistent untrustworthiness, agree?
Or do you think communication and expectation problems are occasional, i.e., sampling errors?
Are we closer to systemic failure or systematic success?
Do we have a lot of room for improvement or are we close to plateauing?
Do we have reasons to be ambitious or do we have reasons to be pretty satisfied with the status quo?
AI-Powered Social Media Strategist | Gujranwala, Pakistan
Not really, most PM problems (poor communication, scope creep, unclear ownership) still show up everywhere, just in new forms. Unlike diseases, these come from human behavior and shifting environments, so tools change, but the root causes stay. The closest to "eradicated" is old paper-based tracking, solved simply because software replaced it, not because we fixed the human habits behind it Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
An intriguing question. I suspect specific problems can be eliminated within a defined context, especially when their causes are observable and the organization has the authority and incentives to remove them. But broader project dysfunctions are rarely eradicated because they are continually reproduced by changing priorities, fragmented authority, misaligned incentives, and organizational behavior. Perhaps the real test is not whether a problem disappeared once, but whether the conditions that previously recreated it were altered in a way that could be sustained over time. Saving Changes...
Robert SnyderFounder & President| Innovation Elegance, LLCChicago, Il, United States
If most PM problems remain common, no existing framework should be sacred. We should welcome new ideas that are forms of standardization.
If you hesitate at standardization, then you hesitate at habits and scale, and you endorse reinventing the wheel.
We should pursue frameworks that improve standardization, habits, and scale. We should pursue frameworks that reduce reinventing the wheel.
Syed, I agree with you that going paper-less might be the best example of standardized improvement.
Luis, let’s pull on one or more of the threads you propose where dysfunction is unavoidable due to changing priorities, fragmented authority, and misaligned incentives.
Given the conversation so far, I’ll propose trying to eradicate latency of information sharing.
The communication channel of meetings fosters high latency of information sharing. The communication channel of documentation fosters low latency of information sharing.
Fair? If that’s fair, let’s shelve the relevance of documentation for a moment, and let’s move on to how to eradicate “fragmented authority.”
What are the frameworks that propagate “fragmented authority?” What should we unlearn? I know it will shock you, but I have ideas. I’d love others’ ideas first. 😊
...
1 reply by Luis Branco
Jul 26, 2026 1:11 PM
Luis Branco
...
I wonder whether fragmented authority originates primarily in frameworks or in the organizational architecture within which those frameworks are applied. The same framework can produce very different outcomes depending on how decision rights, accountability, incentives, governance, and escalation mechanisms are designed. That is why I tend to see fragmented authority as an architectural property rather than a methodological one. In the same way, information latency may depend less on whether communication occurs through meetings or documentation than on how information flows are designed, maintained, and used to support decisions. Perhaps the deeper question is not which framework to replace, but which organizational conditions continually recreate these dysfunctions across different frameworks.
Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Jul 26, 2026 11:21 AM
Replying to Robert Snyder
...
If most PM problems remain common, no existing framework should be sacred. We should welcome new ideas that are forms of standardization.
If you hesitate at standardization, then you hesitate at habits and scale, and you endorse reinventing the wheel.
We should pursue frameworks that improve standardization, habits, and scale. We should pursue frameworks that reduce reinventing the wheel.
Syed, I agree with you that going paper-less might be the best example of standardized improvement.
Luis, let’s pull on one or more of the threads you propose where dysfunction is unavoidable due to changing priorities, fragmented authority, and misaligned incentives.
Given the conversation so far, I’ll propose trying to eradicate latency of information sharing.
The communication channel of meetings fosters high latency of information sharing. The communication channel of documentation fosters low latency of information sharing.
Fair? If that’s fair, let’s shelve the relevance of documentation for a moment, and let’s move on to how to eradicate “fragmented authority.”
What are the frameworks that propagate “fragmented authority?” What should we unlearn? I know it will shock you, but I have ideas. I’d love others’ ideas first. 😊
I wonder whether fragmented authority originates primarily in frameworks or in the organizational architecture within which those frameworks are applied. The same framework can produce very different outcomes depending on how decision rights, accountability, incentives, governance, and escalation mechanisms are designed. That is why I tend to see fragmented authority as an architectural property rather than a methodological one. In the same way, information latency may depend less on whether communication occurs through meetings or documentation than on how information flows are designed, maintained, and used to support decisions. Perhaps the deeper question is not which framework to replace, but which organizational conditions continually recreate these dysfunctions across different frameworks. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
