Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
Delivery exposes realities that planning cannot fully predict. When those realities contradict the original direction, continuing as planned may not make sense. Challenging that requires both confidence and support from leadership.
This is not just a question for a project manager. It is a question of professional responsibility. If execution reveals that the original assumptions were wrong, a PM should speak up and challenge the strategy. As humans and as professionals, we have a duty to do the right thing. If you genuinely believe a different course is needed, you should raise it clearly, respectfully, and with evidence. Saving Changes...
Great point. I've seen projects that should've been killed survive anyway, often for political rather than rational reasons.
This is why the business case and scope validation shouldn't be one-and-done exercises. Every project starts with a "why," growth, a market gap, a regulatory change, but that "why" is dynamic. Regulations shift. Margins get squeezed by new competitors. A business case that was solid two years ago may no longer hold.
A living SWOT, revisited periodically alongside the business case, helps surface when the original rationale has quietly expired, before politics or sunk cost takes over the decision. Saving Changes...
Definitely - but this is where some PMs don't demonstrate the courage to act on their analysis for a variety of reasons including career preservation, not being willing to be "the bad guy/gal", low organizational PM maturity, or low psychological safety within the stakeholder team.
PMI's Code of Ethics does require PMs to demonstrate honesty, transparency & integrity and that includes making sure that decision makers are aware when things have fundamentally changed.
You are right that "delivery exposes realities that planning cannot fully predict." However, your premise raises a question:
Is this a strict waterfall project, a project with iterative delivery?
On a strict waterfall project, challenging strategy during delivery could be a little too late. Scope should be mostly complete. But, who, from the business, was watching the external environment and making sure that expected benefits were still likely after the project started - while requirements were being defined and approved, when the project schedule was approved, and while the plan was being executed? The project manager isn't usually monitoring these things, so how would the project manager even know there was a problem?
On an project with iterative delivery, challenging strategy between releases becomes more feasible. External monitoring and benefits/value monitoring are still a challenge for the project manager, but the project manager can have a sense of whether what is being delivered is moving in the right direction and can work with the product owner to make adjustments that can be realized in the following sprints/releases.
However, we may be missing a step. When execution invalidates an assumption, the first step might be to determine what that assumption affects:
1. You adapt the project if it's an execution assumption 2. You escalate a solution decision if the solution choice is coming into question 3. You notify the sponsor/business owner if it invalidates expected benefits or the business case 4. You might take it to whomever owns strategy/portfolio decisions, in addition to the sponsor/business owner if it negatively impacts strategic alignment
The first and second items are probably the easiest for a project manager to identify. Ultimately, it's not that you need to challenge strategy so much as you need to make sure that appropriate evidence reaches the people who make the needed decision. Saving Changes...
Absolutely. A PM should challenge strategy when evidence shows the original assumptions no longer hold. That is not stepping outside the PM role; it is responsible leadership. The key is to bring data, impacts, options, and recommendations rather than simply raising concerns. Good governance should make it safe to question the plan before execution turns a wrong assumption into a bigger loss. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
