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.
...
1 reply by Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa
Aug 21, 2026 12:47 PM
Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa
...
I think the important part is raising it with evidence and being clear about what has changed. The PM may not own the strategy, but we do have a responsibility to make sure leadership knows when execution is showing that the original assumptions no longer hold.
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.
...
1 reply by Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa
Aug 21, 2026 12:48 PM
Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa
...
Good point, Eduard. I also think the business case can become something we validate at the beginning and rarely question again. If execution or the external environment starts contradicting the assumptions behind it, continuing to deliver against the original plan may no longer mean we are delivering the right value.
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.
Kiron
...
1 reply by Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa
Aug 21, 2026 12:49 PM
Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa
...
Exactly, Kiron. Speaking up is one thing, but the environment also matters. If questioning assumptions is seen as challenging authority instead of protecting the project, PMs may recognize the problem but still hesitate to raise it. This is where I see leadership support and psychological safety become more important.
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.
...
1 reply by Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa
Aug 21, 2026 12:51 PM
Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa
...
That’s a good distinction, Aaron. I agree that “challenge the strategy” may not always be the right framing. The PM’s responsibility is to make sure that what execution is revealing reaches the right decision-makers, especially when it starts affecting expected benefits or the business case. What happens after that depends on where the assumption sits and who owns the decision.
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.
...
1 reply by Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa
Aug 21, 2026 12:51 PM
Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa
...
Good point, Pavan. Bringing options and their impacts makes a big difference. It moves the conversation beyond simply saying that something is wrong and gives leadership something concrete to evaluate and decide on.
When a Project Manager discovers a fundamental flaw in initial assumptions during execution, they not only have the right to question the strategy—they have a professional obligation to do so. A strategy, at its core, is simply an unverified macro-hypothesis created at the leadership level. PMs operate on the front lines, utilizing real-time development data, micro-milestones, and Proof of Concepts (PoCs) to stress-test these theories against reality. When empirical data directly disproves top-down assumptions, raising constructive friction is not defiance; it is a critical risk-management duty that establishes a clear, defensible line of professional accountability, preventing the execution team from becoming a scapegoat for an inherently flawed plan. Exceptional project leaders leverage immutable system audit logs to elegantly reframe a dead-end as a strategic choice. By using data to force a tactical pivot, they transform cold evidence into a shield that protects both corporate assets and team credibility.
...
1 reply by Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa
Aug 21, 2026 12:52 PM
Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa
...
Sometimes the strongest evidence that a strategy needs to be reconsidered only becomes available once the work is underway. The challenge is making sure those signals are raised early enough to influence the decision.
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
Aug 15, 2026 3:08 AM
Replying to Danny PMP, PgMP
...
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.
I think the important part is raising it with evidence and being clear about what has changed. The PM may not own the strategy, but we do have a responsibility to make sure leadership knows when execution is showing that the original assumptions no longer hold. Saving Changes...
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
Aug 15, 2026 6:45 AM
Replying to Eduard Hernandez
...
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.
Good point, Eduard. I also think the business case can become something we validate at the beginning and rarely question again. If execution or the external environment starts contradicting the assumptions behind it, continuing to deliver against the original plan may no longer mean we are delivering the right value. Saving Changes...
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
Aug 15, 2026 9:10 AM
Replying to Kiron Bondale
...
Lissette -
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.
Kiron
Exactly, Kiron. Speaking up is one thing, but the environment also matters. If questioning assumptions is seen as challenging authority instead of protecting the project, PMs may recognize the problem but still hesitate to raise it. This is where I see leadership support and psychological safety become more important. Saving Changes...
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
Aug 15, 2026 2:01 PM
Replying to Aaron Porter
...
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.
That’s a good distinction, Aaron. I agree that “challenge the strategy” may not always be the right framing. The PM’s responsibility is to make sure that what execution is revealing reaches the right decision-makers, especially when it starts affecting expected benefits or the business case. What happens after that depends on where the assumption sits and who owns the decision. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
