Program Manager, PPM&PMO Specialist.| Coppel, Mexico.Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico
Coleagues, lately, there has been a strong push in our industry toward the "M.O.R.E." mindset. Organizations increasingly expect Project Managers to step out of pure execution and take ownership of higher-level capabilities: strategy, value realization, and business outcomes.
However, when looking at the PMI’s Exam Content Outline (ECO), there seems to be a striking contrast. The "Business Environment" domain is significantly reduced, representing only 26% of the framework, while "People" (33%) and "Process" (41%) take up the vast majority.
This feels like a paradox. The market is demanding highly strategic, business-driven PMs, yet our core certification framework remains heavily focused on team management and process execution.
My questions for the community are:
How do you explain this disconnect between what businesses expect (M.O.R.E.) and what the ECO prioritizes?
Do you think the Business Environment domain should carry more weight in future frameworks, or is high-level strategy ultimately someone else's responsibility?
I would love to hear your thoughts on how you reconcile this in your daily roles!
Saving Changes...
Sort By:
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Dear Francisco, I think you raise an important coherence question between M.O.R.E. and the PMP ECO, but I am not sure the domain percentages demonstrate the contradiction.
Business Environment has actually increased from 8% in the 2021 ECO to 26% in the 2026 ECO, while People decreased from 42% to 33% and Process from 50% to 41%.
More importantly, I would be cautious about interpreting Business Environment as the strategic or business part of the ECO and the remaining 74% as primarily team management and process execution.
The content does not divide that way. In the 2026 ECO, Process explicitly includes value-based delivery, business value, benefits measurement, value-based prioritization and informed decision-making. Business Environment, meanwhile, includes governance, compliance, change control, risk, impediments and continuous improvement, as well as organizational and external business change.
This distinction also matters when we consider PMI's emphasis on business acumen. The capabilities needed to connect project work to organizational priorities, stakeholder value and business outcomes are not captured by the Business Environment percentage alone.
The ECO itself explicitly says that it is aligned with PMI's broader conception of project success, moving beyond schedule, budget and scope to include stakeholder value and the realization of desired outcomes. So, on your first question, I do not think the percentages establish a disconnect. But neither does that prove that the ECO fully operationalizes M.O.R.E. The stronger test would be whether the tasks and enablers across all three domains adequately reflect and assess the business acumen and broader capabilities implied by Manage Perceptions, Own Success, Relentlessly Reassess and Expand Perspective.
For the same reason, I would not conclude that Business Environment necessarily needs a higher percentage.
And on strategy, I do not see the choice as project professionals owning strategy or strategy being someone else's responsibility. Understanding strategy, contributing to it, influencing strategic decisions and having authority to make those decisions are different things.
In practice, I would reconcile the two by bringing business context, value and strategic consequences into project decisions while remaining explicit about where decision authority lies.
That leads me to what I see as the deeper coherence question: if M.O.R.E. expands what project professionals are expected to own, do organizations provide the authority, decision rights, escalation paths and governance needed to make that accountability governable?
...
1 reply by Francisco Herrera
Sep 28, 2026 2:39 PM
Francisco Herrera
...
Luis Branco we often see this massive gap between the new strategic expectations of the profession (M.O.R.E.) and the rigid, traditional governance structures of many organizations. We are given the accountability, but not the power.
How do you personally negotiate or establish those decision rights and escalation paths with your sponsors at the very beginning of a project? Francisco
Program Manager, PPM&PMO Specialist.| Coppel, Mexico.Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico
Sep 23, 2026 8:25 AM
Replying to Luis Branco
...
Dear Francisco, I think you raise an important coherence question between M.O.R.E. and the PMP ECO, but I am not sure the domain percentages demonstrate the contradiction.
Business Environment has actually increased from 8% in the 2021 ECO to 26% in the 2026 ECO, while People decreased from 42% to 33% and Process from 50% to 41%.
More importantly, I would be cautious about interpreting Business Environment as the strategic or business part of the ECO and the remaining 74% as primarily team management and process execution.
The content does not divide that way. In the 2026 ECO, Process explicitly includes value-based delivery, business value, benefits measurement, value-based prioritization and informed decision-making. Business Environment, meanwhile, includes governance, compliance, change control, risk, impediments and continuous improvement, as well as organizational and external business change.
This distinction also matters when we consider PMI's emphasis on business acumen. The capabilities needed to connect project work to organizational priorities, stakeholder value and business outcomes are not captured by the Business Environment percentage alone.
The ECO itself explicitly says that it is aligned with PMI's broader conception of project success, moving beyond schedule, budget and scope to include stakeholder value and the realization of desired outcomes. So, on your first question, I do not think the percentages establish a disconnect. But neither does that prove that the ECO fully operationalizes M.O.R.E. The stronger test would be whether the tasks and enablers across all three domains adequately reflect and assess the business acumen and broader capabilities implied by Manage Perceptions, Own Success, Relentlessly Reassess and Expand Perspective.
For the same reason, I would not conclude that Business Environment necessarily needs a higher percentage.
And on strategy, I do not see the choice as project professionals owning strategy or strategy being someone else's responsibility. Understanding strategy, contributing to it, influencing strategic decisions and having authority to make those decisions are different things.
In practice, I would reconcile the two by bringing business context, value and strategic consequences into project decisions while remaining explicit about where decision authority lies.
That leads me to what I see as the deeper coherence question: if M.O.R.E. expands what project professionals are expected to own, do organizations provide the authority, decision rights, escalation paths and governance needed to make that accountability governable?
Luis Branco we often see this massive gap between the new strategic expectations of the profession (M.O.R.E.) and the rigid, traditional governance structures of many organizations. We are given the accountability, but not the power.
How do you personally negotiate or establish those decision rights and escalation paths with your sponsors at the very beginning of a project? Francisco
...
1 reply by Luis Branco
Oct 01, 2026 2:38 PM
Luis Branco
...
Francisco, having been on both sides of that relationship, as a project manager and as a sponsor, I try to make that conversation concrete very early. For me, it starts with trust. Clarifying decision rights is only part of the equation. The sponsor also needs confidence that authority will be exercised with judgment, transparency and appropriate escalation.
Rather than asking how much authority the project manager has, I prefer to identify the consequential decisions the project is likely to face and make the delegation explicit: what authority is being delegated, what remains with the sponsor or governance body, where the boundaries lie, and what should trigger escalation.
For me, the objective is not to maximize the project manager’s authority. It is to make sure that authority sits where it can legitimately be exercised and that accountability is not assigned without the decision rights, information, capacity and escalation mechanisms needed to support it.
But I do not see delegation as the end of that conversation. Purposeful counsel is equally important. There should be room to discuss difficult decisions, test judgment and learn without every request for advice becoming an implicit transfer of the decision back to the sponsor. When a decision has been delegated, advice should support the exercise of that authority rather than quietly reclaim it.
That relationship also helps build trust over time. The project manager demonstrates judgment, transparency and appropriate escalation; the sponsor demonstrates that delegated authority will be respected within the agreed boundaries. In that sense, trust is not a substitute for governance or formal delegation. It is developed through how both are exercised.
I also try to make escalation paths operational rather than simply documenting them. Who needs to be involved? Under what conditions? How quickly must a decision be made? What happens when the normal governance path cannot respond within the time the project requires?
And I would not treat those arrangements as permanent. Projects evolve, new interdependencies emerge, risks change, and decisions can become more consequential than originally anticipated. Decision rights, delegation boundaries and escalation paths therefore need to be revisited when the conditions that justified them change. Trust, too, has to be continually reinforced through how authority is exercised and how the relationship develops.
Perhaps that is another practical application of Relentlessly Reassess: not only reassessing plans, assumptions and value, but also whether authority, delegation, governance and the relationship supporting them still match the accountability we are expected to carry.
Are you suggesting that project manager accountability is outpacing project manager authority? What an odd thing to say...
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
...
1 reply by Francisco Herrera
Oct 01, 2026 1:38 PM
Francisco Herrera
...
Exactly Aaron! It might sound like a joke, but it is the daily reality for most of us. We are held 100% responsible for delivering the project, but we rarely have direct control over the budget or the team members. It is the classic PM struggle that never seems to go away! Francisco
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
I’m not sure I see it as a contradiction. Strategy and business value don’t operate separately from people and execution. A PM can understand the business objective very well, but still needs to lead the team, manage stakeholders, make decisions, and execute effectively to turn that objective into results. I would see the Business Environment percentage as one part of the framework rather than an indication that strategic thinking is becoming less important for the PM role. Saving Changes...
Program Manager, PPM&PMO Specialist.| Coppel, Mexico.Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico
Sep 28, 2026 6:06 PM
Replying to Aaron Porter
...
Are you suggesting that project manager accountability is outpacing project manager authority? What an odd thing to say...
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Exactly Aaron! It might sound like a joke, but it is the daily reality for most of us. We are held 100% responsible for delivering the project, but we rarely have direct control over the budget or the team members. It is the classic PM struggle that never seems to go away! Francisco Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Sep 28, 2026 2:39 PM
Replying to Francisco Herrera
...
Luis Branco we often see this massive gap between the new strategic expectations of the profession (M.O.R.E.) and the rigid, traditional governance structures of many organizations. We are given the accountability, but not the power.
How do you personally negotiate or establish those decision rights and escalation paths with your sponsors at the very beginning of a project? Francisco
Francisco, having been on both sides of that relationship, as a project manager and as a sponsor, I try to make that conversation concrete very early. For me, it starts with trust. Clarifying decision rights is only part of the equation. The sponsor also needs confidence that authority will be exercised with judgment, transparency and appropriate escalation.
Rather than asking how much authority the project manager has, I prefer to identify the consequential decisions the project is likely to face and make the delegation explicit: what authority is being delegated, what remains with the sponsor or governance body, where the boundaries lie, and what should trigger escalation.
For me, the objective is not to maximize the project manager’s authority. It is to make sure that authority sits where it can legitimately be exercised and that accountability is not assigned without the decision rights, information, capacity and escalation mechanisms needed to support it.
But I do not see delegation as the end of that conversation. Purposeful counsel is equally important. There should be room to discuss difficult decisions, test judgment and learn without every request for advice becoming an implicit transfer of the decision back to the sponsor. When a decision has been delegated, advice should support the exercise of that authority rather than quietly reclaim it.
That relationship also helps build trust over time. The project manager demonstrates judgment, transparency and appropriate escalation; the sponsor demonstrates that delegated authority will be respected within the agreed boundaries. In that sense, trust is not a substitute for governance or formal delegation. It is developed through how both are exercised.
I also try to make escalation paths operational rather than simply documenting them. Who needs to be involved? Under what conditions? How quickly must a decision be made? What happens when the normal governance path cannot respond within the time the project requires?
And I would not treat those arrangements as permanent. Projects evolve, new interdependencies emerge, risks change, and decisions can become more consequential than originally anticipated. Decision rights, delegation boundaries and escalation paths therefore need to be revisited when the conditions that justified them change. Trust, too, has to be continually reinforced through how authority is exercised and how the relationship develops.
Perhaps that is another practical application of Relentlessly Reassess: not only reassessing plans, assumptions and value, but also whether authority, delegation, governance and the relationship supporting them still match the accountability we are expected to carry.
...
1 reply by Francisco Herrera
Oct 12, 2026 12:52 PM
Francisco Herrera
...
Thanks Luis Branco! Yes building trust and setting clear decision boundaries is much more effective than simply asking for "more authority."
Your point about sponsors providing "purposeful counsel" without reclaiming the decision is spot on—it truly empowers the project manager to lead effectively. Additionally, linking this continuous adaptation to the concept of Relentlessly Reassess is a brilliant takeaway. Governance and escalation paths must definitely evolve alongside the project's changing needs.
Program Manager, PPM&PMO Specialist.| Coppel, Mexico.Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico
Oct 01, 2026 2:38 PM
Replying to Luis Branco
...
Francisco, having been on both sides of that relationship, as a project manager and as a sponsor, I try to make that conversation concrete very early. For me, it starts with trust. Clarifying decision rights is only part of the equation. The sponsor also needs confidence that authority will be exercised with judgment, transparency and appropriate escalation.
Rather than asking how much authority the project manager has, I prefer to identify the consequential decisions the project is likely to face and make the delegation explicit: what authority is being delegated, what remains with the sponsor or governance body, where the boundaries lie, and what should trigger escalation.
For me, the objective is not to maximize the project manager’s authority. It is to make sure that authority sits where it can legitimately be exercised and that accountability is not assigned without the decision rights, information, capacity and escalation mechanisms needed to support it.
But I do not see delegation as the end of that conversation. Purposeful counsel is equally important. There should be room to discuss difficult decisions, test judgment and learn without every request for advice becoming an implicit transfer of the decision back to the sponsor. When a decision has been delegated, advice should support the exercise of that authority rather than quietly reclaim it.
That relationship also helps build trust over time. The project manager demonstrates judgment, transparency and appropriate escalation; the sponsor demonstrates that delegated authority will be respected within the agreed boundaries. In that sense, trust is not a substitute for governance or formal delegation. It is developed through how both are exercised.
I also try to make escalation paths operational rather than simply documenting them. Who needs to be involved? Under what conditions? How quickly must a decision be made? What happens when the normal governance path cannot respond within the time the project requires?
And I would not treat those arrangements as permanent. Projects evolve, new interdependencies emerge, risks change, and decisions can become more consequential than originally anticipated. Decision rights, delegation boundaries and escalation paths therefore need to be revisited when the conditions that justified them change. Trust, too, has to be continually reinforced through how authority is exercised and how the relationship develops.
Perhaps that is another practical application of Relentlessly Reassess: not only reassessing plans, assumptions and value, but also whether authority, delegation, governance and the relationship supporting them still match the accountability we are expected to carry.
Thanks Luis Branco! Yes building trust and setting clear decision boundaries is much more effective than simply asking for "more authority."
Your point about sponsors providing "purposeful counsel" without reclaiming the decision is spot on—it truly empowers the project manager to lead effectively. Additionally, linking this continuous adaptation to the concept of Relentlessly Reassess is a brilliant takeaway. Governance and escalation paths must definitely evolve alongside the project's changing needs.
Community Champion
