Resources

Many organisations have mature reporting processes. Problems are identified early, deviations are analysed thoroughly and forecasts become increasingly accurate with every reporting cycle.

All of this is essential to strong project control. The problem begins when better understanding is mistaken for better control.

Reporting and management are usually compressed into the same project review. Dashboards are presented, deviations are discussed, root causes are examined, assumptions are challenged and forecasts are updated. The conversation can be rigorous and productive. By the end of the meeting, everyone has a clearer understanding of the project's position.

Every experienced project manager has seen a project where a significant risk materialised after being identified and documented months earlier. In many cases, the problem was not that the risk had been overlooked. It was that identifying it had quietly become a substitute for managing it. 

For many project teams, good risk management is often equated with having a comprehensive risk register. Neatly formatted. Probability. Impact. Mitigation. Owner. Review date. Everything exactly as the methodology prescribes. 

There was a time when detailed plans felt like the hallmark of good project management. The more tasks, the better. A 50-line schedule seemed incomplete. A 2,000-line schedule inspired confidence. Every activity had a predecessor. Every dependency was mapped. Every milestone had supporting tasks. If someone had asked whether the project was well planned, the answer would have been to open Microsoft Project. It looked impressive. It was also one of the least useful project plans.