In the realm of project management, there’s a recurring tension between delivering a project as a neatly packaged entity (basically a number of signed-off documents from a project manager’s perspective) and delivering a project as a truly useful feature for the business.
Now on one side, pure project managers often focus on precise documentation, formal ownership, and clear boundaries. This approach can streamline budgeting, clarify responsibilities, and minimise risk, particularly helpful if something goes wrong.
On the other side, managers with a business or operational background tend to prioritise tangible outcomes that meet real-world needs, even if this requires a less orderly process. This style, while potentially more chaotic, can often produce better, more enduring results for the business.
Both approaches have clear benefits and drawbacks. A strict adherence to process and paperwork can ensure compliance, financial clarity, and an “adequate” solution that meets requirements; this gives you a sound basis to claim payment against goal-based contracts.
However, it may not fully address real business needs.
Conversely, focusing purely on delivering the best business outcome can lead to scope creep, cost overruns, and never getting a sign-off on the project, but it might also generate a more valuable end product that truly benefits the organisation.
In truth, I like a bit of column A and a bit of column B on this. You try to be as flexible to the business needs as you can while staying within your remit, and to this end, if you are honest with the business and say: “Look, we were made to sign this contract with these deliverables by our mutual bosses, and if we don’t do that, we won’t get paid. So please, can we do those first and then come back to the extra and different stuff you want?” it’s very often a good place to try balancing from.