Have we professionalised Project Management… without progress?

lorenaflorian0
23 hours ago
3 min read

How can we get better at project management… but not better at transformation success?

This question was recently posed by Antonio Nieto-Rodriguez and is a question that should unsettle every executive.

For decades, organisations have invested heavily in professionalising execution:

Nearly 1.5 million certified project professionals worldwide
Widespread Agile adoption
Billions invested in governance platforms and PPM tools
Mature PMOs embedded across large enterprises

And yet the performance distribution has barely shifted.

Large IT projects still run, on average, 45 percent over budget and 7 percent late. One in six experiences cost overruns exceeding 200 percent. Only around 30 to 35 percent meet time, cost, and scope targets.

When it comes to transformation, approximately 70 percent fail to achieve their intended outcomes.

This is not a marginal inefficiency.

It is a systemic signal.

Antonio describes this as an “expertise paradox”. We refine execution frameworks. We add governance. We add reporting. We optimise control.

But control is not transformation.

The Strategy Implementation Gap

In The Strategy Implementation Gap, we explored the persistent disconnect between strategic intent and delivery reality.

The problem was never simply project mechanics.

The problem is structural misalignment.

Strategy is crafted at the top.Projects are delivered at the bottom.The connective tissue in between is often weak, fragmented or misunderstood.

Antonio’s observation reinforces the same theme. When projects underperform, organisations respond predictably:

Add more governance
Add more reporting
Add more checkpoints

Yet decades of this response have not fundamentally shifted transformation outcomes.

Why?

Because we are optimising within a hierarchy that was never designed to make transformation repeatable.

The Missing Layer: Transformation as the Top of the Hierarchy

Most organisational frameworks still operate as if projects are the primary unit of change.

They are not.

The correct hierarchy in the AI Transformation Age is:

Transformation → Portfolio → Program → Project

Projects deliver outputs.

Programs coordinate capabilities.

Portfolios prioritise investments.

Transformation defines the strategic shift.

When transformation is not explicitly recognised as the governing layer, organisations:

Optimise local delivery
Lose strategic coherence
Declare success when systems go live
Fail to measure behavioural and performance change

Antonio highlights the illusion clearly: we measure delivery; we under-measure impact.

You can execute perfectly and still fail strategically.

Updating the Project Management Framework

If failure rates remain static, the response cannot be incremental.

Organisations must update their project management frameworks to reflect transformation as the governing construct.

This means:

1. Embedding Transformation Governance

Governance must extend beyond project compliance and into transformation outcomes.

The Five Case Model reminds us that initiatives must demonstrate strategic, economic, commercial, financial and management viability. Yet few organisations consistently revisit the strategic and economic cases once delivery begins and often do not have a valid management case (the do-ability case) because there is limited input from project delivery expertise into the model when being developed.

Transformation governance requires:

Clear outcome definitions
Benefits ownership beyond project closure
Cross-portfolio prioritisation discipline
Executive-level sponsorship accountability

2. Shifting from Output Metrics to Value Metrics

Contemporary standards now explicitly emphasise value delivery and sustainability.

This reflects a broader evolution: projects are not judged solely by scope, time and cost, but by sustained value creation.

Yet in practice, many organisations still:

Close projects at system go-live
Disband teams before behavioural change stabilises
Under-invest in post-project measurement

Transformation success requires lifecycle thinking that extends into transition and sustainment, not just execution.

3. Building Institutional Capability, Not Heroics

Antonio warns that transformation success often depends on:

A heroic leader
Favourable timing
An exceptional sponsor

That is circumstantial advantage.

It is not institutional capability.

Institutional capability requires:

An AI transformation-aligned operating model
Clear decision rights across portfolio and program layers
Integrated reporting across transformation objectives
A culture that connects delivery to strategic value

Without this, professionalisation becomes cosmetic.

The Strategic Vulnerability

In the AI Transformation Age, projects are the vehicle through which organisations digitise, innovate, comply, expand and survive.

If transformation outcomes remain volatile, this is not an operational inconvenience.

It is a strategic vulnerability.

The question for every executive is simple:

Is transformation capability embedded in your organisation?

Or is success still dependent on exceptional individuals?

If your organisation is experiencing:

Repeated cost overruns
Benefits shortfalls
Strategy fatigue
Portfolio congestion
Governance overload without improved outcomes

It is time to reassess your transformation architecture.

At PMLogic, we specialise in closing the strategy implementation gap by:

Redesigning governance structures
Aligning portfolio decision-making to strategy
Embedding benefits realisation frameworks
Updating project management frameworks to reflect the Transformation → Portfolio → Program → Project hierarchy
Building sustainable transformation capability