Upstream–Downstream Thinking: How Early Decisions Impact Late Outcomes
In many projects, once execution starts, nobody goes back to question the assumptions made during initiation.
In my experience, this can be a mistake. In complex, multinational projects, an assumption that seems minor at the beginning can become a much bigger problem once the project reaches the site.
In one of my projects, planning for a multinational industrial program relied heavily on previous experience in similar environments. We assumed that our established internal practices and previous experience would also be sufficient in a new regulatory environment.
The regulatory requirements had been considered, but not sufficiently integrated into the initial risk evaluation. As a result, when execution started, we discovered a significant gap between what we had planned and what was actually required on site.
It soon became clear that we were looking at the same requirements from very different perspectives. What we considered a manageable procedural step was, for the client, a strict and non-negotiable compliance requirement.
We had not addressed these differences clearly enough during project initiation, and we arrived at the execution phase with two different interpretations of the same situation.
Once execution started, some activities had to be temporarily stopped while we waited for regulatory validation. We also had to modify some electrical components and labeling practices to comply with local requirements.
What had been considered technically acceptable during planning was no longer acceptable on site. It was not a dramatic project failure, but it created delays, forced us to resequence activities and required additional coordination at a time when the project was already under pressure.
The problem was not technical incompetence or equipment failure. The team was experienced, the equipment worked and the scope was clear.
The real problem was the gap between what we had assumed at the beginning and the conditions we actually found on site. During initiation, we had not gone deep enough into some local regulatory requirements and working practices. We discovered that gap only when execution had already started.
And here is where experience wins over theory: planning and execution must remain connected and interact.
There is no execution without a plan, but there is also no plan that does not need to be validated by execution.
A plan is based on the information and assumptions available at a certain moment, but those assumptions have to be tested again when the project reaches the site.
If reality is different from what we expected, the role of the project manager is not to defend the original plan. It is to understand the difference, react quickly and bring the project back under control.
In this project, the first signs that something was wrong did not come from a report or a KPI. They came from conversations on site. Listening to how the local team talked about safety and compliance made me realize that our initial assumptions did not completely match their reality.
They call it soft skills, emotional intelligence or stakeholder management. I call it: know your site and talk with the people.
This is also one of the differences between managing a project from a distance and being there during execution. On site, you see reactions, you hear concerns and sometimes you understand a problem before it appears in any report.
Once we understood the real situation, we adjusted the sequence of activities and our communication with the local team. This allowed us to stabilize the execution and move forward again.
Perfect planning does not exist, especially in complex international projects. What we can do is recognize as early as possible when our assumptions do not match reality and correct them.
A project manager cannot eliminate uncertainty. But we can reduce the time between discovering that something is wrong and doing something about it.
For me, this is what connects planning with execution: not having the perfect plan, but being ready to challenge it when reality tells you something different.
Published on PMIstandards+ An edited version of this article has also been published on PMIstandards+ by the Project Management Institute (PMI).
Access to PMIstandards+ requires a PMI membership.
Comments