Even with frameworks in place, projects fail when governance assumes sameness. The real differentiator? Knowing how to lead the right way for the work at hand.
Even with the best structures in place – stage gates, delivery frameworks, dashboards – projects can still miss the mark. Sometimes it’s a complete failure, sometimes it gets to the desired outcome – but behind schedule and budget, other times everything is delivered as promised… and still fails to deliver what was needed.
How can that be? Because even though the method was followed, the method didn’t fit.
Project misdiagnosis is one of the most persistent and overlooked delivery risks. When a project is governed, led or measured as one thing, but behaves like another, we set it up to struggle. Applying the standard process or doing what we have done before isn’t always enough. If we don’t understand the type of project we are embarking on, we can find ourselves chasing the wrong outcomes, or apply the wrong controls.
Ultimately, success isn’t just about meeting scope, time and cost. It’s also about delivering the value the project was meant to create. However that value will look different, and be realised differently, depending on the type of project.
One size doesn’t fit all
What do we mean by project (mis)diagnosis? Think about it with this simple truth that all project professionals hold to be self-evident: not every project behaves the same way. Some are tightly scoped and repeatable, while others are ambiguous and emergent. Some will require a lot of planning, others are laying track as they go. Each one needs a different delivery approach; not just in execution, but in governance, sponsorship and how success is defined.
This is why we like the four-archetype model to help leaders reframe how they approach delivery:
- Paint-by-numbers projects are structured and repeatable. They follow known processes and thrive on discipline, speed and standardisation.
- Making a film projects require planning, agility and creativity. The team needs to be aligned on the vision and the value cannot be proven until the finished product is delivered.
- Walking in the fog projects are exploratory and often have an outcome that is difficult to define. They begin with ambiguity and reveal their value through iteration and learning.
- Going on a quest projects are bold, strategic and high stakes. They require a well-planned and resourced expedition, ready to encounter many risks and issues along the journey.
Each of these environments comes with its own demands: different dynamics, pressure points and paths to value. Yet we often see a single delivery model applied across the board, with governance defaulting to standard templates and project sponsors leaning on familiar habits. Ultimately, this puts pressure on delivery teams, who are expected to make the same playbook work, no matter the shape of the challenge.
That’s where misalignment creeps in – it’s not necessarily about poor execution, in fact more often than not teams are being held to delivery measures that don’t reflect the real nature of the work! Rather, this kind of failure can be viewed as a mismatch between what the project needs and how it’s being led.
We’ve seen it play out in all kinds of ways. A Fog project treated like Paint-by-Numbers attempts to apply a prescriptive process to delivery in a situation with no structure or clarity. A bold Quest loses steam when strategic sponsorship and commitment to face adversity fades. A Film project struggles when stakeholders are never quite aligned on the story or the vision, blowing budget and compromising the vision with rewrites and reshoots.
Why project type matters for sponsors
When the project type isn’t clearly understood, governance tends to default to the familiar – standard processes, generic metrics and templated reporting. Inherently, this isn’t a bad thing, so don’t rush to throw out the PMO frameworks just yet. The difficulty is in how governance is applied, and our expectations that a certain activity will produce results.
When faced with uncertainty, we often default to more planning and investigation so we can take an educated first step. That may work with a quest, where scouts can be sent out, and routes can be planned using local knowledge and maps. However on fog projects, planning is unlikely to make any impact on knowledge. In fact, if you’re navigating the fog, too much planning could have a negative result by giving us a false sense of security, leading to an attempt to rush through the fog, rather than take careful steps and feel our way.
Now for the ah-ha moment: understanding the project type helps leaders apply sound decision-making. It should influence how sponsors show up; how they focus on the right signals and respond well to the right pressures. It provides a context and understanding of how decisions can be applied successfully.
Failing to understand project type is how projects unravel. A tightly scoped project might benefit from sharp focus on efficiency and timelines; but a more complex or exploratory initiative could stall if the sponsor expects the same level of certainty – or pushes for answers that aren’t ready yet, or just aren’t possible to make.
Just like governance, project sponsorship should be a cultivated skill. It should also be context-aware. Some projects need a firm hand on scope, while others need protection from premature scrutiny. Some need sponsors to broker alignment across business units, others need them to stay visible and strategic over a longer arc.
It’s not about being hands-on or hands-off – it’s about knowing what the work demands, and adjusting accordingly.
Great projects start with the right question
Project misdiagnosis isn’t always obvious. Sometimes, it just feels like friction, or progress that ticks the boxes but doesn’t build momentum. Often, that’s not a failure of effort or intention – it’s a sign that the governance model isn’t fit for the work.
That’s why one of the most powerful things a delivery leader can do is ask, early on:
What kind of project are we really running?
When we understand that, we make better decisions about everything else – how we plan, what we measure, who leads and where we aim. Clarity around project type brings everything else into better focus – from how we govern and sponsor, to how we define progress and hold onto value along the way.
Of course, in reality, most projects don’t fit neatly into a single category. They often shift, stretch or blur across types as delivery progresses. That’s why having the right lens – and the right people to help interpret it – can make all the difference.
Quay Consulting is a professional services business specialising in the project landscape, transforming strategy into fit-for-purpose delivery. Meet our team or reach out to have a discussion today.
We believe that quality thought leadership is worth sharing and encourage you to share with your colleagues. If you’re interested in republishing our content, here’s what’s okay and what’s not okay.