In depth
Decisions and responsibility
For me, project management means more than planning, reporting and applying methods. It creates conditions in which responsibilities are clear, risks become visible, decisions are made in time and those involved remain able to act. Methods and tools support this task; they are not its purpose.
What a good decision is
A good decision is not automatically a decision with a good outcome. It is a decision made carefully, transparently and responsibly on the basis of the information available at the time. Outcomes remain partly uncertain.
Dealing with risk
I assess probability and possible impact, define early indicators and measures, name residual risks and clarify who is responsible. I consider correctability and reversibility from the outset.
Would we still stand by the decision if the worst accepted case occurred?
Deciding instead of limbo
Permanent indecision ties up resources, blurs responsibility and prevents learning. A correctable decision on a sufficient basis can therefore be better than continued hesitation. The greater and more irreversible the potential damage, however, the greater the care required.
I record important decisions in a traceable way: the question and goal, known facts and open assumptions, the options considered, risks, those responsible, the reasons and the point at which the decision will be reviewed.
Who decides?
Before important decisions, I clarify five questions:
- Who makes the decision?
- Who prepares it on the substance?
- Who needs to be heard or involved beforehand?
- Who needs to be informed afterwards?
- What happens if no agreement is reached?
The right to decide and the duty to communicate are not the same thing. Not every affected person has to take part in the decision, but anyone who is significantly affected should be appropriately involved or informed. Responsibility without information, authority and decision rights is not sustainable. Conversely, the right to decide must be tied to responsibility for the consequences.
What I decide depends on my role:
- As Challenger, I question and make risks visible without taking over the decision.
- As Accelerator, I can make operational decisions within clear guardrails.
- As Executor, I need genuine decision-making authority within the delegated mandate.
- As Observer, I do not, as a rule, intervene operationally.
The business decision remains with you.
Where there are relevant risks or blocked responsibility, I make this visible, raise it and ask for a decision. If necessary, it is escalated; ultimately the role or mandate is reassessed. I decide and communicate in the way I would expect for a decision that affects me.
How a project is steered
| Phase | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 1. Project idea | Clarify need, occasion, expected impact and first hypotheses |
| 2. Study and diagnosis | Understand the starting point, context, stakeholders, risks and options for action |
| 3. Initiation | Define goals, governance, roles, decision paths, scope and success criteria |
| 4. Concept | Design the solution logic, target picture, priorities, dependencies and implementation path |
| 5. Implementation | Put structures, processes, systems and capabilities in place |
| 6. Introduction | Provide the solution; organise communication, training and transition |
| 7. Adoption | Support real use and deal with obstacles in everyday work |
| 8. Stabilisation | Secure functionality, the taking of responsibility and learning under real conditions |
| 9. Impact and withdrawal | Review results, reduce my role, complete the handover or make a follow-up decision |
Between the phases, a deliberate decision is made:
- Go: The prerequisites are sufficiently in place.
- Adjust: Goal, scope, role, approach or resources are adjusted.
- Hold: The project is paused until defined prerequisites are met.
- Stop: The project is ended for stated reasons.
- Handover: Responsibility passes to the organisation.
At each of these points, I ask:
- What do we know now that we did not know before?
- Which assumptions have been confirmed or refuted?
- Is the goal still meaningful and achievable?
- Are benefit, effort and risk still justifiable?
- Are responsibilities and authority clear?
- Which role do I need to play now?
- What must be observable by the next review point?
Resistance is information first
Resistance can point to concerns that have not been heard, underestimated risks, unclear goals, a lack of trust, real losses or a solution that is not yet sound. I therefore try to understand it first rather than fight it.
I distinguish whether resistance has understandable reasons, stems from concern about the change, or from an unwillingness to examine facts and take responsibility. Accordingly, I listen and adapt the solution, provide reassurance and support, or I name limits and reassess the project's prerequisites.
Continue, adjust, hand over or stop
The same goals and criteria with which a mandate begins also serve to decide how it continues:
- Continue if the goal, prerequisites and expected impact remain sound.
- Adjust if the goal remains meaningful but assumptions, approach, scope, resources or roles need to change.
- Hand over when the task is fulfilled or the organisation can continue independently.
- Stop if essential prerequisites are permanently lacking, the goal can no longer be meaningfully achieved or further effort is no longer in a justifiable proportion to the impact.
A project is not continued simply because time, money or energy have already been invested. A single conflict is not a reason to stop; a lasting pattern without willingness to resolve it can be. I only recommend stopping once the problem and goals have been clarified, relevant perspectives included and alternatives such as adjustment, a pause or a new direction examined. I raise it as early as possible and communicate it in a traceable and respectful way.
A well-founded decision to stop can be a success if it prevents further misinvestment, creates clarity and protects people, time or capital from an ineffective continuation.