Then the power goes out.

You have an electric stove, the power isn’t coming back anytime soon, and your family still needs to eat. You could stare at the ingredients and declare the whole thing a failure. Or you could remind yourself what you were actually trying to accomplish in the first place: feed your family dinner. Maybe you order Chinese food. Maybe you pick something up. Is it the dinner you planned? No. Did you still accomplish what mattered? Yes.

The power went out. The plan failed. The outcome didn’t have to.

That, in a very simple example, is how I think about the fourth C of Project Thinking™: Contingency. Contingency isn’t planning for failure. It’s planning for reality, because I have yet to work on a project where everything went exactly according to plan.

Subscribe now

Start with what you don’t know

Some risks are obvious before a project even begins. If someone asks me to complete a project in two months and I’ve done something similar before that took four, I already know we have a potential timing problem. I don’t need to wait six weeks to discover it. Experience makes some risks easier to see, but if you’ve never done something before, ask someone who has. One of my favorite questions to ask a project team is: Has anyone done something like this before? What did you learn?

You don’t have to personally know everything that could go wrong. On large, cross-functional projects, you almost certainly won’t. That’s one of the reasons you bring the right people together in the first place. But there’s another way I uncover risk that I think is just as important: I keep track of what we don’t know.

Alongside my risks, I keep open items and open questions. As the project team talks through the work, questions naturally surface. How are we going to distribute this? Who needs to approve that? What happens in this scenario? Do we have the right people involved? I write them down and collect those questions from everyone involved in the project.

Some get answered quickly and disappear. Some turn out not to matter at all. But every once in a while, someone says, “That’s a really good question. I don’t know.” Now we have something to investigate. Maybe the answer is simple, or maybe we discover that answering the question requires three things we hadn’t planned for, a resource we don’t have, or additional time we didn’t account for. An open question just became a potential risk.

That’s why I don’t think Contingency requires you to sit in a room and imagine every possible disaster that could happen.

You don’t have to know all the risks. Start by knowing what you don’t know.

Then give those unknowns owners. Who can answer the question? Who can investigate the risk? Who can bring the information back to the team? A list of risks and open questions isn’t particularly useful if nobody is responsible for doing anything with it.

Don’t just bring the problem

I’ve always been someone who looks ahead and sees the things that could go wrong. Earlier in my career, I was also very good at telling people about them. Here’s the problem. Here’s another problem. Oh, and I found this problem too.

Over time, I learned that identifying problems is only part of the value you bring. The more useful question is: What do I think we should do about it? If I identify a risk now, I try to think through the mitigation before I bring it forward. What are our options? Can we prevent it? Can we reduce the impact? Is there another path?

And sometimes the answer is actually that we don’t need to do anything yet. That one has taken me some time to learn. My natural instinct is to see a potential problem and immediately want to solve it, but not every risk needs an immediate response. Sometimes I need to sit with it for a little while and ask myself: What is the actual impact if this happens? What happens if we don’t solve it? Does it need to be addressed today? Can we live with the risk for now?

There’s a fine line between anticipating problems and worrying about everything that could possibly go wrong. Good Contingency thinking requires judgment.

Visibility doesn’t have to mean alarm

This becomes particularly important when you’re leading a large project. If you escalate every possible risk the moment you discover it, eventually everything sounds urgent. And when everything sounds urgent, people stop knowing what actually requires their attention.

My rule is generally to try to solve something at the level where it exists first. If someone has a deliverable that appears to be at risk, I’m going to talk to that person before I escalate it. Maybe the work is actually happening and our project plan simply hasn’t been updated. Maybe they need another week because something legitimate came up. Maybe priorities shifted. Things happen.

That’s also why I believe in building some buffer into a project plan. If your plan only works when absolutely everything happens perfectly, you probably don’t have a very realistic plan. But if someone is no longer committed to the work, isn’t responding, or I’ve exhausted what I can reasonably do to resolve the issue, then escalation may be necessary. And when I escalate, I don’t think the entire project team necessarily needs to be involved. Escalate to the person who can actually change something about the outcome.

At the same time, I believe strongly in visibility. In regular project updates, I want people to understand where we are, what challenges we’re working through, where we might need help from our executive sponsors, and what risks we’ve identified but are actively mitigating.

There’s a big difference between saying, “We have a problem,” and saying, “Here’s the risk we identified, here’s what we’re doing about it, and here’s where we may need your help.” The second tells people you’re not hiding the problem, but you’re also not simply dropping it in their lap. That builds trust.

Sometimes the risk is how people will respond

A lot of the risks I encounter aren’t technical. They’re connected to people.

Return-to-office is a good example. When companies began bringing employees back into offices after years of remote work, it could be tempting to think about that primarily as an operational decision. The office is reopening. Pick a date. Communicate it. Done.

Except it isn’t.

People had reorganized their lives. Their commutes had changed. Childcare arrangements had changed. They had created home offices and new routines. Whether you believe working in an office is better, worse or somewhere in between isn’t really the point. The point is that a seemingly straightforward business decision can create a significant change for the people experiencing it.

That’s why I think Contingency and change management go hand in hand. When something is changing, I want to understand the people impact. How are people feeling today? How might different groups experience the change differently? What questions will they have? Where might resistance come from? What information do we have, and what information don’t we have yet?

Sometimes you simply don’t have all the answers, and that doesn’t mean you should say nothing. You can tell people, “I hear the question. I don’t have the answer yet. I’ll come back to you.” Silence creates space for people to create their own answers. Assumptions start, rumors grow, and people fill in the blanks. Transparency doesn’t require having every answer. Sometimes it simply means making sure people know you heard the question and are working on it.

That, too, is mitigation.

Focus on what you can control

Some of the hardest projects I’ve worked on have required multiple pivots. We tried one approach and it didn’t work. We tried another. Something changed. Another team wasn’t ready. A dependency moved. It can be incredibly easy in those moments to feel like the project is failing.

One of the biggest things I’ve learned is to separate what great looks like for the overall project from what my team can actually control. On a large cross-functional initiative, I can’t guarantee that everyone will show up with the same level of commitment. I can’t control how another leader prioritizes the work or how much time another team has available.

What I can control is whether we become the blocker.

Are our deliverables ready? Have we done what we committed to do? Have we crossed our T’s and dotted our I’s? Have we created visibility into what we need from others? Have we explained why it matters and what’s in it for them? Are we doing the change-management work necessary to build buy-in?

That shift can be surprisingly motivating because you can continue influencing the things outside your control without measuring your own success entirely by them. And sometimes, despite all of that, Plan A still isn’t going to work. So you pivot.

Changing the plan doesn’t automatically mean you planned badly. Sometimes it means you learned something you couldn’t have known when you created it.

Contingency protects the outcome, not necessarily the original plan.

Make the next project better

There’s one final part of Contingency that I think is easy to skip once the immediate problem has been solved: learn from it.

Go back and ask what happened. What did we miss? What did we anticipate correctly? What worked when we had to pivot? What would we do differently next time? Remember our dinner? Maybe next time you think, “You know what? We lose power here occasionally. Maybe I should have another way to cook.” The thing that surprised you this time becomes something you can anticipate next time.

That’s how experience changes the way you lead projects. You don’t become someone who can magically predict everything that will go wrong. You become better at asking questions, recognizing patterns, creating options and knowing which risks deserve your attention.

There will always be unknowns, things outside your control, and moments when the plan you carefully created runs straight into reality. The goal isn’t to eliminate all of that. It’s to be ready to think when it happens.

Contingency isn’t planning for failure. It’s planning for reality.

Subscribe now

And then comes the part where a lot of people freeze.

Okay… now how do we actually do this?

This is usually the moment someone opens Excel, creates a beautiful blank spreadsheet and stares at it wondering what on earth should go in row one.

My advice?

Close the Excel sheet.

Grab a notepad. Find a whiteboard. Get the right people in a room and start talking.

Because the project plan isn’t where the thinking starts. It’s where you document the thinking you’ve already done.

And that is what the third C of Project Thinking™ is about: Coordination.

Subscribe now

Start at the end

When I’m building a project plan, I almost always work backwards.

If we know what we’re trying to deliver and when we need to deliver it, I start there. Then I ask a much simpler question:

What are the big things that need to happen for us to get there?

Let’s say we’re creating a new onboarding experience. Through our Clarity work, we’ve already established why. Maybe employees are having wildly different experiences depending on where they work or who their manager is. Some feel completely prepared on day one, while others are left trying to figure everything out themselves.

We know the problem. We know what better should look like.

Now, how do we build it?

This is where I wouldn’t sit alone and try to create the entire plan myself. I’m probably not the subject matter expert, and I don’t need to be. I would bring in the people who are.

Learning might tell us we need a new-hire orientation. Recruiting might identify what needs to happen before someone’s first day. Operations might point out everything required to make sure equipment is ready. Other teams will bring pieces I wouldn’t have thought of myself.

Now we have something to work with.

And if I don’t know how long something takes, I ask the person who does.

From there, we keep breaking things down. A milestone becomes several deliverables. Those deliverables become tasks. Tasks get owners and timing.

And somewhere along the way, without turning it into this enormous intimidating exercise, we’ve built a project plan.

That’s the part I think people sometimes get backwards. You don’t need to know how to build an elaborate project plan before you can lead a project.

Understand the outcome. Work backwards. Break it down. Ask the right people.

The project plan comes from that thinking.

Someone needs to hold the pieces together

Building the plan is only the beginning. Once people start doing the work, Coordination becomes less about creating the path and more about keeping everyone moving along it.

That is not a job title, and it has nothing to do with seniority. It’s a hat someone agrees to wear.

The Coordinator could be a project manager, a senior leader, a functional leader or simply someone on the team who is good at connecting the dots. What matters is that somebody knows where things stand, what needs attention, who owns what and what needs to happen next.

Because a project plan doesn’t move a project forward.

People do. Coordination keeps the two connected.

The Coordinator creates visibility across the work. They make sure people know where information lives, keep track of unanswered questions and emerging risks, follow up on commitments and connect people when one piece of work depends on another.

And, probably most importantly, they hold people accountable.

There’s an important distinction here. The Coordinator isn’t responsible for whether someone else chooses to be accountable. They **are** responsible for holding people accountable for what they committed to.

That doesn’t mean every date is sacred.

Things change. A new business priority comes up. We discover a dependency we didn’t know existed. Something takes longer than expected. Maybe a risk appears that means we need another two weeks.

That’s project life.

Accountability means we understand why something changed, what the impact is, what we’re going to do about it and who needs to know.

What doesn’t work is allowing a deadline to quietly pass, nobody asking what happened, and everyone moving on as though the commitment never existed.

What if you don’t have a project manager?

This is where I think traditional project management can intimidate people unnecessarily.

You don’t need sophisticated project-management software, twenty trackers or endless documentation. And you certainly don’t need everyone on the team constantly staring at a project plan.

Honestly, when I’m the PM, I’m the one who needs to know the project plan. I need to understand where we are, what’s been delivered, what’s coming next, what has changed and where something might be getting stuck. The people doing the work don’t necessarily need that same level of visibility.

But Project Thinking™ is also for the leader who doesn’t have a project manager.

So if that’s you, I think minimum viable Coordination is actually pretty simple:

Create a consistent rhythm where the right people have meaningful conversations about the work.

That starts with meaningful meetings.

One of my least favorite project meetings is the one where everyone gets together just to go line by line through the project plan. There are moments when that’s useful, particularly when you’re establishing the plan or something significant has changed, but that’s rarely where I want to spend valuable time with the entire team.

A useful project meeting should focus on the things that actually require the group.

What’s changed? What’s stuck? What questions don’t have answers yet? What risks have surfaced? What decisions need to be made?

And those conversations need to lead somewhere.

If we don’t know the answer to a question, who can get it? If something is stuck, what needs to happen to unblock it? If we’ve identified a risk, what are we going to do about it? If something needs to happen, who owns it and by when?

Before everyone leaves, make sure the next steps are clear. Then follow up and hold people accountable for what they committed to.

That’s minimum viable Coordination to me.

You need somewhere to keep track of the work, but whether that’s Excel, a whiteboard or dedicated project-management software matters far less than people think.

The tool isn’t doing the coordinating. The rhythm is.

Everything else can become more sophisticated if the project requires it.

From idea to execution

Clarity helped us understand what we’re trying to accomplish.

Commitment made sure the right people were prepared to make room for it.

Coordination is where we take all of that and finally ask:

How are we going to get there together?

Start at the end. Break the work down. Ask the people who know. Give the work owners. Create a rhythm. Surface what’s stuck. Make decisions. Follow through.

You don’t need to become a project manager to do any of that. You just need someone willing to put on the Coordinator hat and keep the pieces connected.

And maybe only then…

open the Excel sheet.

Share

One of the loneliest roles I’ve experienced is being the person responsible for leading a project. That might sound strange because you’re rarely working alone. You’re surrounded by people: project teams, subject matter experts, leaders, stakeholders, vendors. There are meetings and conversations happening around you constantly.

But there’s a difference. For you, the project can become your world. For many of the people supporting you, it’s one part of theirs.

I’ve had moments where I’ve genuinely wondered, Am I the only one who still cares about this?

I don’t think that’s because other people don’t care. Most of the time, they absolutely do. It’s because saying yes to a project and actually having the ability to commit to it are two very different things.

That’s why the second C of Project Thinking™ is Commitment.

Saying yes is the easy part

At the beginning of a project, commitment can look deceptively simple. People agree the work is important. Leaders support the direction. Team members say they’re happy to help. Everyone leaves the conversation feeling aligned.

Then the work starts.

A few weeks later, someone misses a meeting. A deliverable slips because something more urgent came up. Another priority lands. Someone who genuinely intended to contribute suddenly doesn’t have the time they thought they would have.

This is where project leaders can end up spending an enormous amount of energy following up, reminding, escalating and trying to keep people engaged.

I’ve learned not to automatically interpret that as someone being unwilling to help. People have jobs to do. Priorities change. Something urgent happens. A leader asks for something else. What someone genuinely believed they could commit to three weeks ago may no longer be realistic today.

But it has taught me something important: a yes isn’t necessarily a commitment.

Real commitment requires making room. If someone is expected to contribute meaningfully to a project, there has to be space for that work alongside everything else they’re responsible for. And if their workload was already full when the project arrived, we need to have an honest conversation about what moves, what changes or what gets deprioritized.

Otherwise, we’ve added another priority without creating the capacity to deliver it.

Commitment has to travel through the organization

This becomes even more important with cross-functional projects.

I’ve experienced situations where my own department was completely aligned. Our leader had communicated that an initiative was a major priority. We understood why it mattered, people were ready to contribute, and we had organized ourselves around getting it done.

Then we reached the point where we needed support from another department.

We approached the people we needed as though we were all working toward the same major organizational priority, only to discover that they had no idea it was a priority at all.

That’s an interesting moment.

At the executive level, everyone may have agreed. In one department, that commitment travelled all the way down to the people expected to do the work. Somewhere else, it stopped along the way. Now one team is treating the project as critical while another is understandably trying to squeeze it in around everything else they’re already responsible for.

That’s why executive sponsorship matters so much to me.

Sponsorship isn’t simply approving something at the top. If an initiative requires meaningful support across several functions, the priority needs to travel through each organization until it reaches the people whose time is actually required.

Otherwise, we haven’t really committed resources. We’ve committed to an idea.

I’ve seen the same thing happen with large technology initiatives. An organization decides it needs a new tool. The reason may be completely valid, the desired outcome may be clear, and the investment may even have been approved. Then comes the uncomfortable question: Who’s actually going to implement it?

You need technical resources, subject matter experts, end users, vendor partners, change support, budget owners and potentially several other teams. It can be incredibly cross-functional work. I’ve seen situations where technology was purchased before the organization had really established whether the people needed to implement it were available.

The idea wasn’t necessarily the problem. The commitment required to execute it wasn’t there.

You can have all the Clarity in the world about why something matters, but if you don’t have the people, leadership support and protected time to make it happen, it’s still just a great idea waiting on a shelf.

So, before you start, test the commitment

I don’t think this requires another complicated project template. It requires some honest conversations.

Start with who actually needs to commit. There is a difference between someone who needs to know about the project and someone whose contribution is essential to delivering it. Once you know who those people are, make sure their leaders are committed too, particularly when you’re working across departments.

Then get specific about what people are actually agreeing to. “I’m happy to support” sounds great, but what does support mean? Are we talking about attending an occasional meeting, owning a deliverable, or dedicating several hours every week for the next three months?

And then ask the question I think we avoid far too often: What are we moving to make room for this?

If everything someone was already responsible for remains a priority and we’ve now added another major initiative, something doesn’t add up. Commitment isn’t asking people to somehow find more hours. It’s making deliberate choices about where their time needs to go.

That doesn’t mean commitment can never change. It will. A customer issue happens. A new business priority emerges. Something unexpected lands. When that happens, I’d rather someone tell me, “I can’t give this what I originally committed to right now,” than quietly stop delivering while I spend three weeks chasing them.

Then we can make a decision. Do we move the timeline? Shift the work? Bring someone else in? Deprioritize something?

That’s still commitment. It’s just honest commitment.

The lonely part of leading a project

There is another side of Commitment that I don’t think we talk about enough.

Most of the people you depend on when leading a cross-functional project don’t report to you. You are accountable for moving something forward while relying on people whose priorities you don’t control.

That means you influence. You connect. You communicate. You keep people engaged. You make sure they understand why their contribution matters. And when the project isn’t moving, you’re often still the person standing in front of leadership explaining why.

That can be a lonely place to sit.

It’s also why I’ve come to believe that great project management is, at its core, great leadership. You don’t need to own everyone’s time, but you do need to create the conditions where people can genuinely commit theirs.

Clarity asks whether we understand what we’re trying to accomplish and why.

Commitment asks whether we’re actually prepared to make room for it.

Because commitment isn’t built when everyone nods in the kickoff meeting. It’s built when leaders protect the priority, when people have the space to contribute, and when everyone follows through on what they’ve agreed to do.

A great idea without commitment is still just a great idea.

Subscribe now

Have you ever been pulled into a project and been told, “We’re stuck”?

I have. Many times. And whenever I hear that, my first question is pretty simple: What are we stuck on?

Recently, I was brought into a project for exactly that reason. The project wasn’t moving, and the team needed help getting unstuck. So before changing anything, I started talking to the people involved. Does the project feel like it’s moving? Is something missing? Is anything unclear?

The answer became obvious pretty quickly: “We’re not really sure what’s being asked of us.”

Okay, now we’re getting somewhere.

I asked whether they were unclear about their roles and responsibilities or unclear about what the project was supposed to deliver. The answer was basically both. And to me, those two things were connected. We couldn’t really define everyone’s role in building something when we hadn’t clearly defined what we were building in the first place.

This is why the first C of Project Thinking™ is Clarity.

Clarity starts with “why?”

Before we talk about timelines, tasks, resources or project plans, I want to understand why we’re doing the work in the first place. What problem are we trying to solve? Who are we solving it for? Why does it matter? What impact are we trying to create? How critical is it? And what does a successful outcome actually look like?

These sound like simple questions, and they are. But I’ve seen plenty of teams jump straight into execution because the request sounds clear.

“We need a new tool.”
“We need a training program.”
“We need better career development.”
“We need to automate this.”

Great. Why?

That’s usually where things get interesting.

A request isn’t the same thing as clarity

Years ago, I worked on something involving career development. The request could essentially be summarized as: Employees want better career development.

That sounds pretty clear, right? Except it isn’t.

The word that immediately gets my attention is better. Better than what? Do we already have something? How is it perceived? What do employees like about it? What don’t they like? What’s missing? And when employees say “career development,” what are they actually asking for?

Career development is huge. It can start when someone joins a company and continue throughout their entire career. Role expectations, capabilities, performance, goal setting, succession, learning opportunities and stretch assignments can all contribute to someone’s development. So rather than immediately building a shiny new career development program, we started asking questions.

Eventually, we discovered something important: we didn’t actually need a career development program.

What people were missing was the bridge between where I am and where I want to go. They might understand their role today. They might even know where they wanted their career to go next. What they didn’t necessarily know was what skills they needed to get there, how to build those skills, and who could help them.

The real need was mentorship.

That led to a very different solution: connecting people with others who had the skills and experience they wanted to develop, while also creating opportunities to gain experience through projects.

Now imagine if we’d simply accepted the original request. We could have spent months building a beautiful career development program. It could have had great content, a polished launch and plenty of people working incredibly hard on it, and it still might not have solved the problem.

You can build a beautiful thing, but if it’s not what was needed, you’ve wasted your time.

That’s why, for me, a request is the beginning of the conversation. It isn’t automatically the scope.

Don’t build from assumptions

Back to the project that was stuck. The good news was that the team actually had an idea of what they thought they were supposed to deliver. So I asked another question: Have you verified that?

Before we build something based on what we think someone wants, let’s write down our understanding and put it in front of the person asking for it. This is what we heard. This is what we believe you’re asking us to solve. This is what we believe the deliverable should be. This is the scope we’re expecting. Is that correct? Are we missing anything?

In this particular case, the team had interpreted the request correctly, which was great. But now they knew.

That distinction matters because I’ve seen the opposite happen too. I’ve seen teams build things nobody actually asked for. I’ve seen something relatively simple become incredibly complicated because nobody established the boundaries. I’ve watched scope continue to grow because the team never clearly defined what it was supposed to deliver in the first place.

Once this team validated the scope, they had direction. They knew what they needed to build. The next question became: Okay, how do we get there?

And that’s where the other Cs begin to enter the picture.

You don’t have to know everything

There’s another misconception I see, particularly with leaders: we sometimes believe that if we’re leading something, we’re supposed to have all the answers.

I don’t. And I’m perfectly comfortable saying that.

I once led an initiative focused on technical service training. My responsibility was to make sure the right people received the right technical training so the organization could serve its customers effectively. There was just one problem: I’m not particularly technical.

So how was I supposed to define what great technical training looked like? I asked the people who knew.

I talked to engineers and technical experts. How many people need this capability? What knowledge do they need? Does that differ by region, and why? Does location matter? Does climate or seasonality change the skills people need?

The more questions I asked, the more nuanced the answer became. Eventually, we could think about learning differently based on location, skills, needs and circumstances. I couldn’t have created that clarity myself, but I could bring together the people who could.

And that distinction is important:

Your job as the leader isn’t to be the source of clarity. Your job is to create it.

Sometimes that means knowing the answer. More often, it means knowing which question to ask next and who needs to be in the conversation.

That’s Project Thinking™.

Clarity doesn’t end when the project starts

Clarity is the first C because you need it before meaningful execution can begin, but it doesn’t disappear once you’ve defined the project. It lives throughout all four Cs.

When someone says they don’t know what they’re supposed to do, nobody knows who owns something, the scope keeps changing, the team isn’t sure what it’s trying to accomplish, or people keep having the same conversation without knowing what they’re actually deciding, my instinct is the same.

And sometimes you don’t get any of that detail. Sometimes all you hear is:

“We’re stuck.”

When I hear that, I start looking for what’s unclear. Maybe it’s the objective. Maybe it’s the audience, scope, ownership or expected outcome. And sometimes answering one question uncovers three more.

That’s okay.

Project Thinking isn’t about having all the answers before you begin. It’s about developing the habit of asking the questions that help you find them.

Clarity is where Project Thinking™ starts. But it never really ends.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Share

When I am brought into a project that has become stuck, I usually begin with two questions:

What are you trying to solve?

Who are you solving it for?

These questions sound simple. Yet teams can spend weeks discussing deliverables, assigning tasks, and debating what should happen next without establishing a shared answer to either one.

They begin organizing the work before they have clarified why the work exists.

When expertise is not enough

Several years ago, I joined a leadership-development initiative that included multiple programs under one larger umbrella.

The people involved were subject-matter experts. They understood the content and were capable of developing their individual programs. The initiative also had a defined launch expectation.

Yet the work was not moving toward launch.

The challenge was not creating the content. It was turning several individual contributions into one coordinated offering. The team still needed to determine how people would learn about the programs, how participants would register, what the communication plan would include, what the complete launch would look like, and who could make final decisions across the initiative.

Everyone was responsible for a piece of the work, but nobody clearly owned the complete outcome.

Once I joined, I began asking the questions that had not yet been fully answered.

What did the initiative need to accomplish? Who was it intended to serve? What needed to be true for us to consider the launch successful? Who had the authority to approve the content, communication approach, timing, and final experience?

Once we clarified the outcome and established decision ownership, we could work backward from the intended launch. We identified the major milestones, mapped the dependencies between them, and assigned clear responsibility for moving each piece forward.

The initiative launched as planned.

The team had never lacked expertise, effort, or commitment. What it lacked was the structure that allowed those individual strengths to produce a shared result.

The problem is rarely capability

Most stalled teams are not missing intelligence, motivation, or subject-matter knowledge.

They are missing one or more of the conditions that allow capable people to move in the same direction.

The intended outcome may not be sufficiently clear. People may own individual contributions without anyone owning the complete result. Decision authority may be assumed rather than established. Dependencies may exist without being actively coordinated. Risks and assumptions may remain unspoken until they become urgent problems.

The team is working, but the project is not moving.

I have seen versions of this throughout my career. I am often brought into initiatives when they have become stuck, unclear, or unable to move forward. I have also been consistently recognized for taking something large and intimidating and breaking it into smaller, understandable pieces.

For a long time, I assumed that was simply how I worked.

Over time, I realized that many capable people can approach work this way. They simply have never been given an accessible structure for doing it.

Vision and execution require different capabilities

I have worked with visionary leaders throughout my career. They recognize possibilities, imagine better outcomes, and generate ideas that can create meaningful change.

Being able to envision an outcome, however, does not automatically make it easy to organize the work required to achieve it.

Many leaders are expected to execute significant initiatives without dedicated project-management support. They may be functional leaders, subject-matter experts, or people asked to lead cross-functional work alongside their regular responsibilities.

When they look for guidance, they often encounter unfamiliar terminology, formal project charters, detailed templates, and documentation whose practical value has never been explained to them.

Those tools can be valuable. The difficulty is the point at which they are introduced.

When someone is already overwhelmed by execution, asking them to complete a document before helping them organize their thoughts can create another barrier. They may delay starting because the project feels too large, or they may begin completing tasks before defining the outcome.

Neither response reflects a lack of capability. The leader simply has not been given a manageable place to begin.

A simpler place to begin

This recurring pattern led me to create Project Thinking™, my 4C framework for helping leaders and subject-matter experts turn ideas into coordinated execution.

The framework organizes the essential thinking into four areas:

Clarity. Commitment. Coordination. Contingency.

The purpose is not to remove complexity from important work. It is to give people four manageable places to examine it.

Before a project begins, the 4 Cs help a leader break a large idea into areas that can be understood and addressed. If the questions within each area can be answered thoroughly, the leader has already developed much of the substance that a traditional project charter is intended to capture.

The documentation becomes an output of the thinking rather than the starting point.

The same framework can also be used after execution begins. When a project stops moving, the 4 Cs provide a way to diagnose where it has become stuck.

Is the outcome unclear? Has the necessary ownership or commitment never been secured? Are decisions, dependencies, and communication poorly coordinated? Has an assumption changed or an unaddressed risk become a problem?

Instead of concluding that the entire project is failing, the team can identify which part of the framework needs attention.

A capability more people can develop

You do not need to become a project manager to lead an initiative effectively. You need a structure that helps you ask the right questions, expose what is missing, and make the work manageable enough to begin.

That is what I want to explore through Project Thinking™.

In the articles that follow, I will examine each of the 4 Cs, how they work together, and how leaders can use them both to launch new ideas and restart initiatives that have lost momentum.

When one of your projects becomes stuck, where does it usually happen?

Subscribe to follow the Project Thinking™ series, and share your experience in the comments.

Subscribe now

Throughout my career, I have worked with visionary leaders and talented subject-matter experts who could clearly see what needed to change. They had the expertise, ambition, and commitment to create something meaningful.

What they did not always have was a practical way to turn the idea into coordinated action.

I have often been brought into initiatives when they have become stuck. The roles are unclear. Individual pieces of work are moving, but the overall project is not. People are discussing what they believe is expected without returning to the person who can confirm it. The idea is still valuable, but execution has become overwhelming.

My instinct in those situations is to break the complexity into smaller, more manageable pieces. I begin with questions such as:

What are you trying to solve?

Who are you solving it for?

Those questions, and the recurring patterns I have observed throughout my career, led me to create Project Thinking™, my 4C framework built around Clarity, Commitment, Coordination, and Contingency.

Project Thinking™ is for leaders and subject-matter experts who are responsible for making change happen without necessarily having a project manager beside them. It is designed to help people organize their thinking, identify what is missing, and make execution feel manageable enough to begin.

In this publication, I will explore why good ideas become stuck, how the 4 Cs can help leaders move from vision to execution, and how the same framework can diagnose an initiative that has already lost momentum.

You can expect practical articles grounded in real experience, without unnecessary project-management terminology or templates for the sake of templates. I plan to publish approximately once a week, and the articles will be free to read.

I also want this to become a place for honest discussion about execution. I would love to hear where your initiatives tend to become stuck, what makes cross-functional work difficult, and which questions you wish someone had asked earlier.

My first full article, “Why Good Ideas Get Stuck,” is coming next.

Subscribe to follow the Project Thinking™ series and join the conversation.