People Eat Process for Breakfast (And Other PMO Truths)

If I had a pound for every time I heard “We just need better processes, and then our projects will run smoothly,” I’d be sipping cocktails on a beach rather than writing this blog. But here’s the truth: Process doesn’t trump people. In fact, rely too much on process and you’ll quickly find yourself buried in bureaucracy while your projects grind to a halt.

This was exactly the myth that Al Zeitoun and I tackled in a Project Management Mythbusters session, and it’s a big one.

The Process Trap: Why Too Much of a Good Thing Is a Disaster

Let’s take a real-world example. HS2, the UK’s high-speed rail project, has faced major cost increases, delays and repeated scrutiny over how decisions were made.

Reporting on the programme has included criticism of bureaucracy and slow decision-making. That doesn’t mean too much process explains HS2 on its own. But it does illustrate the wider risk: process can become part of the problem when it slows decisions without improving clarity or accountability.

So, what’s the solution? Balancing process with people.

Is Your Portfolio Caught in the “Process Trap”? A Quick Self-Check

Before assuming you need more governance, templates or reporting, check whether any of these patterns feel familiar:

• Projects report green until the moment they turn red. Problems surface late because people don’t feel able to raise them earlier.
• Decisions require multiple meetings or layers of approval — governance slows things down instead of speeding things up.
• Your templates keep growing, but throughput, delivery or strategic alignment doesn’t improve.
• People follow the process, but they don’t feel empowered. Judgement gets replaced with checklists.
• Work feels busy but not productive. That can be a sign of decision friction, not a lack of process.

If one or more of these resonates, adding more process may not be the answer. Look at how decisions, culture and priorities interact before adding another layer of governance.

Finding the Sweet Spot Between Process and People

As Al pointed out, and discusses in his book Creating Experience-Driven Organizational Culture: How to Drive Transformative Change with Project and Portfolio Management, culture is like the connective tissue of an organization. It determines how people behave, communicate, and, importantly, how they follow (or ignore) processes. If your culture values rigid process over smart decision-making, you’re in trouble.

That’s why the best PMOs don’t drown teams in frameworks and templates. Instead, they create "just enough" process to bring consistency while leaving space for people to adapt, think, and - dare I say it - use their judgment. Michael Hannan and Stuart Easton explore that balance in Do PMOs Destroy Productivity? Finding the Balance Between Chaos and Bureaucracy.

Think of it as the "Minimum Viable Process" - just enough structure to keep things predictable but not so much that it turns into a bureaucratic nightmare.

💡 For a broader look at how prioritisation, governance and collaboration need to work together, see Prioritization, Governance, and Collaboration: How to Deliver Strategy That Sticks.

Executives, Red Flags, and the PMO’s Role

One risk in heavily governed environments is that formal reporting can create confidence without surfacing what people really know. Crossrail offers a useful example: reviews of the programme highlighted the importance of continually testing the delivery model and surfacing problems early.

The lesson isn’t that process caused Crossrail’s difficulties. It’s that governance only helps when people can raise bad news, challenge assumptions and make risks visible rather than merely complete the reporting cycle.

This is where PMOs need to step up. You have the power to:

• Simplify decision-making instead of overcomplicating it.
• Foster a culture where people can actually talk about risks.
• Push back when executives think “more process” is the answer.

For a deeper practitioner discussion, The PMO’s Achilles Heel: Portfolio Governance explores how decision rights, escalation, incentives and trust affect whether governance actually works.

Final Thought: Let People Do What People Are Good At

A mentor of mine once told me: “Let machines do what machines are good at, and let people do what people are good at.” The same applies to process - use it to support people, not replace them.

So, next time someone tells you that “we just need a better process,” remind them: People eat process for breakfast. And no amount of bureaucracy will change that.

The uncomfortable truth? More discipline isn’t always the answer. If the decision-making system makes it hard to surface problems, use judgement or challenge priorities, adding more process can make the situation worse.

If This Sounds Familiar, Start with the Decision Flow

If this feels close to home, with too much process, not enough honesty, overloaded teams or reporting that hides problems, don’t start by adding another layer of governance.

Look at where decisions stall, where bad news gets softened, where judgement has been replaced by checklists, and where nobody is clearly accountable for making the call.

The goal isn’t less process for the sake of it. It’s enough structure to support good decisions without getting in the way of the people making them.

If part of the problem is making portfolio choices clearly and consistently, TransparentChoice helps leaders make priorities explicit, compare feasible portfolio choices against real constraints, and revisit the decision when things change.

👉 See how TransparentChoice software works →

💚 If you enjoyed this article, please consider following us. It’s a small gesture that means a lot to us and encourages us to keep sharing what we learn. See the ways to follow us below ↓