The 10 steps of the Project Management Blueprint aren’t an a’la carte menu. They’re a (mostly) sequential chain, with each step sitting where it does in the series because the steps after it need it. Skip one, or shuffle the order, and something downstream will usually break.
Which brings us to Step 1: establishing the project goals and expectations in writing. This means defining the project’s high-level Purpose, Objectives, and Key Results (POKRs), which become the foundation of the project’s Mission Statement.
So why does this Step 1 come first in the Blueprint? There are at least eight good reasons to consider:
It gets stakeholders to sign off on the same project. Day one is the cheapest moment to discover your stakeholders don’t agree. Don’t waste time on any further planning or hiring staff or performing work without first getting the key stakeholders in alignment on “why” the project is needed.
Everything downstream derives from the POKRs. Scope, requirements, acquisition approaches, schedule, budget, and even risk identification all trace back to the over-arching goals and expectations established now, so an error here propagates through every later step. This is why it’s step 1.
The Mission Statement defines ultimate success. A project can hit every baseline number and still fail if the purpose goes unmet. Just because you delivered on time, on budget, and delivered all the agreed-upon scope, doesn’t mean the stakeholder’s original/ultimate needs were met.
A guiding beacon. Everyone has the same answer to “What are we here to do?” This serves as a motivator. We all know and can see what we’re trying to accomplish—and why this is worthwhile.
It opens up options. Having a strong underlying definition of the problem lets us open up different solutions. A customer might ultimately want a means of crossing a river. Starting with this problem in mind means their original idea of a construction of a bridge could be replaced with purchasing a fleet of ferries or digging a tunnel under the river. The problem should drive the solution, not the other way ‘round.
It gives the team a filter for everyday calls. People who know and refer to the purpose can make good, defensible decisions without stopping to ask for clarification. An understanding of purpose is always one of the strongest empowerment tools.
It’s a tiebreaker. When things go wrong, it tells you where to spend contingency and what to protect or cut first. When change requests arrive, it tells you which to accept. It’s your best defense against scope creep and gold-plating, as well as project drift. Knowing your ultimate why helps when facing a fork in the road.
It’s what you test at closeout. Testing against the Mission Statement is the ultimate measure of whether the project succeeded. Because stakeholders agreed to the POKRs upfront (#1), sign-off at the end is a confirmation, not a negotiation. By performing Step 1 first, we guard against moving goalposts.
This resonates strongly with what I’ve seen on projects: when the “why” is unclear, the team eventually starts debating the “what” and “how” over and over again. And once you’re on construction site, changing direction becomes considerably more expensive than clarifying the purpose at the beginning.
I particularly like the idea of using the original purpose as a filter for everyday decisions. It turns the project goal from a document into a practical decision-making tool.