LETTER TO THE EDITOR
16 August 2026
Ref: Walenta, T. (2026). Budgets Kill Projects: Challenging the common belief that all Projects benefit from budgets, PM World Journal, Voll. XV, Issue VIII, August. Available online at https://pmworldjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/pmwj167-Aug2026-Walenta-Budgets-Kill-Projects.pdf
Dear David,
Thomas Walenta’s article delivers a clear and necessary challenge to a long‑standing governance assumption: that budgets are reliable anchors for decision‑making in complex, uncertain, or benefit‑driven initiatives. His central argument is not merely that budgets are often inaccurate—it is that they are epistemologically incompatible with the environments in which major programs operate.
Three contributions from Walenta’s article are particularly relevant for boards.
- Budgets are predictions, not commitments
Walenta’s framing is exact: a budget is a forecast derived from assumptions made at the moment of least knowledge. As uncertainty increases, the budget shifts from a representation of future reality to an expression of early belief. Boards that treat budgets as fixed commitments risk governing to outdated assumptions rather than emerging truth.
- Complex programs succeed through adaptive funding
The article’s examples—Apollo, Manhattan Project, COVID‑19 vaccines, Olympic Games—demonstrate that large, high‑uncertainty initiatives are not governed by adherence to a single baseline. They are governed by adaptive funding, continuous resource mobilization, and strategic recalibration. Walenta’s insight is direct: projects are rarely terminated because they stop creating value; they are terminated because they exceed predictions made before the project’s true nature was known.
- Governance must shift from prediction protection to value‑based resource commitment
Walenta argues that improving forecasting techniques—Monte Carlo, RCF, Bayesian methods—does not solve the deeper problem. Even perfect prediction cannot anticipate the learning, scope evolution, and strategic opportunity creation inherent in complex programs. Boards must therefore govern through continuing investment decisions rather than through the defense of an initial estimate.
- Budgets remain necessary—but not dominant
The article does not dismiss budgets. It reframes them. Budgets remain essential for accountability, comparability, and financial stewardship. But they should inform governance, not dominate it. As uncertainty increases, boards should progressively shift toward adaptive funding, milestone‑based value assessment, and dynamic resource allocation.
More…
To read entire Letter to the Editor, click here
How to cite this work: Prieto, R. (2026). Commentary on Budgets Kill Projects, Letter to the Editor, PM World Journal, Vol. XV, Issue IX, September. Available online at https://pmworldjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/pmwj168-Sep2026-Prieto-Commentary-On-Budgets-Kill-Projects-Letter-to-Editor.pdf
