and the One Shift that Fixes It
ADVISORY ARTICLE
By Monica M. Hernandez, PMP
Co-Founder & CTO
BC-DS (Business Consultants for Digital Solutions, LLC)
Rockville, Maryland, USA
Abstract
This article draws on fifteen years of working between strategy and execution to identify the structural reason most project alignment initiatives fail — and to offer a specific, seven-question tool any project manager can use before the next kickoff. It is not a communication problem. It is not a stakeholder engagement problem. It is a sequencing problem: teams start the alignment conversation in the wrong place.
Most project teams begin by agreeing on where they are today — the problems, the constraints, the existing systems. The issue is that different people experience today differently, and those differences produce quietly different pictures of where the project is going. No one notices until execution is underway and the team is pulling in opposite directions.
The solution involves a single structural shift: establish a complete, verified picture of where you are going before anyone describes where you are today. This article explains why that shift works, shows what it looks like in practice through two case studies, and introduces the Seven-Question Execution Hypothesis, a practical tool that captures the full destination picture in 30 to 40 minutes and can be used immediately, with no new platform or methodology training required.
The article also addresses why this shift has become more urgent in the age of AI: AI planning tools amplify whatever frame they are given. When that frame is incomplete, AI amplification makes the problem more coherent and faster. When the frame is a complete, verified destination picture, AI amplification works in the project’s favor.
Keywords: project alignment, project charter, backcasting, AI governance, decision architecture, stakeholder alignment, execution hypothesis, project management practice
Introduction
I have spent most of my professional life in a position that many project managers know well but rarely talk about: The space between what leadership decides and what the team executes.
From that position, you can see things that are invisible at higher levels. You see how a strategic intention leaves a leadership meeting as one thing and arrives at the delivery team as something different. Not because anyone was careless or misleading, but because the space in between was never deliberately designed. In that gap, interpretation takes over.
More…
To read entire article, click here
How to cite this work: Hernandez, M. (2026). Why Projects Misalign, and the One Shift that Fixes It, PM World Journal. Vol. XIV, Issue V. May. Available online at https://pmworldjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/pmwj164-May2026-Hernandez-Why-Projects-Misalign-advisory.pdf
About the Author
Monica Hernandez
Maryland, USA
Monica M. Hernandez is a Decision Architect and Project Management Professional (PMP), and Co-Founder and CTO of BC-DS — Business Consultants for Digital Solutions, LLC, based in Rockville, Maryland. She has spent her professional career at the intersection of strategy and execution, guiding organizations through complex transformation initiatives in the United States and Latin America. Her work on decision architecture, including the concept of Decision Debt and the development of the Solo Decision Architecture framework, has been recognized in CEO Weekly Magazine and through the 2025 Global Recognition Award. She is the co-author of the Business Decision Architecture (BDA v2.1) and the primary author of the Solo Decision Architecture (SDA v1.0), both published under CC BY 4.0 at bc-ds.com. The free seven-question Execution Hypothesis session described in this article is available at www.convoking4.com. Ms. Hernandez can be contacted at monica.mhrm@gmail.com
