Are you using “action” when you really mean “process”?
It might seem like a small distinction, but in project management, precision in language is key to driving clarity, efficiency, and execution. What you are trying to convey and what your audience thinks you mean can result in divergent paths
So, what’s the difference?
Action is a single, defined step that must be completed.
Process is a structured series of actions designed to achieve a specific outcome.
If these terms get mixed up, it can lead to misalignment, inefficiencies, and even project delays. When put so simply together, the resultant takeaway is more obvious – a process is a series of things done to achieve a result. In other words, when using “action”, we must remember to frame requests or expectations of stakeholders within a singular “thing to be done”; whereas if there is a “series of things to be done”, we must remember to use “process” to reinforce expectations that multiple actions must be taken to achieve the desired result. If your stakeholder hears you use “action” and you meant to use “process,” it should come as no surprise when the result falls short of expectations. Similarly, if you use “process” and you meant to use “action”, the stakeholder may apply more time and ultimately cost to something that didn’t need the level of effort that a process may require.
A relevant example to emphasize the difference is with respect to ordering equipment. On the surface, a project manager may be tempted to simply enter the purchase request and that’d be the end of it. This represents a single action and perhaps is sufficient at times. However, for complex design-to-build equipment, where you’re not ordering an off-the-shelf item, a more robust series of actions is likely the right approach. Having a process to follow might look like this:
In a best-case scenario with advanced organizational maturity, processes are documented, monitored for effectiveness, and continuously improved. Actions, by comparison, are often left to be handled ad-hoc, case-by-case, or handled by experienced subject matter experts, especially when there isn’t a process available to be followed. Choosing when to engage stakeholders with guidance and directives to take actions or follow processes and comprehending the potential results from each can go a long way to ensuring a project stays on the required path to a safe, reliable, quality, and cost-effective conclusion.
At Mesa’s PMO, we focus on building strong processes and ensuring clear communication so that teams know exactly what needs to happen, when, and how. The better we define and structure work, the smoother execution becomes.
What’s your take? Have you seen this distinction impact projects in your work? How do you ensure clarity in project execution? Contact us if you would like to discuss how Mesa’s PMO can help you with improving processes and taking action for your next project.