The Project That Accidentally Became the P.A.T.H. Initiative

The project had a name.

It didn’t earn the name.

It just acquired it, the way some folders acquire labels and then ruin your life forever.

The deck said P.A.T.H.

No one remembered creating it.

No one felt responsible for it.

Everyone assumed someone else knew what it meant.

The stakeholder joined late.

Of course.

The meeting was already winding down — the fake “Any Other Business” slide was up — when the Project Manager said:

“Quick heads-up, we’ve got someone joining.”

No one stopped sharing.

Then the square appeared.

Camera on.

Bookcase background.

The calm confidence of someone who had never attended a kickoff.

“Hey everyone,” the Stakeholder said. “Sorry — calendar chaos. I skimmed the deck.”

They absolutely did not.

They looked at the screen.

“Oh nice,” they said. “So this is the P.A.T.H. initiative.”

Everyone nodded instantly, like dogs in a car when the driver says park.

The Stakeholder leaned in.

“Quick check — what does P.A.T.H. stand for again?”

The meeting had ninety seconds left.

This was not the moment to introduce truth.

The Project Manager opened their mouth.

Closed it.

The Architect checked the time like it might intervene.

The Business Lead panicked internally and externally remained professional.

Someone — later described as “decisive” in their performance review — said:

“Platform Alignment Through Harmonization.”

The Stakeholder froze.

Then smiled.

“Yes,” they said. “Exactly.”

No one had ever thought that.

But it sounded incredibly like something that already had funding.

“Oh good,” the Stakeholder continued, warming up now.

“Because when I hear Platform Alignment Through Harmonization, I think operating model change.”

Several people nodded so hard their cameras shook.

“I assume this cuts across identity, data, governance, tooling, and culture.”

It did not.

But the deck didn’t fight back.

The Project Manager spoke carefully.

“We see P.A.T.H. as… foundational.”

The Stakeholder clapped once.

“Fantastic. Then we definitely shouldn’t treat it like a project.”

The word project was never used again.

The meeting ended.

Everyone said goodbye.

No one corrected anything.

Someone typed “PATH” into chat just to see how it looked.

It looked dangerous.

By the next meeting, the deck had mutated.

The title slide now read:

P.A.T.H.

Platform Alignment Through Harmonization

An Enterprise Journey

There was a subtitle.

There had never been a subtitle.

Someone had added a slide called Why P.A.T.H. Exists.

It contained three bullets:

• Alignment

• Harmonization

• Enablement

No one knew with what.

The Stakeholder joined again.

“Love this,” they said immediately.

“It’s really matured.”

It had been six days.

They pointed at a diagram.

“So this box here — is that the Harmonization Layer?”

The box was a placeholder.

“Yes,” the Architect said.

“And this arrow?”

“That’s alignment.”

“And this dotted line?”

“Governance.”

The Stakeholder nodded slowly.

“Okay. So alignment flows through harmonization, but governance constrains it?”

The Architect stared at the diagram.

“…Yes.”

“Good,” the Stakeholder said. “That’s the right tension.”

A silence passed where several people aged.

A week later, an email went out:

Subject: PATH Readiness Review

No one remembered scheduling it.

The PATH Readiness Review had:

• a pre-read

• a facilitator

• a parking lot

• and a slide titled “What Does PATH Mean to You?”

People answered seriously.

One person said “clarity.”

Another said “future-proofing.”

Someone said “synergy” and no one stopped them.

During the review, someone asked:

“Are we PATH-ready?”

The room considered this deeply.

“We’re PATH-adjacent,” someone offered.

That felt correct.

A RACI was created.

No one was Responsible.

Everyone was Consulted.

This was praised as “inclusive.”

By month two, PATH had escaped containment.

Other teams asked if their initiatives were “PATH-aligned.”

Someone asked if there was a “PATH backlog.”

Someone else asked if PATH required change management.

Both questions triggered meetings.

Leadership asked for an update.

The Project Manager presented confidently.

“PATH is progressing,” they said.

“We’re just being careful not to over-define it.”

Leadership nodded.

Over-definition was a known risk.

The Stakeholder stopped attending.

But PATH did not.

PATH appeared in strategy decks.

PATH appeared in roadmaps.

PATH appeared in sentences that didn’t need it.

“We’ll circle back post-PATH.”

“This is outside PATH for now.”

“That’s a very PATH-heavy question.”

No one knew what they meant.

Everyone agreed.

A year later, a new executive joined.

They asked, during their first week, what P.A.T.H. stood for.

The room went quiet.

Not because anyone was confused.

Because answering would have required someone to remember.

Finally, the Project Manager smiled and said:

“It’s not an acronym anymore. It’s just… the PATH.”

The executive nodded.

“Got it,” they said. “And are we still on it?”

Everyone agreed they were.

No one could remember where it was supposed to lead.

Somewhere, this is still being “aligned.”

— D.B. Trench

Behind the Gantt Chart

If this felt familiar, you’ve probably been on the PATH already.More true stories from inside the system → PMTales.com