Certified - CompTIA Project+

In project management, a workaround is often the bridge between disruption and restored progress. It is the quick, temporary solution a team applies when an unexpected issue arises, no predefined response exists, and immediate action is necessary to prevent further delay. While workarounds are by nature unplanned and often improvised in real time, their use must still follow a disciplined process. Without proper documentation and follow-up, a workaround can conceal deeper issues, compromise quality, and undermine confidence in the project’s ability to deliver. Properly managed, however, a workaround can preserve momentum, protect deadlines, and provide valuable insight into project resilience.
A workaround is most often implemented in situations where a predefined contingency or risk response plan is not available, or the planned response cannot be applied quickly enough. It serves as a stopgap measure to maintain progress, allowing the project to continue while the root cause of the problem is diagnosed and a permanent solution is developed. Because workarounds are reactive and created under time pressure, they tend to be applied to low- or moderate-severity issues where the immediate consequences can be contained without risking major damage to project objectives.
The decision to use a workaround depends on both urgency and feasibility. If an issue is minor but blocking progress, a workaround can be a practical way to buy time until a more thorough solution is available. They are also appropriate in cases where the impact is temporary—such as waiting for a vendor delivery—or where a formal change request process would take longer than the time available to act. In these cases, a workaround protects continuity by allowing other parts of the project to proceed, avoiding the ripple effect that unresolved blockers can create.
Common examples of workarounds are easy to recognize in everyday project activity. If a key team member becomes unexpectedly unavailable, the project may temporarily assign their tasks to another resource with similar skills. If an automated reporting tool fails, the team might revert to manual tracking using spreadsheets to keep data flowing until the tool is restored. If a technical dependency is blocked, the team may reorder tasks to focus on work that can be completed independently, returning to the blocked task later. Even deferring a non-critical deliverable to preserve the critical path is a form of workaround, provided it is documented and reviewed.
Despite their usefulness, workarounds carry risks of their own. They can mask root causes if teams fail to investigate the underlying problem once the immediate pressure has passed. They may introduce inconsistencies or rework if they deviate significantly from established processes. In some cases, they can lower quality standards or introduce new dependencies that cause problems later. Overuse of workarounds, particularly in place of formal risk or change management processes, can erode trust in the project’s planning and governance framework. This makes it essential that each workaround be treated as a temporary measure that requires follow-up and, if necessary, corrective action.
Documentation is the safeguard that keeps workarounds from disappearing into informal team memory. Every workaround should be logged in the issue management system or, if the organization prefers, in a dedicated workaround tracking tool. This log entry should include the date the workaround was applied, the reason for its use, a description of the steps taken, and the individual responsible for implementation. The duration of the workaround—whether it is expected to last hours, days, or weeks—should also be noted, along with an initial assessment of its effectiveness. This record ensures the workaround is visible to the team, stakeholders, and auditors, and it provides the basis for later review.
Once applied, the impact of a workaround should be reviewed as soon as possible. This review asks whether the workaround has introduced any side effects or secondary risks and whether it has affected project baselines for scope, schedule, or cost. If the workaround has altered these baselines, a formal change request may be necessary to bring the project plan back into alignment. This review is not a formality—it is a quality control measure that ensures temporary solutions do not cause long-term harm to the project’s objectives.
Validation is the final checkpoint for a workaround while it is in place. Even a temporary fix must be tested or evaluated to confirm it is holding and not causing unforeseen problems. In technical projects, validation might involve monitoring system performance or running targeted quality assurance tests. In process-based projects, it could mean collecting stakeholder feedback to ensure the modified approach is meeting requirements. This validation helps determine whether the workaround can remain in place safely until a permanent solution is ready, or if adjustments are needed immediately.
Sometimes a workaround proves so effective that the team considers making it permanent. This decision should be based on performance data, cost implications, and stakeholder input, not on convenience alone. If the workaround becomes a formal part of the process or design, it must be fully integrated into project documentation, scope definitions, and baseline plans. This shift turns the workaround from an exception into a standard procedure, ensuring it is properly governed and maintained going forward.
Once a workaround has been implemented and validated for short-term use, the next priority is ensuring that it is fully integrated into the broader project plan if it will remain active for any significant period. This integration involves updating the project schedule to reflect any new tasks or adjusted durations that result from the workaround. Gantt charts, task lists, and dependency diagrams must be revised so that all team members are working from an accurate plan. In some cases, milestones may need to be rescheduled, or deliverables resequenced, to account for changes in workflow introduced by the workaround. Formal updates to the plan prevent confusion, keep reporting accurate, and ensure that progress is measured against current realities rather than outdated assumptions.
Communication around workarounds is critical for maintaining transparency and trust. Every team member affected by the workaround should know why it was implemented, what impact it has on their responsibilities, and how long it is expected to remain in place. Stakeholders—especially those with oversight or approval roles—should receive clear updates on the rationale, anticipated duration, and potential implications for cost, scope, or compliance. Regular progress reports should continue until the workaround is either retired or replaced by a permanent fix. Without this ongoing communication, misunderstandings can arise, and stakeholders may lose confidence in the project’s ability to manage challenges effectively.
In some situations, stakeholder awareness is not enough—formal approval may be required before a workaround can be put into effect or allowed to continue. This is especially true when the workaround affects contractual obligations, compliance requirements, or major budget categories. Early engagement with these stakeholders avoids delays, disagreements, and potential rework later in the project. Any approvals granted should be documented in the project’s governance records, both to satisfy audit requirements and to preserve a complete history of decision-making.
As a workaround’s lifecycle comes to an end—whether because a permanent fix is implemented, the underlying issue is resolved, or the workaround itself is adopted as the solution—the project’s issue log should be updated to reflect its final outcome. This update should state clearly whether the workaround was temporary or permanent, summarize the resolution, and record the closure date. This ensures that the workaround’s history is preserved for future reference and that no open actions remain unaccounted for.
Final verification is an essential step before declaring the workaround closed. This involves confirming that the original issue is no longer affecting project success and that no new problems have been introduced as a result of the workaround. Verification can include rechecking deliverables, confirming that dependencies are intact, and reviewing quality assurance or acceptance testing results. If discrepancies or new risks are discovered, the project manager may need to log a new issue and restart the problem-solving cycle. Only when verification confirms the issue is fully addressed should the workaround be considered complete.
Any tasks created specifically to support or implement a workaround must also be formally closed in the project’s task management system. Team members should confirm that these tasks are complete and update their records accordingly. Closing out these tasks ensures that leftover actions do not spill over into future project phases, where they can create confusion or consume resources that should be dedicated to planned work. This step also allows the project manager to recalibrate resource capacity and ensure that the team’s focus returns fully to the primary project plan.
Every workaround offers a valuable opportunity to capture lessons learned. These lessons go beyond the technical or procedural details of the workaround itself—they also include insights into how the issue arose, what early warning signs were missed, and how the team responded under pressure. Documenting these insights provides a knowledge base that strengthens risk management, improves contingency planning, and refines execution strategies for future projects. These findings should be shared with the broader organization when possible, so that other teams can benefit from the experience and avoid repeating the same mistakes.
The root cause behind the workaround should feed directly into future risk and contingency planning. If the workaround addressed a gap in existing plans, that gap should be closed with a documented mitigation strategy or a new contingency scenario. If the root cause was tied to an external dependency or a recurring internal process weakness, the organization may need to adjust monitoring systems, supplier agreements, or resource allocation practices. Contingency reserves—whether in budget, time, or capacity—may also need to be recalibrated to better prepare for similar issues in the future.
It is important to avoid normalizing the use of workarounds as a substitute for proper planning and governance. While they are invaluable tools for managing unplanned disruptions, relying on them repeatedly to solve preventable problems can indicate deeper flaws in project planning, execution, or communication. The project manager must watch for patterns of overuse and address them through process improvement, enhanced training, or stronger enforcement of change control procedures. The goal is to maintain a culture where workarounds are recognized as exceptional measures, not standard operating practice.
In summary, managing workarounds effectively requires more than quick thinking—it demands careful documentation, continuous communication, thorough verification, and deliberate closure. Workarounds should be seen as temporary measures that either lead to a permanent fix or are integrated into the project through proper governance. By capturing lessons learned and updating risk and contingency plans, each workaround becomes not just a response to an unexpected problem, but a stepping stone toward greater project maturity and resilience. When handled with this level of discipline, workarounds can protect delivery timelines without sacrificing quality, accountability, or stakeholder confidence.