Hi... our circle focuses on a pretty complex project involving building a plant/factory turning tons of wastes into resources. When it comes to project management, it is complex too with many work streams that are highly inter-dependent.
In the beginning, we had a role called "Project Manager" to 'manage' the whole project with the account-abilities of creating project plans, tracking progress, ensuring the successful execution of the project. At some point, we realized that calling it a 'manager' isn't quite aligned with Holacracy and we also want to avoid other team members treating this role as the traditional manager. So we changed it to "Project Planner" which still has the same accountabilities. But we want to communicate through the name change that this role do NOT mange people, but only the work.
But we felt that we are missing something about rigorous project management by over emphasizing that the Project Planner role is only here to coordinate. I looked up in the forum and found this past - which provided some new perspectives ...projects-among-roles
Esp. the point that there needs to be a Project Owner - someone that owns the results and can allocate small projects/outcomes to other roles. This is hugely helpful.
Now in our circle, to manage a project, we have two roles, 1) Project Planner - this role creates documents including project assumptions, financial projections, timelines, and key outcomes; and 2) Project Implementer - this role ensures the execution of project according to plan. They are likely to be filled by different people and they need to coordinate with each other as the project happens. I see that maybe we need to add that the Project Planner owns the outcomes of the project.
I would like to seek some extra input to confirm my understanding so far, and hear your experience in handling managing (esp. big, complex) projects.