Distinguishing Projects from Business-as-Usual (BAU)

Definitions: Projects vs. Business-as-Usual

A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service, or result . It has a defined start and end, specific objectives, and dedicated resources. In contrast, business-as-usual (BAU) refers to the ongoing, routine operations of an organisation – the regular work required to keep things running smoothly  . BAU activities are repetitive and continuous (e.g. processing daily transactions or providing customer support), whereas projects are one-off initiatives that implement change or new outputs (e.g. launching a new IT system or building a new facility). In summary, BAU represents steady-state operations, while projects are temporary efforts to change or improve those operations.

Key Characteristics and Differences

Timeframe and Duration: Projects are time-bound – they have a clear beginning and finish date and do not continue indefinitely . BAU work is ongoing with no predefined end; processes repeat as part of normal operations. If a piece of work has no foreseeable end date or continues indefinitely, it’s a strong sign that it’s BAU, not a project .

Uniqueness vs. Repetition: Each project is intended to deliver a unique outcome or change, something that didn’t exist before (hence projects often produce a new product or implement a change) . BAU, on the other hand, focuses on repeating established processes to maintain consistency . For example, installing a new software system is a project, while operating and monitoring that system day-to-day is BAU . BAU strives for predictability and stability, whereas projects embrace uniqueness and innovation.

Scope of Change: BAU teams typically identify the need for change or incremental improvements during operations, but it is projects that serve as the change-makers to implement significant changes . BAU delivers steady outputs and gradually improves via continuous improvement, whereas projects introduce step-changes – larger transformations beyond the scope of routine work . In essence, BAU “keeps the lights on” and flags what might need changing, while projects execute those changes.

Risk Profile: Because projects do something new or different, they inherently involve more uncertainty and risk. Organisations undertake a project as a calculated leap into the unknown to achieve a benefit, and thus project work carries higher risk and requires active risk management  . BAU work, by contrast, strives to minimise risk, focusing on stability and reliability. Operations teams work to mitigate any risks to continuity, using tried-and-true processes to avoid surprises  . This means formal risk management (assessments, contingency plans) is critical in projects, whereas BAU relies on procedures to keep risk low.

Team Structure: Projects are executed by temporary, cross-functional teams assembled specifically for the project’s purposes  . These teams often bring together people from different departments or specialties who may not have worked together before. In contrast, BAU is carried out by permanent functional teams (e.g. the sales department, the IT support team) working in established roles . After a project ends, the project team disbands and members return to other duties, whereas BAU teams remain in place continuously. This difference means project managers must be adept at forming temporary teams and navigating the dynamics of people who lack long-term working relationships , while line managers in BAU focus on maintaining team performance over time.

Funding and Accounting: There are often differences in how work is budgeted. Projects frequently involve capital expenditure (CapEx) and can create capitalisable assets, whereas BAU consumes operational expenditure (OpEx) . In other words, costs of a project (say, developing a new system) might be capitalised on the balance sheet, while BAU costs (running and maintaining that system) are expensed in the profit-and-loss statements . This has accounting implications: misclassifying an operational activity as a “project” could lead to incorrect financial treatment. Organisations often separate project funding from operational budgets for this reason .

Mislabeled Work: Why BAU Gets Called a “Project”

Despite clear definitions, in practice organisations sometimes mistakenly label BAU work as a project. This misnomer can happen for several reasons:

Misunderstanding of Terms: A fundamental lack of understanding about what qualifies as a project vs. BAU leads to misclassification . For example, team members might call any planned effort a “project” out of habit, even if it’s routine operational work, simply because they aren’t trained in the distinction.

“We’ve Always Done It This Way” Culture: In some companies, there is a culture of calling every initiative a project by default. Without guidance or a Project Management Office (PMO) to enforce definitions, legacy habits may prevail. This can result in ongoing tasks being shoehorned into project formats because that’s the only mode the organisation knows.

External Advice without Alignment: Sometimes an external consultant or manager might recommend treating an initiative in a certain way (e.g. as a formal project) without properly considering or educating the team on the appropriate structure . If the organisation lacks proper training or documentation, they may label work as a project because “the consultant said so,” even if it doesn’t fit the criteria.

Lack of PMO or Governance: Organisations with no PMO or low project management maturity tend to be inconsistent in how they structure work. In such environments, there may be no formal intake process to filter out BAU tasks from true projects, leading to ad-hoc mislabeling.

Visibility and Funding Bias: There is often pressure to package work as a project because projects (especially those delivering new features or products) get more attention and funding. BAU work, by contrast, is “invisible” when it’s running well. Managers sometimes relabel ongoing improvements or maintenance efforts as a special “project” to make the work more visible or justify a budget. In essence, calling something a project can signal it’s a priority. For example, routine system upgrades might be branded a “Modernisation Project” to attract leadership support, even though upgrades are a normal recurring activity. This bias for “new and shiny” deliverables can unintentionally encourage misclassification.

Blurry Boundaries: Some initiatives exist in a grey area between BAU and project. Without clear criteria, teams might err on the side of calling it a project. For instance, a lengthy series of process improvements could be run as a continuous programme (BAU change) but may get labeled as an “Operational Excellence Project” because it involves multiple changes. In such cases, the label might stick until someone questions whether the effort is truly temporary.

Consequences of Misclassifying BAU as a Project

Mislabeling BAU work as a project is not just a semantic issue – it can lead to practical problems for the organisation:

Lack of Clear End or Scope Creep: Projects are meant to have a finite scope, so treating open-ended work as a project often results in never-ending projects or uncontrolled scope. Teams may find that the “project” keeps getting extended because the work by nature has no finish line. A telltale sign is when a project’s duration keeps growing or its sprints and phases exceed their planned scope, indicating it was actually an indefinite operational initiative . This can waste time and resources as the team chases a moving target that was never properly scoped.

Inefficient Use of Resources: Applying full project management processes and bureaucracy to BAU can introduce unnecessary overhead. Routine tasks might be burdened with excess documentation, status meetings, and complexity, slowing down the work. One project management expert notes that teams with very little real project value often compensate by adding “rigorous and heavyweight process,” resulting in lots of paperwork but little benefit (https://www.projecttimes.com/articles/my-project-is-killing-me-7-rules-of-thumb-for-the-savvy-project-manager/#:~:text=4,to%20the%20Length%20of%20Reporting) . In misclassified efforts, energy goes into managing it as a project (reports, charters, etc.) rather than just doing the work efficiently as BAU.

Team and Role Confusion: When BAU work is framed as a project, the roles and responsibilities can become muddled. BAU teams normally have line managers and process owners, whereas projects have project managers and sponsors. If these lines blur, people might not know who is in charge. For example, a subject matter expert (SME) might be asked to lead what’s called a “project,” even though they aren’t trained in project management – meanwhile their functional manager is unsure whether to intervene. The result is blind spots – important steps get missed and no one has clear oversight of objectives and progress.

Poor Stakeholder Alignment: A misclassified project can set the wrong expectations for stakeholders. Calling something a project suggests a promise of a defined deliverable by a certain date. If that isn’t actually achievable (because the work is ongoing or undefined), stakeholders may become frustrated by perceived delays or “failure” to deliver. For instance, if management is told a continuous process improvement is a project, they might expect a big reveal at project’s end – but in reality there may be no single big outcome, just incremental tweaks. This misalignment can erode trust and lead to dissatisfaction.

Disruption of BAU or Project Priority Conflicts: Conversely, treating BAU tasks as a separate project can pull resources away from actual operational work. People might focus on the project wrapper (since projects typically demand special meetings, reports, etc.), potentially neglecting their normal duties. Alternatively, if the organisation realises it must keep BAU running, the “project” may constantly lose resources back to day-to-day firefighting. This tug-of-war can cause the pseudo-project to stall and BAU to suffer, a lose-lose situation.

Benefit and Outcome Gaps: Misclassified initiatives often struggle to deliver real benefits. If something was BAU to begin with, executing it as a project might not produce a distinct value increment – it just maintains status quo. Without a genuine business case for change, the effort can consume budget and time but yield little new benefit (essentially doing operations under a different name). As one project transition guide cautions, if the output of a project isn’t actually of value to the business, even perfect execution won’t result in a “successful” outcome . This often happens when the work was never truly about achieving a new result (i.e. it was BAU maintenance or compliance masquerading as a project).

Post-project Void or Sustainability Issues: Because BAU work doesn’t end, treating it as a project can lead to problems after “project completion.” The project team may declare victory and disband, only to leave no one responsible for the ongoing tasks. Any knowledge gained or processes set up might not be transferred properly to an operational owner. This is why projects include a transition to BAU – but if the effort was BAU all along, closing a project formally is awkward. For example, if a team ran a “Project” to handle customer complaints (something that actually needs ongoing attention), once the project is closed, complaint handling could fall through the cracks unless a permanent team takes over. Organisations can experience a dip in performance or a reversal of gains as the work “returns” to BAU without proper handover.

In short, mislabeling BAU as a project can result in wasted effort, frustrated staff and stakeholders, and potential neglect of both true project work and true operational needs. The work may languish in a no-man’s land – too small or routine to ever deliver the big bang a project promises, but robbed of the streamlined process that BAU normally has.

Real-World Examples of Misclassification

Example 1: The Endless Operations “Project.” In one organisation, a team formed a “project” to overhaul and then run the company’s website content updates. Initially, the goal was to implement a new content management system (a legitimate project), but the effort gradually morphed into handling day-to-day content edits and routine updates under the project umbrella. There was no clear end point, yet the work continued for years as a “Website Project.”. In this case, the misclassification meant the team was perpetually in “project mode” – rushing and reacting – instead of establishing stable operational processes. Objectives became blurred, and the usual benefits of a project (clear scope, closure, lessons learned) never materialised because the work was essentially BAU in disguise. Eventually management recognised the issue and transitioned the work into a permanent Web Operations team, but not before the “project” suffered timeline extensions and team burnout. The lesson was that ongoing operations should have been handled as BAU with continuous improvement, not as a never-ending project fire drill.

Example 2: Overstuffed “Project” That Should Have Been a Programme. A financial firm kicked off an initiative to improve enterprise IT resilience, branding it the “Systems Stability Project.” This effort included upgrading infrastructure, refining support processes, training staff, and implementing new monitoring tools – a wide-ranging set of goals. All these disparate streams were lumped under one project manager. Quickly, the project became unwieldy: different sub-teams were tackling loosely related work, deadlines slipped, and risk was high in multiple areas. In reality, the company had launched multiple projects masquerading as one, without the structure of a programme to coordinate them. If a plan contains many unrelated challenges or independent efforts, then a project is not a project, but rather a set of independent projects…run as siblings inside a programme. By mislabeling, the firm had under-resourced and under-planned what should have been managed as a programme (or several coordinated projects). The consequence was severe scope creep and team confusion – some parts of the “project” finished early and delivered their pieces, while others lagged badly. Once the mistake was recognised, leadership split the initiative into separate projects (each with a focused scope) under a program umbrella, and assigned a programme manager to oversee interdependencies. Only after this restructuring did the work start yielding results. This example shows how misclassifying a large, complex effort as a single project can undermine its success.

Example 3 (Hypothetical): Misclassified Continuous Improvement. Consider a customer service department that wanted to steadily improve its performance metrics. Rather than task the operations team with ongoing improvement (a BAU responsibility), they launched a “Customer Service Excellence Project” with a project team and deadline. The project team implemented a few quick fixes but found that new improvement opportunities kept emerging; every time they neared “completion,” department managers would add another target to improve. The project stretched on, repeatedly changing scope. Employees were unsure whether to focus on their daily support tickets or the project tasks, causing tension. In the end, after much schedule slippage, the so-called project was closed without fanfare, and management set up a permanent continuous improvement committee within the department. This outcome reflects a common pattern when continuous BAU improvements are forced into a project format – the work doesn’t fit a one-time project structure and ultimately has to be re-absorbed into BAU for lasting attention.

Best Practices for Distinguishing Projects and BAU

To avoid the pitfalls of misclassification, organisations should establish clear practices for differentiating projects from BAU:

Define Criteria and Educate Staff: It is crucial to have a well-communicated definition of what a “project” is (and isn’t). For example, a PMO could define a project as work that has specific scope, resources and a definite start/end, and explicitly lists what is not a project (BAU activities, low-effort requests, break/fix tasks, etc.) . Sharing such guidelines helps teams check an initiative against criteria: Is it temporary? Is it unique? Does it require coordination beyond normal operations? If not, it likely should remain BAU. Training employees in basic project vs. operations concepts can dispel misconceptions. When everyone from executives to team members understands that “not all work is a project,” there’s less temptation to label everything as one.

Use an Intake or Triage Process: Many organisations institute a project intake review – essentially, a checkpoint where proposed initiatives are evaluated to determine if they warrant project treatment. A governance team or PMO can ask key questions: What is the goal and is there a distinct deliverable? How long will it take? Who needs to be involved? If the work is ongoing or better handled by a single department, it might be routed as BAU. Having this gatekeeping mechanism ensures that only true projects (with a business case and end goal) get chartered as such . Lower-priority or continuous tasks can be managed via operational plans or agile backlog items instead.

Establish Clear Ownership: If something is deemed BAU, assign it to an operational owner/manager rather than a project manager. Conversely, real projects should have an assigned project manager and sponsor. This clarity prevents the scenario of an operational team trying to operate like a project team without guidance. It also reinforces to staff how the work will be tracked: BAU work might go into weekly operational reports, while projects go into the project portfolio.

Set Thresholds for Project Classification: Some organisations use thresholds (financial, duration, complexity) to distinguish projects. For example, if an effort will take more than 3 months, involve multiple departments, or cost over £X, then it must be managed as a project; anything less might be treated as BAU or a “small change” request. These thresholds can be part of the official policy. They help prevent “projectifying” every minor task. Likewise, exceedingly large or long-running endeavors should be examined – if a proposed project exceeds a year or spans many teams, consider if it should be broken into phases or a program .

Leverage a PMO (Project Management Office): A PMO or similar governance body can continuously monitor how work is being classified. They can correct course if they see, for instance, a team trying to run an open-ended process under a project charter. The PMO can provide coaching: “This looks like continuous process improvement – let’s set it up as an ongoing program with periodic deliverables, rather than a project.” In companies without a formal PMO, assigning an experienced project manager or business analyst to vet new initiatives can serve a similar role. The presence of even a lightweight governance check can counter the “we’ve always done it this way” inertia .

Document and Communicate Scope at Initiation: When starting any project, writing a clear scope statement and definition of done helps cement its boundaries . If those documents read more like a broad vision or an ongoing service (“the project will handle all user requests for the foreseeable future”), that’s a red flag that the work might be BAU or needs to be split up. By contrast, a well-defined project scope says what will and won’t be delivered, making it easier to tell if something falls outside and should be treated separately. Teams should not be afraid to say, “That request is outside this project – it belongs in operations or another initiative.”

Plan for Handover to BAU: Every project should include plans for transition to BAU once completed (training, support processes, assigning owners for maintenance). By planning this from the start, organisations keep a clear line between the temporary project phase and the steady-state operation that follows. A robust handover means that when the project ends, BAU picks up the reins seamlessly. In cases where work was wrongly labeled a project, doing a handover review can actually reveal that the “project” deliverable is just an ongoing service – at which point the organisation might formally decide to make it a permanent BAU function instead.

Correcting a Misclassification: Strategies to Re-align

If an initiative is already underway and you discover it’s been mislabeled (i.e. you realise “this is not really a project”), there are ways to get it back on track:

Reevaluate Early (if Possible): The earlier in the lifecycle you catch the misclassification, the easier it is to fix. In the initiation or planning phase, you can still pivot. For example, if you identify that a piece of work would be better handled as BAU, you might halt the project and transition responsibilities to the appropriate operations team or manager. Similarly, if what was called a project is actually part of a larger endeavor, you can merge it into a program. Adjusting at this stage might be as simple as rewriting the charter or splitting one project into two. Project management guidance suggests that during initiation, one can even change the management approach (e.g. switch it to a program) once it’s clear the initial labeling was off . This might involve securing approval from sponsors to reclassify the effort appropriately.

Rescope and Replan: If the realisation comes mid-project execution, more tact is needed. Start by revisiting the scope and objectives with stakeholders. Clearly articulate the issue – for instance: “Our project scope has grown into ongoing support. Let’s define a clear cutoff for the project deliverables, and identify remaining work that should become operational.” By rescoping, you can establish what the true project element is (if any) and separate out the rest. In practical terms, this could mean finishing a deliverable or phase, then officially closing the project. Remaining tasks (those continuous or indefinite ones) get documented and handed to an operational owner or entered into a maintenance backlog. This way, the project can still “finish” successfully on its adjusted scope, and the other work is acknowledged as BAU going forward.

Communicate with Stakeholders: Transparency is key. Let sponsors and team members know that continuing under the wrong structure poses risks (such as never delivering value or overburdening the team). Propose the solution – e.g. “We will wrap up Project X by delivering A and B. For the ongoing C and D activities, we will set up a permanent team.” Most stakeholders will appreciate the honesty if it’s backed by a plan to achieve the original goals more effectively. Managing expectations in this way avoids the scenario where a project drifts aimlessly.

Formalise the Transition: When ending a misclassified project early or converting it, treat it like a mini project close-out. Document what was delivered and what will continue as BAU. Ensure there is an accountable person or team for the BAU portion. If budget was allocated as a project, work with finance to reallocate funds appropriately (perhaps into an operations budget or a program fund). Essentially, you’re performing a controlled shutdown of the project and a handover. This might include training the BAU team, writing new SOPs (standard operating procedures), or other knowledge transfer so the work continues smoothly in its proper form.

Learn and Update Processes: After correcting the course, conduct a brief lessons-learned analysis. How did this work get misclassified? Were there warning signs missed? Feeding this insight back into the project intake criteria or PMO guidelines will help prevent repeat occurrences. For example, if it turns out an absent intake process was to blame, institute one (as noted in Best Practices). If it was pressure from a sponsor that pushed BAU into a project, educate that sponsor on the differences for the future. Essentially, use the experience to shore up organisational understanding so that once you’ve reversed one misclassification, you aren’t facing another down the line.

In some cases, a misclassified “project” may simply need to be cancelled. If upon review you determine it should never have been started (no clear goal or value), it could be more prudent to stop the work altogether. Then, if the work is truly needed as part of BAU, reorganise it under the correct operational team. It’s better to cease a misguided project than to drag it on for fear of admitting it was set up wrongly. Cancellation can free resources to be used on real projects or important BAU activities.

Conclusion

Projects and business-as-usual work are both essential to organisations, but they serve different purposes and require different management approaches. Mislabeling one as the other can lead to confusion, wasted effort, and missed objectives. By clearly defining what constitutes a project versus BAU, using governance mechanisms to classify work, and staying vigilant for warning signs (like a “project” with endless scope or a BAU team overloaded with project processes), companies can ensure each effort gets the right treatment. The distinction matters because it aligns the work with the correct expectations: projects deliver defined change on a timeline, while BAU sustains and optimises the ongoing business.

When misclassifications do happen, recognising them early and taking corrective action will save the organisation time and trouble. The examples above show that it’s possible to recover by realigning the work to its appropriate category – whether that means restructuring a big initiative into a programme or embedding a continuous task back into operations. Ultimately, the goal is to have projects and BAU complement each other: projects drive progress and innovation, and BAU keeps the engine running and maintains what projects delivered. Keeping the line between them clear enables both to be managed effectively for the overall success of the business.