We often hear that the project failed because of the contractor, who in the bigger scheme of things is merely one of the resources of the project. Should the correct explanation then not be 'the project failed because of poor execution on my part as the project manager, to manage my resources (resource management plan) and update the risk matrix (risk management plan) and communicate to the stake holders (communications management plan). Surely between the 49 processes, various tools and techniques if a project fails on your watch, its more a reflection of the project manager's poor implementation of the project that it is of a poor performing resource. I belive the project manager, better known in the land of the brave as the 'Principal Agent', must take more accountability. How does a project value double, the cost triple yet the scope remains the same ?? Is it really a resource problem (aka the contractor) or is it simply just poor project management. Surely the exchange risk factor should have been identified during the risk assessment process in the planning phase. Surely the procurement plan should have ensured that the 'most responsive' contractor is awarded the project. Surely the schedule management plan should have produced a reasonable Grann Chart, highlighting the critical path, float and resourced activities. Is it not time that we offer our clients and employers some sort of guarantee that sound project management principles will be applied ? Guarantee beyond the generic professional indemnity cover. Guarantee in the form of performance linked renumeration for the Project Manager. If my project management fees are 3% of a contract value, and due to my poor project management skills, the project value doubles, but the scope doesn't change, should I still get 3% of the contract value ? Is the client not over exposed in this pricing model ? What then is my incentive to manage this project at all ? In most jurisdictions, a project manager is one of the first appointees. He guides the client right throughout the project. The contractor, engineer and architect are merely resources in the project, and not the actual Project owners. How they are management will be elaborated in the project management plan, where all the knowledge areas will be scrutinized and captured into a smaller plans. All this is developed by the project manager who then does monitoring and evaluation throughout the execution phase. He (the project manager) is the only one who appears (integration knowledge area) in all the 5 phases of a project (inception to close out) so surely, he needs to have skin in the game ! Performance linked renumeration is the epitome of skin in the game. Guarantee the client of sound project management by incentivising project successes and penalizing project failures. Are we ready for this radical type of thinking or are we still comfortable of the status Quo ?