March 24, 2026
Communication Management in Projects: Practices and Challenges
Ana Paula de Almeida Silva; Ana Carolina Benites Aquino
Summary prepared by the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by the Pecege Institute focused on synthesis and writing.
Project communication management encompasses practices and procedures aimed at ensuring that the information needs of the project and stakeholders are adequately met, through the development of artifacts and the execution of planned activities. According to the PMBOK (PMI, 2017), communication management includes the processes of planning, executing, and monitoring communications throughout the entire project lifecycle. Thus, communication planning consists of developing a strategic approach that addresses the informational needs of stakeholders. Communications Management, on the other hand, refers to the creation, collection, distribution, storage, retrieval, monitoring, and administration of information in an appropriate and timely manner. Monitoring, in turn, aims to continuously ensure that these needs are being duly met. Communication is understood as the process by which a message is transmitted from a sender to a receiver, being encoded at the origin and decoded at the destination, through conventional systems of signs or symbols, such as sounds, writing, and images (Chaves et al., 2014). Beyond this linear model, more interactive models are also recognized, which integrate feedback, human factors, and more complex approaches to interaction between sender and receiver. The communication methods used among stakeholders can be classified into three main categories: interactive, active, and passive. Additionally, there are different forms of communication adjusted to the management plan, such as: interpersonal communication, face-to-face and direct between individuals, small group communication, with three to six participants, public communication, from one sender to a group, mass communication, with no direct link between sender and receiver, and communication mediated by social or technological networks, which represent emerging technology-based forms.
The communication channel functions as a medium for transmitting messages, allowing the receiver to interpret them effectively. Formal channels, such as reports, guidelines, correspondence, and progress evaluations, follow predefined norms and standards. On the other hand, informal channels, such as face-to-face conversations, phone calls, and verbal messages, although sometimes undervalued, play a crucial role in the fluidity and effectiveness of project interactions. In these cases, communication can be verbal, through words, or non-verbal, such as body language (Chaves et al., 2014). The importance of understanding how communication planning, management, and monitoring have been conducted in organizational contexts is justified by the strategic relevance of these interactions. Communication is decisive for the effective exchange of information among those involved and can be a determining factor for project success. The way these interactions occur directly impacts organizational results, requiring integrated communication practices aligned with institutional objectives. Inadequate communication management can lead to noise, rework, and decreased productivity; on the other hand, structured practices promote team integration and involvement. To illustrate the relevance of the topic, the PMSURVEY research, conducted by PMI in 2014 with 400 organizations from countries in America and Europe, indicated that 64% of participants identify communication as one of the most recurring problems in their projects. The central objective is to analyze strategic communication in public, private, and third-sector organizations, considering the perception of managers and professionals regarding the challenges faced, the practices adopted, and opportunities for improvement in communication processes, covering the planning, management, and monitoring phases.
The adopted methodological approach is mixed in nature, integrating quantitative and qualitative methods to comprehensively analyze the practices, tools, and challenges associated with communication management. The quantitative aspect aims to quantify the implemented communication practices, while the qualitative aspect seeks to deeply understand the subjective perceptions of participants regarding their experiences and suggestions for improvement. The target audience was expanded beyond professionals directly linked to the project management area, based on the understanding that various collaborators, even if not formally performing management functions, actively participate in the execution of strategic initiatives and play roles that impact communication flows. The inclusion of professionals with indirect involvement allows for capturing a diversity of perceptions relevant to the analysis of organizational processes. In the quantitative paradigm, research is conducted based on previously defined and operationalized variables, enabling objective measurement and statistical analysis of structured data (Godoy, 1995). In contrast, the qualitative method starts from exploratory questions aimed at obtaining descriptive data through immersion in the empirical context, allowing for the interpretation of phenomena in light of the perception of the investigated subjects.
Data collection occurred through a field survey, using a structured digital form titled “Questionnaire on Communication Management in Organizational Contexts.” The instrument was developed based on pedagogical content and communication processes described in the PMBOK Guide (PMI, 2017), ensuring alignment with internationally recognized methodological standards. The PMBOK Guide constitutes a global normative reference in the field of project management, offering a common base of best practices, methods, and consolidated processes (PMI, 2008). The questionnaire consisted of 17 questions, 16 of which were closed-ended, structured in multiple-choice formats, frequency scales, and Likert-type agreement scales. The last question was open-ended, with the aim of qualitatively capturing respondents’ perceptions of current communication practices and collecting improvement proposals. The application took place between June and July 2025, via the Google Forms platform, with national reach and dissemination through email, social media, academic groups, and professional forums. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, ensured by ethical procedures that guaranteed data protection.
The final sample totaled 65 respondents, selected for convenience. Although the sampling is non-probabilistic, the heterogeneity of professional and organizational profiles contributed to the robustness and representativeness of the data, allowing for inferences about communication processes in different institutional contexts. The closed-ended questions were subjected to descriptive statistical analysis, appropriate for handling categorical data, enabling clear and objective information systematization (Trindade, 2018). The open-ended question was analyzed from a qualitative perspective, using the content analysis technique, identifying emerging categories and patterns of meaning in the responses. The operational details of the research included defining categories of projects, types of organizations, and positions held, allowing for data cross-referencing that supports the discussion of results. The analysis process sought to identify key elements such as the standardization of information flows, the use of technological tools, feedback practices, and active listening, as well as the frequency of alignments in organizations from the private, public, and third sectors.
The collected data reveal that 73% of collaborators work in private companies, 13.8% in the third sector, and 12.3% in the public sector under direct administration. Project management is predominantly more consolidated in private organizations, although it is expanding in the public sector (Carvalho; Piscopo, 2014). In public projects, one of the main challenges is effectively conveying objectives and techniques to enable the execution of actions. In corporate environments, barriers such as bureaucratic structures, excessive procedures, and inefficient channels that restrict information flow are evident. Regarding the size of organizations, 32.3% have more than 500 employees, 23.1% between 101 and 500, 20% up to 10 employees, 13.8% between 11 and 50, and 10.8% between 51 and 100. Organizational communication is influenced by the company’s size, its complexity, and the demand for efficiency (Leitão, 2014). In smaller companies, channels tend to be more direct, while in larger organizations communication follows multiple hierarchical levels, becoming more complex (Kershner, 2015).
Regarding professional occupation, 49.2% of participants are analysts or technicians, 21.5% hold coordination or supervision positions, and 6.2% are in director positions. Clear definition of roles and responsibilities contributes significantly to avoiding functional overlaps (Kerzner, 2015). As the hierarchical level advances, the responsibilities of planning, control, and leadership of multidisciplinary teams increase, requiring specific competencies in communication and stakeholder relationship management. Regarding the existence of a formal structure for project management, 41.5% reported having an exclusive area, while 43.1% stated that the organization does not have a specific area, with projects being executed by teams operating without a defined formal structure. Furthermore, 13.8% declared they are in the process of implementing the department. In terms of direct affiliation, 43.1% work directly in the project area, 23.1% indirectly, and 23.1% collaborate partially.
The predominant categories of projects executed include organizational changes or improvement of operational results (15.4%), information technologies (15.4%), and works and installations (13.8%). Design projects represent 10.8%, while regional and international development initiatives total 6.2%. Other categories, such as communication systems, media, and events, showed lower representation. Notably, 30.7% of respondents classified their projects as others, encompassing areas such as education, culture, energy, and socio-environmental. Regarding planning, 38.5% of organizations have a formal and documented communication plan, 36.9% have an undocumented plan, and 24.6% have no plan. Communication planning determines the information needs of stakeholders and establishes a strategy (PMI, 2008). The plan should record what information is needed, when it will be distributed, and how it will be delivered and controlled (Heldman, 2015).
The most used communication channels are corporate emails and intranets (89.9%), face-to-face or virtual meetings (81.5%), phone calls (41.5%), reports (32.3%), newsletters (30.8%), and presentations (30.8%). Tools such as WhatsApp, Teams, and Slack were also mentioned. Digital technologies enable the rapid transmission of large volumes of information, allowing for everything from text messages to complex videoconferences (Chaves et al., 2014). Regarding feedback, 46.2% use formal tools, such as satisfaction surveys and periodic meetings, but 35.4% pointed out the absence of structured feedback, indicating flaws in the internal communication process. Informal feedback, in casual conversations, totals 18.5%. The need to promote a culture that values constant information return is evident, as feedback supports interactive communication between the manager, team, and stakeholders (PMI, 2017).
The frequency of alignment meetings is predominantly weekly (44.6%), followed by monthly (20%), bi-weekly (9.2%), and daily (9.2%). However, 12.6% do not hold regular meetings and 4.6% meet only during crises, revealing communication gaps. The periodicity should vary according to the project phase or the urgency of information (Oliveira, 2025). The main challenges identified were lack of alignment between areas (78.5%), lack of clarity (60%), non-active listening (47.7%), lack of feedback (47.7%), and information overload (38.5%). Lack of transparency can generate distrust, requiring the manager to encourage openness and ensure access to information for decision-making (Oliveira, 2025). Language and cultural barriers also interfere with the sending and interpretation of messages.
The evaluation of the information flow shows that only 6.2% consider it fast and efficient. For 40%, the flow is slow and noisy, 38.5% consider it satisfactory with occasional flaws, and 15.4% define it as inefficient with recurring flaws. The informational flow should promote the construction of organizational knowledge (Araújo et al., 2017). Regarding interpersonal skills, the most recognized in teams are networking (61.5%), meeting management (41.5%), active listening (36.9%), and conflict management (36.9%). Soft skills are essential for building and preserving relationships (PMI, 2013). Communication conflicts, originating from misunderstandings or imprecise instructions, are frequent causes of problems in projects (Oliveira, 2025).
The most used management tools are technologies such as software and dashboards (49.2%), satisfaction surveys (33.8%), communication plans (26.2%), and lessons learned records (21.5%). The RACI Matrix is used by 16.9% of respondents, being useful for clarifying responsibilities in change processes (Oliveira, 2025). The use of tools like Trello (1.5%) aids in visual organization and activity monitoring. Regarding sharing methods, 52.3% prefer active communication (emails, reports), 36.9% interactive (meetings, social media), and 10% passive (intranets). The strategic use of collaboration technologies, such as Google Drive and Teams, is a reality for 53.8% of participants, contributing to agility and precision in project control (Oliveira, 2015). However, 7.7% point to a lack of resources or training.
The qualitative analysis of participant suggestions reinforces the need for improvements in planning and communication structure. Demands for formal plans, organized strategies, and uniformity in messages were recurrent, revealing the fragility of institutional policies. The aspect of organizational culture and collaborative posture was also highlighted, with mentions of resistance to change and lack of collaboration between sectors. Communication effectiveness depends not only on tools but on attitudes and values (PMI, 2017). Technology is seen as an important resource for recording and automation, but its implementation without adequate planning can generate problems. Intersectoral alignment requires greater articulation and standardization of instruments to avoid failures in the horizontal flow. The importance of frequent feedback and clarity in messages was reaffirmed, as was the need for clear role definition to avoid rework. Time and workload management also impact communication exchanges, especially in hybrid or remote work models. The perception that exaggerated or unfiltered communication saturates channels suggests that important messages may lose prominence. Only one respondent stated that communication in their organization already occurs satisfactorily, evidencing a vast field for improvement.
It is concluded that the objective was achieved, as the investigation highlighted the centrality of communication in project management processes and identified critical fragilities such as the absence of formal plans, ineffective use of channels, and disarticulation between sectors. Communicational effectiveness is directly related to organizational performance, but practices such as active listening and intersectoral alignment are not yet fully consolidated in the daily routine of the analyzed institutions. The improvement of the area requires more than the simple adoption of technological tools; it demands strategic planning, committed leadership, and an institutional culture that values dialogue and transparency. The creation of structured plans, clear definition of responsibilities, and investment in continuous training for the development of interpersonal skills emerge as fundamental paths to mitigate noise, reduce rework, and maximize project results in diverse organizational contexts.
Bibliographic References:
Chaves, L.E.; Neto, F.H.S.; Pech, G.; Carneiro, M.F.S. 2014. gerenciamento da comunicação em projetos. 3. ed. Editora FGV, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.
Godoy, A.S. 1995. Introdução à pesquisa qualitativa e suas possibilidades. Revista de Administração de Empresas 35 (2). p.57-63.
Project Management Institute (PMI). 2008. Um guia do conhecimento em gerenciamento de projetos (Guia PMBOK). 4. ed. Estados Unidos: PMI.
Project Management Institute (PMI). 2017. Um guia do conhecimento em gerenciamento de projetos (Guia PMBOK). 6. ed. Estados Unidos: PMI.
Project Management Institute (PMI). Pesquisa Pmsurvey, 2014. Disponível em: <https://beware.com.br/arquivos/Report2014-PMSURVEY.pdf>. Acesso em: 15 jun. 2025.
Trindade, N.C. 2014. Os primórdios da apicultura registrada e suas raízes em civilizações antigas. In: Trindade, N. C. Monitoramento de colmeia de
Executive summary from the Final Project of the Specialization in Project Management of the MBA USP/Esalq
Learn more about the course; click here:
