I’ve sat through this meeting a dozen times. The team gathers to discuss which project management tool to adopt. Someone advocates for Airtable—flexible, customizable, powerful. Someone else wants Monday—clean interface, visual boards, easy to learn. A third person suggests Asana—established, reliable, lots of integrations.

The discussion goes on for an hour. Maybe two. Comparisons are made. Screenshots are shared. Pricing is analyzed. Feature matrices are constructed.

Eventually, a decision is made. The tool is purchased. Everyone migrates.

Three months later, the same problems exist. The tool is different. The dysfunction is identical.

The Tool Is Rarely the Problem

Here’s what I’ve observed across dozens of businesses: the problems people blame on tools are almost never tool problems.

“We can’t track projects properly.” That’s not an Airtable vs. Monday problem. That’s a “no one updates project status consistently” problem.

“Tasks fall through the cracks.” That’s not an Asana limitation. That’s a “no clear ownership of task completion” problem.

“We don’t have visibility into what’s happening.” That’s not a feature gap. That’s a “people aren’t putting information where others can find it” problem.

Tools don’t create accountability. Tools don’t establish ownership. Tools don’t force people to communicate clearly. Tools are containers for behavior that should already exist.

Why Teams Debate Tools

Tool debates are comfortable. They feel productive without requiring uncomfortable changes.

Discussing Airtable vs. Monday doesn’t require anyone to admit that they haven’t been updating their tasks. Comparing feature sets doesn’t require confronting the team member who refuses to use any shared system. Evaluating pricing plans doesn’t require acknowledging that the real problem is unclear process ownership.

Tool debates are also democratic in a way that feels safe. Everyone has opinions about interfaces. Everyone can participate in a pricing discussion. The conversation stays abstract and impersonal.

Saying “we need to hold Sarah accountable for not updating the project board” is uncomfortable. Saying “maybe Monday would work better for us” is easy.

What Actually Breaks

When project management tools fail to produce results, look at these areas:

Unclear ownership. Who’s responsible for making sure this tool stays accurate? Not who uses it—who owns it? In most struggling implementations, the answer is “everyone” which means “no one.”

No consequences. What happens when someone doesn’t update their tasks? Usually nothing. The meeting happens anyway. Decisions get made anyway. The tool becomes optional, and optional tools become unused tools.

Process doesn’t match the tool. Every tool imposes some structure—boards, lists, timelines, workflows. If your actual work doesn’t match that structure, people create workarounds. Workarounds accumulate until the tool is more hindrance than help.

No single source of truth. Information lives in the tool AND in email AND in Slack AND in people’s heads. When there’s no authoritative source, people stop trusting any source.

These problems will follow you from Airtable to Monday to Asana to Notion to whatever comes next. The tool doesn’t fix the dysfunction. The tool just gives the dysfunction a new address.

The Tool Debate as Avoidance

Sometimes the constant search for a better tool is itself a symptom.

“If we just had the right tool, things would work.” This belief allows teams to avoid the harder conversation: maybe things don’t work because we haven’t committed to making them work.

Switching tools provides temporary relief. There’s energy around the new thing. People are engaged during setup. But unless the underlying issues are addressed, the same patterns emerge within weeks.

I’ve watched businesses cycle through three project management tools in two years, each time convinced that this one would be different. The problem wasn’t the tool any of those times. The problem was a team that didn’t want to be held accountable to any system.

What Would Actually Help

Instead of debating tools, try this:

Pick one and commit. Seriously. Pick any of the mainstream options—they all work fine. The differences between Airtable, Monday, and Asana matter far less than whether your team actually uses whichever one you choose.

Designate an owner. One person is responsible for the system working. They check data quality. They follow up when things aren’t updated. They run the weekly review. They’re allowed to bug people. This isn’t optional.

Define the behavior. When does a task get created? Who creates it? When does status get updated? What happens in the weekly meeting if things aren’t current? Write these answers down. Make them explicit. Enforce them.

Remove alternatives. If project status lives in the tool, don’t accept it in email. If a task isn’t in the system, it doesn’t exist. If someone keeps a side spreadsheet, that’s a problem to address, not a workaround to accommodate.

Give it six months. Real adoption takes time. The discomfort of changing habits will push people toward abandonment. Don’t let “the tool isn’t quite right” become an excuse before you’ve genuinely tried.

The Boring Truth

Airtable, Monday, and Asana are all fine. So are ClickUp, Notion, Basecamp, and half a dozen others. They all have strengths and weaknesses. They all have passionate advocates. They all work well for businesses that use them consistently.

The difference between success and failure isn’t in the feature comparison. It’s in whether your team commits to a shared system and maintains that commitment over time.

This is boring advice. It’s not exciting to say “pick one and commit.” It’s more fun to debate features and evaluate options and feel like you’re optimizing.

But optimization is a distraction when the basics aren’t working. The basics are: one system, clear ownership, consistent behavior, no alternatives.

Get those right, and almost any tool will work. Get those wrong, and no tool will save you.

Systems Over Hours: Why the Best Work Is Invisible — Understanding why behavior matters more than tools.
Why Your CRM Isn’t Used — The same pattern in a different domain: tools without behavior change fail.

Croatian Translation

Sjedio sam na ovom sastanku desetak puta. Tim se okuplja da raspravlja koji alat za upravljanje projektima usvojiti. Netko zagovara Airtable—fleksibilan, prilagodljiv, moćan. Netko drugi želi Monday—čisto sučelje, vizualne ploče, lako za naučiti. Treća osoba predlaže Asana—etabliran, pouzdan, puno integracija.

Rasprava traje sat vremena. Možda dva. Rade se usporedbe. Dijele se screenshotovi. Analiziraju se cijene. Konstruiraju se matrice značajki.

Na kraju se donese odluka. Alat se kupi. Svi migriraju.

Tri mjeseca kasnije, isti problemi postoje. Alat je drugačiji. Disfunkcija je identična.

Alat rijetko je problem

Evo što sam primijetio kroz desetke tvrtki: problemi koje ljudi pripisuju alatima gotovo nikad nisu problemi alata.

“Ne možemo pravilno pratiti projekte.” To nije problem Airtable vs. Monday. To je problem “nitko ne ažurira status projekta dosljedno.”

“Zadaci propadaju kroz pukotine.” To nije ograničenje Asane. To je problem “nejasno vlasništvo nad dovršavanjem zadataka.”

“Nemamo vidljivost u ono što se događa.” To nije praznina u značajkama. To je problem “ljudi ne stavljaju informacije tamo gdje ih drugi mogu pronaći.”

Alati ne stvaraju odgovornost. Alati ne uspostavljaju vlasništvo. Alati ne prisiljavaju ljude da komuniciraju jasno. Alati su spremnici za ponašanje koje bi već trebalo postojati.

Zašto timovi raspravljaju o alatima

Rasprave o alatima su ugodne. Osjećaju se produktivno bez potrebe za neugodnim promjenama.

Rasprava o Airtable vs. Monday ne zahtijeva da itko prizna da nije ažurirao svoje zadatke. Usporedba setova značajki ne zahtijeva suočavanje s članom tima koji odbija koristiti bilo koji dijeljeni sustav. Procjena cjenovnih planova ne zahtijeva priznavanje da je pravi problem nejasno vlasništvo nad procesom.

Rasprave o alatima su također demokratske na način koji se čini sigurnim. Svi imaju mišljenja o sučeljima. Svi mogu sudjelovati u raspravi o cijenama. Razgovor ostaje apstraktan i neosoban.

Reći “trebamo pozvati Saru na odgovornost što ne ažurira ploču projekta” je neugodno. Reći “možda bi Monday bolje funkcionirao za nas” je lako.

Što se zapravo kvari

Kada alati za upravljanje projektima ne proizvode rezultate, pogledajte ova područja:

Nejasno vlasništvo. Tko je odgovoran da ovaj alat ostane točan? Ne tko ga koristi—tko ga posjeduje? U većini teških implementacija, odgovor je “svi” što znači “nitko.”

Nema posljedica. Što se događa kada netko ne ažurira svoje zadatke? Obično ništa. Sastanak se svejedno održi. Odluke se svejedno donesu. Alat postaje opcionalan, a opcionalni alati postaju nekorišteni alati.

Proces ne odgovara alatu. Svaki alat nameće neku strukturu—ploče, liste, vremenske crte, radne tokove. Ako vaš stvarni posao ne odgovara toj strukturi, ljudi stvaraju zaobilazna rješenja. Zaobilazna rješenja se akumuliraju dok alat ne postane više smetnja nego pomoć.

Nema jedinstvenog izvora istine. Informacije žive u alatu I u emailu I u Slacku I u glavama ljudi. Kada nema autoritativnog izvora, ljudi prestaju vjerovati bilo kojem izvoru.

Ovi problemi će vas pratiti od Airtablea do Mondaya do Asane do Notiona do čega god dođe sljedeće. Alat ne popravlja disfunkciju. Alat samo daje disfunkciji novu adresu.

Rasprava o alatima kao izbjegavanje

Ponekad je sama stalna potraga za boljim alatom simptom.

“Da samo imamo pravi alat, stvari bi funkcionirale.” Ovo uvjerenje omogućuje timovima izbjegavanje težeg razgovora: možda stvari ne funkcioniraju jer se nismo obvezali da ih natjeramo da funkcioniraju.

Promjena alata pruža privremeno olakšanje. Postoji energija oko nove stvari. Ljudi su angažirani tijekom postavljanja. Ali osim ako se temeljni problemi ne adresiraju, isti obrasci se pojave unutar tjedana.

Gledao sam tvrtke koje su prošle kroz tri alata za upravljanje projektima u dvije godine, svaki put uvjerene da će ovaj biti drugačiji. Problem nije bio alat nijedan od tih puta. Problem je bio tim koji se nije htio držati odgovornim bilo kojem sustavu.

Što bi zapravo pomoglo

Umjesto rasprave o alatima, pokušajte ovo:

Odaberite jedan i obvežite se. Ozbiljno. Odaberite bilo koju od mainstream opcija—sve rade dobro. Razlike između Airtablea, Mondaya i Asane su puno manje važne od toga koristi li vaš tim zapravo koji god da odaberete.

Odredite vlasnika. Jedna osoba je odgovorna da sustav funkcionira. Ona provjerava kvalitetu podataka. Prati kada se stvari ne ažuriraju. Vodi tjedni pregled. Smije gnjaviti ljude. Ovo nije opcionalno.

Definirajte ponašanje. Kada se zadatak kreira? Tko ga kreira? Kada se status ažurira? Što se događa na tjednom sastanku ako stvari nisu ažurne? Zapišite ove odgovore. Učinite ih eksplicitnima. Provodite ih.

Uklonite alternative. Ako status projekta živi u alatu, nemojte ga prihvaćati u emailu. Ako zadatak nije u sustavu, ne postoji. Ako netko vodi paralelni spreadsheet, to je problem koji treba adresirati, ne zaobilazno rješenje koje treba prilagoditi.

Dajte tome šest mjeseci. Prava adopcija zahtijeva vrijeme. Neugodnost mijenjanja navika će gurati ljude prema napuštanju. Ne dopustite da “alat baš nije pravi” postane izgovor prije nego što ste istinski pokušali.

Dosadna istina

Airtable, Monday i Asana su svi u redu. Isto tako ClickUp, Notion, Basecamp, i pola tuceta drugih. Svi imaju prednosti i mane. Svi imaju strastvene zagovornike. Svi rade dobro za tvrtke koje ih koriste dosljedno.

Razlika između uspjeha i neuspjeha nije u usporedbi značajki. U tome je li se vaš tim obvezao na dijeljeni sustav i održava tu obvezu tijekom vremena.

Ovo je dosadan savjet. Nije uzbudljivo reći “odaberite jedan i obvežite se.” Zabavnije je raspravljati o značajkama i procjenjivati opcije i osjećati se kao da optimizirate.

Ali optimizacija je distrakcija kada osnove ne funkcioniraju. Osnove su: jedan sustav, jasno vlasništvo, dosljedno ponašanje, bez alternativa.

Ispravite to, i gotovo bilo koji alat će raditi. Pogriješite to, i nijedan alat vas neće spasiti.

Povezano

Sustavi iznad sati: Zašto je najbolji rad nevidljiv — Razumijevanje zašto ponašanje znači više od alata.
Zašto se vaš CRM ne koristi — Isti obrazac u drugoj domeni: alati bez promjene ponašanja propadaju.