Why Halting Your Project During the First Steps of Recovery Is Essential

10. März 2018
Kategorien
Newsletter abonnieren

When you know that you have a seriously troubled software project at your hands the first step in the process of recovery is halting all development activity.

Would it not be better to have the project, which is already late and over budget, continue while the recovery process is being implemented? There are five good reasons why the recovery process will have more difficulty to succeed if development continues in parallel.
1) The recovery process requires the full involvement of the key project members. Project Manager, Developers, Scrum Master, Product Owner, Product Manager, Business Analysts, Stakeholders, and so on. If development is not halted those key persons will be scrambling to keep the project going. Halting the project ensures that everyone is completely focused on the recovery process, and thus increase the likelihood that this process will succeed.
2) Project recovery requires painful decisions to be made by the key stakeholders and team members. Reducing scope, increasing budget, rebuilding the team, hiring and firing, and so on. It is only natural that there will be resistance to these changes. Experience shows that it is highly unlikely that the necessary decisions will be made and a feasible project will be re-defined unless everyone involved understands that the project will not be allowed to continue in the current mode that has led to this situation. 
3) Troubled projects will have a large amount of sunk costs. Continuing development on a scope that will be disregarded in the Tradeoff and Negotiation Phase will just add to these sunk costs and frustration of the development team.  
4) In my experience often part of the reason why software development projects end in a disaster is the software development process and practices that are used. Unless they are validated as decent or better, continuing development makes to problem worse instead of better.  
5) Halting the project sends a very strong message that this time «we are serious». It clearly sets the recovery process apart from all previous attempts to get the project back on track by conventional means like adding people, working overtime, extending the schedule, and so on.
After the project is halted the Review Phase of the recovery process can start.
Tags

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #11 – Risk Mitigation vs. Innovation

7. Mai 2026

Professional services firms are designed to minimize risk. Their business model depends on trust, reputation, and consistency. Clients rely on them for assurance, judgment, and reliability, which means failure is not just a delivery issue, but a firm-level risk. A single incident can have disproportionate consequences, whether through litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or reputational damage. That

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #10 – Client Intimacy vs. Platform Standardization

28. April 2026

Professional services firms win through relationships. The closer they are to the client, the more value they create. Understanding the client’s context, adapting to their needs, shaping solutions around specific situations rather than applying generic ones. That is where trust is built, where differentiation happens, and where premium pricing becomes possible. Standardization moves in the

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #8 – Short-Term Revenue vs. Long-Term Capability

23. April 2026

Professional services firms are built around revenue. Revenue is visible, measurable, and immediate. It drives partner compensation, signals performance, and anchors decision-making across the firm. Every client won, every project sold, every hour billed translates directly into current-year outcomes. Capability building works differently. It requires investment upfront, often without immediate return, and pays off over

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #7 – Partner Autonomy vs. Firm-Level Strategy

18. April 2026

One of the defining features of professional services firms is partner autonomy. Partners are expected to build and run their own business. They originate clients, grow revenue, manage teams, and are rewarded based on the performance of what they directly control. This creates strong ownership, high accountability, and a culture where individual success is tightly

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #6 – Service Lines vs. Firm

16. April 2026

One of the most persistent illusions in professional services is the idea of “one firm.” From the outside, large firms present themselves as unified organizations. One brand, one client proposition, one set of capabilities delivered across audit, tax, advisory, and deals. The expectation is clear: if the firm is integrated in the market, it should

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #5 – Global Standardization vs. Local Economics

12. April 2026

One of the least discussed challenges in large transformation programs is the illusion of standardization. From the outside, global professional services firms look highly uniform. One brand, one set of services, one methodology, delivered across countries in a way that suggests consistency and control. Audit, tax, consulting, deals all appear to operate within the same

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #4 – Accountability vs. Alignment

1. April 2026

In large transformation programs, accountability is rarely missing. It is distributed. It sits with executive sponsors, steering committees, transformation offices, service line leaders, and partner groups, each with a defined role and a legitimate claim to involvement. On paper, this creates alignment. In practice, it often removes ownership, because when accountability is spread across too

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #3 – Long-Term Investment vs. Short-Term Management

27. März 2026

One of the most underestimated constraints in professional services transformation is not technology, capability, or even funding. It is time. Real transformation takes longer than most firms are structurally able to tolerate. Core systems such as ERP platforms, data architectures, AI capabilities, or global workflow solutions are not incremental improvements. They are foundational changes. They

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #2 – Internal vs. Client Execution

26. März 2026

One of the most persistent, and least openly discussed, tensions in professional services firms lies in how they execute their own transformations. It is a tension that does not reveal itself in strategy decks or partner presentations, but in the day-to-day reality of large internal programs that quietly struggle to deliver. At first glance, the

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #1 – Technology Alliances vs. Internal Fit

20. März 2026

This article is part of a series exploring the tensions at the core of the Professional Services Transformation Paradox. The paradox itself is straightforward, yet deeply consequential. Firms that excel at transforming their clients often struggle to transform themselves. Not because they lack capability, but because their own structures, incentives, and operating models create resistance

Weiterlesen
Next