Why we often continue with failing projects for far too long

Project status: amber. Again. We need one more quarter, two more hires and a final push to discover whether the hole has a basement.

Stopping makes loss official. Continuing lets everyone preserve the fantasy that past money, reputation and PowerPoint promises may yet be rescued. So the software migration eats another budget, the weak campaign receives “optimisation” and the empty shop waits for Christmas. Each extension is sold as protecting the original investment, although sunk money has no feelings and cannot be protected. Persistence sounds courageous because surrender sounds painful, even when courage now consists of invoicing the future for yesterday’s pride.

Exit conditions belong at the beginning, before ownership develops teeth. Record the assumptions, milestones and evidence that mean stop, continue or change course. Invite somebody who did not sponsor the original decision to challenge the current one. Separate the cost of stopping from the embarrassment of admitting why. Then ask the rude question: knowing what we know now, would we start today? Transition costs may still justify a managed exit rather than an immediate axe. But every new pound must defend itself on future value. Ending a bad bet refuses to purchase the old loss again. Fresh money deserves fresh scrutiny.

Behavioural principles

Behavioural ideas at play in this post

Short, plain-English explanations of the principles behind this post, with links to related books and examples in the archive.