Magazine Spring 2017 Issue Research Feature

Protect Your Project From Escalating Doubts

Important projects can easily get caught in a downward spiral if key stakeholders start questioning the project’s progress and withdrawing support. Savvy executives should be aware of common issues that can cause stakeholder skepticism — and take action to avert the “cycle of doubt” before it takes hold.

Karen A. Brown, Nancy Lea Hyer, and Richard Ettenson Reading Time: 27 min 

Topics

Permissions and PDF
Brown Ettenson Protect Project Escalating Doubts

Your project began with a bang. The launch created positive buzz, and you have a solid plan to deliver on the initiative’s value proposition. Stakeholders who will drive the project forward are squarely behind it. What could go wrong?

Plenty, as it turns out. But some leaders are unaware that great projects with strong starts can stumble and fall into what we call the “cycle of doubt,” when support wanes or dissipates, delivery is imperiled, and objectives go unmet. Others may recognize the potential for diminishing post-launch support among key contributors but are not attuned to the telltale warning signs, nor do they have safeguards in place to protect a project’s reputation and momentum against a downward spiral.

Consider the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) NextGen satellite-based air traffic system initiative, which has a broad network of contributors crucial to delivery, including the FAA, airports, airlines, and aircraft manufacturers. Project advocates emphasize the technology’s value in modernizing and improving the efficiency of the entire U.S. National Airspace System. Despite its compelling raison d’être (and the fact that the FAA has been on time and on budget installing advanced towers for tracking aircraft1), the multibillion-dollar NextGen project has fallen into the cycle of doubt. If the FAA’s ground towers are to achieve their intended purpose, the U.S. airline industry must update the technology on its aircraft, at a cost of billions of dollars.2 However, many airlines have been less than enthusiastic about proceeding because they lack faith in the FAA’s ability to ensure timely delivery of related aspects of the project (such as training for controllers) that are necessary for its success. Why?

According to an executive with the trade group Airlines for America, “There’s history here. … We have equipped our planes at great expense, and then it takes the FAA three years to train controllers and design processes where we can benefit.”3 Because of such doubts, most carriers have been slow to implement the new technology. In 2015, the FAA agreed to allow airlines to apply for extensions of the 2020 installation deadline to as late as 2025 for some satellite navigation upgrades.4 Meanwhile, in 2016, a U.S.

Topics

About the Authors

Karen A. Brown, who passed away in 2016 after the initial draft of this article was written, was a professor emerita of operations and project leadership at Thunderbird School of Global Management in Glendale, Arizona. Nancy Lea Hyer is an associate professor of operations management at Vanderbilt University’s Owen Graduate School of Management in Nashville, Tennessee. Brown and Hyer coauthored the book Managing Projects: A Team-Based Approach (McGraw-Hill, 2009). Richard Ettenson is a professor and Thelma H. Kieckhefer Research Fellow of Global Marketing and Brand Strategy at Thunderbird School of Global Management at Arizona State University.

References (24)

1. S. Carey and A. Pasztor, “Report Faults Rollout of Air-Traffic-Control Upgrade,” The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 24, 2014.

2. Ibid.; and S. Carey, “The FAA’s $40 Billion Adventure: Years Late, a High-Tech ‘NextGen’ Project to Unsnarl U.S. Aviation Is Beginning to Speed Flights,” The Wall Street Journal, Aug. 19, 2013.

Show All References

Tags:

Reprint #:

58309

More Like This

Add a comment

You must to post a comment.

First time here? Sign up for a free account: Comment on articles and get access to many more articles.

Comments (2)
Pablo Manriquez
For me, this is a great article to revisit tonight for guidance on a night of missed sleep over my concept, which is yet unproved. 

Also, earlier this year, this article taught me the world colocate, which I often use now, if for no other reason than to see who else doesn't know what 'colocate' means either. I'm guessing most people don't know what it means, but can't say for sure.  That's a question for another study, I suppose.

Okay, back to 1) Prove the concept. 

Wish me luck!  Thanks again!
Paul Teeuwen
As for 2 (Keep it short or break it up) TOGAF and Archimate have the concepts of Transiition Architectures and Plateaus which help to define the intermediate steps.
Key point is that each step should have business value – it is not just an internal project step.

Especially in IT, point 7 (Revitalize a project with outside resources) can create more problems than it solves. Often it is a sign of doing too many projects at the same time.
Some companies now take an alternative path, in having a fixed number of people available for projects, and only approving projects that fit in this fixed bandwidth. Extending this bandwidth is only done in the yearly planning, not for one project at a time,
undefined