Are You Changing Tactics or Moving the Goal Posts?

When we change our minds about the goals of a project, delays often result. Changing goals can cause delays even when the changes narrow the scope of the project. Why do we make so many major changes so late in development? Two possible reasons are that some goal changes seem smaller than they really are, while other goal changes masquerade as changes in tactics.

Some goal changes seem smaller than they really are

Imagine that you're an office tower developer, and that your 188-story building in Singapore has in place about 80 stories of steel, 60 stories of concrete floors, and 40 stories of glass skin. One thing that won't be on the agenda of a status review meeting is switching to a different steel alloy for floors 1 through 50.

No one would consider changing something so basic so late in the project. Yet, in product development in other industries, this sort of thing happens maddeningly often. When schedules slip and budgets overrun, our first instinct — too often — is to change the design.

Using computers for new product development is one source of this problem. Whether the product is software, integrated circuits, or even legislation, products developed with software tools don't exist physically until development is fairly advanced. When we're building a skyscraper, the physical form of the building itself helps us see the folly of many proposed changes, but products developed using software tools often lack physical form. Because of this "software effect" we feel free to move the goal posts.

Some goal changes masquerade as changes in tactics

When the workpiece
isn't physical, but is
instead represented in
software, it often
seems more malleable
than it really is

Proximity to the troubles of the status quo lets us see the necessity of a change, but it also distorts our view of it. People who propose changes are usually very familiar with the reasons for the change, and very likely to see clearly — or be affected by — the consequences of not making the change. To the proposer, the change is necessary and merely tactical, while everyone else can see clearly that it's a change in goal.

Every project goes through changes, and we must learn to limit them. Too often, my change is a needed correction, while your change is needless feature-mongering. When a debate about a change has taken this form, it's possible that both sides are right — there is a real need to change tactics, but the change proposed to address that need is more than tactical.

So if you're about to propose a change, ask yourself: Am I actually moving the goal posts — are my perceptions affected by the "software effect?" And if the change is tactical: "Is it only tactical, or is it a change of goal too?"  Top    Next Issue

Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Project Management:

The Injured Teammate: II

You're a team lead, and one of the team members is suddenly very ill or has been severely injured. How do you handle it? Here are some suggestions for breaking the news to the team.

Long-Loop Conversations: Clearing the Fog

In virtual or global teams, conversations can be long, painful affairs. Settling issues and clearing misunderstandings can take weeks instead of days, or days instead of hours. Here are some techniques that ease the way to mutual agreement and understanding.

Projects as Proxy Targets: II

Most projects have both supporters and detractors. When a project has been approved and execution begins, some detractors don't give up. Here's Part II of a catalog of tactics detractors use to sow chaos.

Scope Creep, Hot Hands, and the Illusion of Control

Despite our awareness of scope creep's dangerous effects on projects and other efforts, we seem unable to prevent it. Two cognitive biases — the "hot hand fallacy" and "the illusion of control" — might provide explanations.

Wishful Thinking and Perception: I

How we see the world defines our experience of it, because our perception is our reality. But how we see the world isn't necessarily how the world is.

See also Project Management for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming July 8: Multi-Expert Consensus

Some working groups consist of experts from many fields. When they must reach a decision by consensus, members have several options. Defining those options in advance can help the group reach a decision with all its relationships intact. Available here and by RSS on July 8.

And on July 15: Disjoint Concept Vocabularies

In disputes or in problem solving sessions, when we can't seem to come to agreement, we often attribute the difficulty to miscommunication, histories of disagreements, hidden agendas, or "personality clashes." Sometimes the cause is much simpler. Sometimes the concept vocabularies of the parties don't overlap. Available here and by RSS on July 15.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info

Public seminars

The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power

Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.

• A recording of a program presented June 29, 2017, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.
   

Bullet Points: Mastery or Madness?

Decision-makers in modern organizations commonly demand briefings in the form of bullet points or a series of series of bullet points. But this form of presentation has limited value for complex decisions. We need something more. We actually need to think. Briefers who combine the bullet-point format with a variety of persuasion techniques can mislead decision-makers, guiding them into making poor decisions. Read more about this program.

• A recording of a program presented June 24, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.