Downscoping Under Pressure: I

In the project context, downscoping is the process of redefining the goals of the project to a more restricted set of goals. Downscoping under pressure is downscoping that happens when there is a general sense that budget and/or schedule objectives are probably unachievable. In that situation, downscoping is proposed as a means of setting achievable goals. If those new goals remain out of reach even after downscoping, the hope is that downscoping will enable the project to miss the goals by a slimmer margin.

Things don't always work out as we hope. Downscoping can produce disappointing results for two classes of reasons. First, if the size or complexity of the effort isn't contributing to the problem, tweaking the effort's size or complexity probably won't help much, and might even exacerbate the problem. Second, assuming that size and complexity are part of the problem, the way we tweak size and complexity might miss the mark.

In this post and the next, I examine downscoping from the effectiveness perspective, beginning with the conditions that most affect its usefulness.

When downscoping is most likely

Downscoping Downscoping under pressure is
unfortunately vulnerable to
a number of anti-patternsis often used in the hope that if we try to do less, we can reduce expenditures and we can complete the project earlier. It might actually work that way if we apply downscoping very early in the project. But downscoping under pressure is different.

Downscoping rarely happens early in the project, when hopes are high and people are excited about the project's prospects. When downscoping happens later in the project, it happens because there is a general consensus that budget and/or schedule objectives are unachievable. People feel the pressure, and they see downscoping as a way to relieve that pressure. But at that point, significant chunks of work have been completed. And that affects the way the project team makes decisions about downscoping.

Downscoping under pressure is unfortunately vulnerable to a number of antipatterns. In this post, I examine the effects of politics on downscoping effectiveness. In the next post I examine the effects of some cognitive biases.

The politics of downscoping

Political actors can use the downscoping process to focus discussion of goal elimination on the parts of the project their rivals favor. They do this to gain political advantage, and that's understandable. What is less benign is how these actions can conflict with important business objectives. That is, the downscoping can lead to project objectives that meet the needs of political actors better than they meet the needs of the organization.

That's where the trouble begins. For example, some projects include preparatory work that must be completed before certain subsequent projects can begin. Sometimes this is done to reduce the cost of testing, when the preparatory work affects the same components as the "main" work of the project. This preparatory work can be highest in priority to be eliminated in downscoping, when doing so doesn't affect nearer-term objectives. When the preparatory work is eliminated in downscoping, and when future projects require it, the consequences can be severely negative as they propagate into the future.

In an ironic twist, sometimes the projects most affected in the future are those favored by the political actor who directed the downscoping at the parts of the present project most favored by the actor's rival.

Preview of next time

In the next post, I examine the effects of some cognitive biases on the decision process associated with downscoping.   Next issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

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.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

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 Workplace Politics:

Is It Blame or Is It Accountability?

When we seek those accountable for a particular failure, we risk blaming them instead, because many of us confuse accountability with blame. What's the difference between them? How can we keep blame at bay?

Are You a Fender?

Taking political risks is part of the job, especially if you want the challenges and rewards that come with increased responsibility. That's fair. But some people manage political risks by offloading them onto subordinates. Be certain that the risk burden you carry is really your own — and that you carry all of it yourself.

Before You Blow the Whistle: II

When organizations become aware of negligence, miscalculations, failures, wrongdoing, or legal infractions, they often try to conceal the bad news. People who disagree with the concealment activity sometimes decide to reveal what the organization is trying to hide. Here's Part II of our catalog of methods used to suppress the truth.

The Utility Pole Anti-Pattern: II

Complex organizational processes can delay action. They can set people against one other and prevent organizations from achieving their objectives. In this Part II of our examination of these complexities, we look into what keeps processes complicated, and how to deal with them.

Surviving Incompetence: II

When your organization undertakes a misguided effort that will certainly fail, you have options. One is to head for the exit. To search for a new position in such circumstances requires some care. Example: an internal transfer might not really be an exit.

See also Workplace Politics and Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.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 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info