PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12577652

Why bad projects are so hard to kill.

Abstract

Even at the prototype stage, experts were saying the technology was obsolete. Yet, in the face of tepid consumer response, the company stubbornly kept increasing production capacity and developing new models. By the time it was finally killed, the initiative had cost the company an astounding $580 million and had tied up resources for 14 years. The product was RCA's SelectaVision videodisc recorder, and its story is hardly unique. Companies make similar mistakes--if on a somewhat smaller scale--all the time. But why? No one comes to work saying, "I'm going to pursue a project that will waste my company millions of dollars." Quite the opposite. They come to work full of excitement about a project they believe in. And that, surprisingly, can be the root of all the trouble--a fervent belief in the inevitability of a project's ultimate success. Starting, naturally enough, with a project's champion, this faith can spread throughout the organization, leading everyone to believe collectively in the product's viability and to view any signs of impending doom merely as temporary setbacks. This phenomenon is documented here in two chillingly detailed case studied, one involving Essilor, the world's largest maker of corrective lenses for eyeglasses, and the other involving Lafarge, the largest producer of building materials. By counterexample, they point the way toward avoiding such morasses: assembling project teams not entirely composed of like-minded people and putting in place--and sticking to--well-defined review processes. Both cases also show that if it takes a project champion to get a project up and running, it may take a new kind of organizational player--an "exit champion"--to push an irrationally exuberant organization to admit when enough is enough.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Isabelle Royer. 2003. Why bad projects are so hard to kill.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12577652/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

ACOG Committee Opinion No. 359: commercial enterprises in medical practice.

Increasing numbers of physicians sell and promote both medical and nonmedical products as part of their practices. Physicians always have rendered advice and treatment for a fee, and this practice is appropriate. It is unethical under most circumstances, however, for physicians to sell or promote medical or nonmedical products or services for their financial benefit. The following activities are considered unethical: sale of prescription drugs to be used at home, sale or promotion of nonprescription medicine, sale or promotion of presumptively therapeutic agents that generally are not accepted as part of standard medical practice, sale or promotion of non-health-related items, recruitment of patients or other health care professionals into multilevel marketing arrangements, and sale or promotion of any product in whose sale the physician has a significant financial interest. It is ethical and appropriate, however, to sell products to patients as follows: sale of devices or drugs that require professional administration in the office setting; sale of therapeutic agents, when no other facilities can provide them at reasonable convenience and at reasonable cost; sale of products that clearly are external to the patient-physician relationship, when such a sale would be considered appropriate in an external relationship; and sale of low-cost products for the benefit of community organizations. A rationale is provided for both the prohibited activities and exceptions.

Commerce↗