Project de-escalation refers to closing a project before completion. There exist signs which warn managers on the need for project de-escalation. Foremost is when the project demands more money than the budgeted amount to keep it going. Nonetheless, that is a sign that all may not be well with the implementation of the project and it may lead to huge loss. In such a case, the management may decide to just stop the project. Second is the change in the general mood of the project’s management. When project managers face hurdles which may necessitate de-escalation, they will most probably show signs of humiliation by the project in their general mood. Another warning sign is untimeliness. A project whose completion keeps on being pushed further is potentially destined to fail (Keil, 14). Consequently, such projects call for a de-escalation to prevent pumping so many resources into a project whose future is wanting.
De-escalation refers to abandoning a certain project before completion. Managers may choose not to de-escalate, despite seeing the warning signs, due to a small salvage value of the project coupled with high closing costs. Through de-escalation of such projects, an organization may be required to pay terminated employees, cover for the losses incurred by the closure of the projects as well as face penalties for breach of contract. Similarly, the nature of the project may discourage the decision to de-escalate since some disruptions may cause many challenges to the administration. For instance, some instances of de-escalation may coerce the organization will to change its policies on corporate layoffs and move personnel to new stations of work which may compromise the hiring process as well as the seniority system. At such circumstances, it would only be advisable not to make such a decision.
The decision to de-escalate is not so easy. Nonetheless, once it becomes of the essence, it is important to involve any person who is party to the project. A non-technical manager, for instance, may require the use of simple language to understand the reason behind de-escalation. The non-technical management is well aware of the costs which the projects have incurred and hence requires that the explanation is strong, courteous and show that all is not lost. For instance, I can explain what the problem may be, in a language which the management will comprehend. Similarly, I may explain what inputs need to be made, when the project may resume, financial advantages of de-escalation as well as any other information about the project's de-escalation.
When explaining to the non-technical people, I would require using an analogy. For instance, I may compare the project to a leaking tank. Although water may be pumped into the tank, it will simultaneously be draining water. Without discovering the leaking point, however, more water will continue to be pumped into the water but the tank will keep on leaking and with no time it will be drained. The tank may be used to represent the resources being put into the project while the level of the water in the tank may refer to the progress being made. The leakage may be used to refer to the unknown circumstances derailing the project. The non-technical people will understand that the organization is pumping resources into the project, but there is a major problem which first needs to be identified to allow the completion of the project. Through the use of such and other analogies, the non-technical staff may understand the reason behind the decision to de-escalate with much ease.
Work Cited
Keil, Mark and Magnus Mähring. "Is your project turning into a black hole?" California Management Review 53.1 (2010): 6-31.
