Part 2 - How logical reactions can make things worse
This is part 2 of my series celebrating the 5th Anniversary of my book The Complex Project Toolkit (Missed Part 1? Catch up here)
In Return of the Jedi, Darth Vader, on arriving at the new Death Star, says, “You may dispense with the pleasantries, Commander. I'm here to put you back on schedule.” (Not what you want to hear when you are accountable for a major infrastructure project)
That line is the conventional view of fixing projects in trouble – apply a task-focused, highly analytical approach to push on through the problems and noise and recapture the schedule.
However, complex projects are connected and subjective. No single person has a view of the whole system. If your approach doesn’t match the nature of the problem, you are going to have more friction and more problems. It is like getting a bigger hammer when what you really need is a screwdriver.
Five Reactions to Avoid
When a project starts to slip, it is easy to reach for the standard list of responses. These can work for a well-defined and stable project, but in a complex one they only make matters worse.
Each response below looks and feels like a sensible reaction, yet each creates more problems than it solves.
The standard playbook when projects are in trouble:
1. "Deliver Something" (Quick-Win Fallacy)
Logic: Scoring early "runs on the board" builds momentum and demonstrates a delivery mindset.
Reality: Quick wins often give the illusion of progress without resolving root causes. For example, a project rushed the regulatory sign-off of a new vehicle design, which made it harder to adjust the design. Early choices carry high leverage and are costly to undo. Delivering too soon can lock you into a corner you didn’t see.
2. "Improve the Plan" (Illusion of Prediction)
Logic: A more detailed plan ensures everyone knows what to do.
Reality: Complex problems are "wicked". Every intervention alters the system, meaning the plan rarely survives first contact with reality. Team energy gets sucked into regularly updating an instantly obsolete document, distracting everyone from discovering what actually matters.
3. "Get More Detail" (Delusion of Data)
Logic: We lack certainty because we haven't done enough analysis.
Reality: In ambiguous situations, some answers only emerge through action. In connected systems, gathering more data brings forward more questions, not clarity. Worse, shifting numbers erode confidence rather than build it. Instead of pulling the problem into finer pieces, step back to view the whole system.
4. "Trust the Documentation" (The World Isn’t Static)
Logic: The contract or scope document is an objective, stable source of truth.
Reality: Documents (particularly contracts) are written at the start of a project without full information and rarely change as the world moves on. A contract primarily defines how to behave when a relationship breaks down; relying on it for day-to-day operations signals that the project is already in trouble.
5. "Change the Team " (The Blame Game)
Logic: Replace the individual/team because they lack the ability to deliver this.
Reality: Many project failures are because of the whole operating model. To paraphrase Warren Buffet: when a good manager meets a bad business, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact. Sometimes it is necessary to inject fresh energy, but a new team only works if it brings a genuinely different perspective to address the underlying complexity.
All five create a dangerous illusion of improvement and can delay interventions on the real cause.
They might feel good in the moment, but it is just kicking the can down the road. And it will come back to bite you later.
The cure has to match the cause
When you start to worry about a project going off the rails, pause, step back and look at the whole system. Ask yourself and your team:
Do I really know the root cause of what is going on? (‘five whys’ is a good technique for this.)
What would need to be true for the current plan to succeed?
Can we reframe or bring a different lens to check we are solving the right problem in the best way?
Whose perspective or opinion is missing from this discussion?
These techniques rest on the idea of ‘problem finding’. Go searching for the real problem rather than instantly solving the headline symptom.
Standard management methods work exceptionally well for linear problems. But when a challenge is social and wicked, make sure your toolkit matches the reality on the ground.
Coming Up in Part 3: We bought the wrong thinking model.
Want to dive deeper into these ideas?
Download the first section of the book for free at www.kieranduck.com.
Grab a copy on Amazon or reach out to me directly (kieran@kieranduck.com) if you’d like a signed copy. These ideas are adapted from Chapter 3, which breaks down this conundrum in more detail.
