“Fail early and fail cheap,” is the motto at Suncorp, a financial services firm in Brisbane, Australia. If a project is floundering, the project’s executive sponsor is expected to identify the problem and make a decision about what to do before major resources are wasted.

Adrian McKnight, executive general manager of group partnering, faced this situation in 2008 with a large, year-long project to update the company’s project portfolio management systems. The initiative would change the way business units managed project resource allocation, planning and prioritisation, requiring more cross-functional teamwork and decision-making.

The initial project idea was approved, and the project moved to the planning stage. That involved building a team and defining a more detailed view of the scope, timeline, budget and goals of the project.

To be successful, the project required changes to the way roles were structured, and how work was managed across divisions. During the planning stage, however, the team discovered that many of the divisions were already dealing with several other large change initiatives. “It became clear to us that some parts of the business were not ready for the degree of change necessary for this project to be successful,” says Mr McKnight.

As part of the planning phase, the core team, including stakeholders and subject matter experts, came together to discuss the viability of the project and likelihood of success before moving it forward. The meeting addressed change-management issues.

“It was not so much an analysis as a dialogue,” Mr McKnight says. “The business unit managers raised concerns about the level of change required, and how it would fit into the broader change that had already been undertaken, and the current project roadmaps.”

Although everyone agreed the project was a good idea, that dialogue led to the decision that the time was not right to roll it out. The project was then suspended.

“Individual projects often look good on their own, but taking a step back allows you to see the implications in the context of other projects, and other business factors that need to be considered,” Mr McKnight says. “You’ve got to understand how your project fits into the larger organisation.”

The team was comfortable with the amount of change this project required in isolation, but when they put it in the broader context of the portfolio, they recognised the high likelihood of failure. The project lasted only a few weeks, and the team was moved to new activities. “I am confident that assigning them to other projects made them more productive, and we received a higher return on the investment for their work,” Mr McKnight says.