Sometimes the right answer is to stop. Here's how to recognize when continuing is throwing good money after bad.
The hardest decision in transformation: knowing when to stop.
Everyone wants to believe the programme can be saved. Sunk costs make stopping feel like admitting failure. Political pressure demands visible progress.
But sometimes continuing is worse than stopping.
Here are the warning signs.
Sign: Original business case assumed 40% cost reduction. Six months in, analysis shows maximum achievable is 15%.
Question: Is 15% reduction worth the remaining £8M investment?
Often: No. But political pressure says "we've come this far."
Right answer: Stop if ROI doesn't stack up with realistic benefits.
Sign: Original scope: £5M. Current scope: £14M. Budget: £5M.
Options:
Often: Wishful thinking that £9M will appear.
Right answer: Reduce to achievable scope or stop.
Sign: Ministers/leadership no longer attend governance meetings. Questions are skeptical, not supportive.
Implication: Political capital is gone. Even if you deliver, it won't be valued.
Right answer: Sometimes programmes become politically un survivable regardless of delivery.
Sign: Contract disputes, missed milestones, blame culture, commercial standoff.
Reality: Vendor relationships that fail rarely recover.
Options:
Often: Better to stop, learn lessons, start fresh.
Sign: Programme assumed legacy system support until 2027. Vendor just announced end-of-support 2025.
Implication: Timescales, dependencies, and sequencing all now wrong.
Question: Does the programme still make sense with new assumptions?
Often: No, but nobody wants to admit it.
Bad logic: "We've already spent £4M, we can't stop now."
Question: Would you start this programme today knowing what you know now?
If no: Continuing is throwing good money after bad.
Hard truth: £4M already gone. Question is whether spending £4M more delivers value.
Better than total write-off: Reduce scope, save what's achievable, stop the rest.
Example: (From our Gibraltar case study)
Key: Honest assessment of what's salvageable vs what's lost.
Step 1: Honest diagnosis (usually needs external eyes)
Questions:
Step 2: Options analysis
Don't just ask "continue or stop?"
Ask: "Continue as-is, reduce scope, pivot approach, or stop?"
Step 3: ROI calculation with realistic assumptions
If ROI < acceptable threshold, stop.
Step 4: Political assessment
Even if ROI works, if political capital is gone, delivery won't be valued.
Step 5: Decide and communicate
Worst option: drift. Decide and act.
Why it's hard:
Why it's sometimes right:
Most consultancies won't recommend stopping (because they lose revenue).
We do (because it's sometimes the right answer).
Example: Malta case study - we told client not to start one procurement because benefits didn't stack up. Cost us £200K in potential fees. Saved them £2M.
Example: Gibraltar case study - we recommended stopping 3 of 7 workstreams. Reduced our scope. Right answer for client.
To your consultants: "Under what conditions would you recommend we stop this programme?"
Good answer: Specific conditions, honest assessment, no BS.
Bad answer: "We never recommend stopping" (translation: we'll take your money regardless).
Related:
Want to explore how these ideas apply to your organization? Let's talk.
Get in touch