Why High-Performing Organizations Know When to Stop
Most organizations celebrate starting projects. Few celebrate stopping them.
Launch announcements are public. Budgets are approved with optimism. Teams are mobilized with enthusiasm. Sponsors speak about opportunity, innovation, and transformation. But when the time comes to terminate a project—especially one that looked promising on paper—silence often replaces strategy.
Yet mature organizations understand a counterintuitive truth: killing projects is not a failure of governance. It is evidence of governance working.
In portfolio environments driven by Benefit Realisation Management (BRM), stopping initiatives that no longer create sufficient value is not an embarrassment. It is a disciplined act of strategic clarity.
This article explores why project termination is essential to portfolio health, how organizations can institutionalize intelligent exit decisions, and why the courage to stop may be the clearest signal of strategic maturity.
The Emotional Bias Against Termination
One of the greatest barriers to portfolio optimization is not analytical—it is psychological.
Projects accumulate emotional investment. Sponsors attach their credibility to them. Teams invest effort and identity. Sunk costs distort judgment. Political capital is at stake. No one wants to admit that the original assumptions may no longer hold.
But portfolios are not museums of past decisions. They are living systems of future value.
The longer an underperforming project remains active, the more it silently consumes scarce resources: budget, leadership attention, technical expertise, stakeholder capacity, and organizational energy. The real cost is not just financial—it is opportunity cost. Every low-value initiative occupies space that could be allocated to higher-impact change.
Strategically mature organizations recognize this early. They replace ego with evidence.
Portfolio Thinking vs. Project Thinking
Project management focuses on delivering scope, time, and cost commitments. Portfolio management focuses on maximizing aggregate value under constraints.
These are not the same perspective.
A project may be perfectly well executed—on time, on budget, within scope—yet still be the wrong investment in a changing environment. Market conditions shift. Strategy evolves. Risk tolerance changes. Regulatory or technological dynamics alter assumptions.
In portfolio thinking, the critical question is not:
“Is the project being delivered correctly?”
But rather:
“Should this project continue to exist in the portfolio?”
This shift from delivery excellence to value optimization marks a transition from operational management to strategic governance.
Value Is Not Static
Many organizations approve projects based on a business case that was accurate at a specific moment in time. But value is dynamic.
Expected benefits may erode. Costs may rise. Dependencies may become riskier. Strategic priorities may change. New initiatives with higher potential return may emerge.
Without continuous portfolio review, organizations operate under outdated assumptions.
Benefit Realisation Management introduces a discipline that continuously reassesses:
- Alignment with strategy
- Likelihood of benefit realization
- Risk of non-achievement
- Organizational impact
- Resource burden
- Timing of benefits
When these factors deteriorate below acceptable thresholds, termination becomes a rational outcome—not a dramatic one.
The Real Signal of Maturity
Organizations that cannot kill projects reveal structural weaknesses:
- Weak governance authority
- Politicized decision-making
- Fear-based culture
- Poor benefit tracking
- Inability to distinguish activity from value
By contrast, strategically mature organizations demonstrate:
- Clear review criteria
- Transparent evaluation mechanisms
- Objective benefit measurement
- Portfolio-level risk assessment
- Leadership willing to make unpopular decisions
In these environments, stopping a project is not personal. It is structural.
When Should a Project Be Terminated?
Project termination should not be arbitrary. It must be based on defined review factors applied consistently across the portfolio.
Common triggers include:
- Loss of Strategic Alignment
If a project no longer supports the organization’s mission or current priorities, its continuation must be questioned. - Deterioration of Net Value
If revised benefit projections minus realistic cost forecasts result in insufficient value, continuation becomes economically unjustified. - Poor Application of BRM
A project with high theoretical ROI but weak benefit management capability may never deliver its promise. - Excessive Organizational Impact
If stakeholder overload threatens broader transformation stability, portfolio-level balance may require removal. - Resource Constraints
When high-value initiatives compete for limited expertise, low-value projects must release capacity. - Dependency Risk
If upstream initiatives fail or shift, dependent projects may lose viability.
The decision should never rely solely on one metric. Portfolio evaluation must balance value, risk, complexity, stakeholder impact, and BRM maturity.
The Portfolio Evaluation Matrix Mindset
Advanced portfolio environments often use structured matrices to guide action. For example:
- Net value to the business (low to high)
- Quality of BRM application (low to high)
Projects falling into the low-value / low-BRM quadrant are obvious candidates for termination.
Medium-value / weak-BRM projects may require improvement or re-scoping.
High-value / strong-BRM initiatives should continue and possibly receive additional support.
This structured approach reduces emotional bias. It shifts conversations from personalities to parameters.
The Courage to Free Resources
Terminating a project does more than remove cost—it liberates capability.
Every canceled initiative releases:
- Budget
- Executive bandwidth
- Specialist expertise
- Change capacity
- Organizational focus
These freed resources can then be redirected toward initiatives with higher expected impact.
This is where maturity becomes visible. Mature portfolios do not attempt to do everything. They concentrate on what matters most.
The principle is simple: do less, but make it count for more.
Cultural Foundations for Intelligent Termination
Killing projects responsibly requires a culture that:
- Accepts evidence over ego
- Encourages transparency
- Separates decision from blame
- Rewards learning
- Views termination as optimization, not failure
If termination is perceived as a political defeat, leaders will avoid it. If it is understood as disciplined portfolio management, it becomes normal.
One powerful cultural signal is post-termination learning. Organizations should formally document:
- Why assumptions failed
- What signals were missed
- What early indicators could improve future selection
- How benefit forecasting can be strengthened
This converts termination from loss into institutional intelligence.
The Role of the Portfolio Board
The authority to kill projects must sit at the appropriate governance level.
A Portfolio Board or equivalent executive body must have:
- Clear mandate
- Transparent review criteria
- Access to reliable performance data
- Independence from operational politics
- Regular review cadence
Without this structure, termination decisions become inconsistent and reactive.
Strong boards monitor continuously and intervene early. They do not wait for catastrophic failure.
Avoiding the Two Extreme Errors
Immature portfolios typically oscillate between two extremes:
- Killing nothing
The portfolio becomes bloated, diluted, and strategically incoherent. - Killing impulsively
Short-term fluctuations trigger panic decisions without holistic analysis.
Strategic maturity lies in disciplined balance.
Termination decisions should be:
- Data-informed
- Multi-factor assessed
- Strategically contextualized
- Transparent
- Timely
Not reactive. Not emotional. Not political.
The Hidden Risk: Doing Nothing
There is another dimension often overlooked.
The risk of non-achievement of benefits must be balanced against the risk of inaction.
In some cases, continuing a struggling project may still be preferable to abandoning it if:
- No alternative exists
- Regulatory compliance is mandatory
- Strategic capability would otherwise disappear
Termination is not automatically correct. It is correct only when comparative portfolio analysis indicates that value is better created elsewhere.
Maturity means understanding this nuance.
Portfolio Fluidity as a Competitive Advantage
In fast-moving industries—technology, healthcare, financial services, digital platforms—the ability to dynamically reconfigure investment is a strategic weapon.
Organizations that cling to outdated initiatives become slow. Organizations that reallocate decisively remain adaptive.
Fluid portfolios outperform rigid ones.
The capacity to start quickly matters. The capacity to stop intelligently matters even more.
From Activity to Achievement
There is a well-known warning: never mistake activity for achievement.
A portfolio full of projects may look impressive in dashboards and reports. But if those projects are not generating measurable, aligned benefits, they are simply consuming energy.
Strategic maturity demands brutal honesty about this distinction.
Success is not measured by how many initiatives are running. It is measured by the net value delivered.
Building Termination into the System
Organizations that institutionalize maturity embed termination checkpoints into their lifecycle:
- Stage-gate reviews
- Benefit realization audits
- Annual portfolio rebalancing
- Resource reallocation cycles
- External independent review
When exit mechanisms are designed upfront, termination is not dramatic. It is procedural.
It becomes part of the normal rhythm of governance.
The Strategic Paradox
The paradox of portfolio management is this:
The stronger the governance, the fewer projects survive without scrutiny.
The healthier the portfolio, the more projects will be stopped along the way.
This is not instability. It is discipline.
Strategically mature organizations understand that saying “no” is as important as saying “yes.” That stopping is sometimes the fastest path to progress. That courage in governance is quieter than launch announcements—but far more consequential.
Final Reflection
Killing projects is not a sign that an organization makes bad decisions. It is a sign that it corrects them.
It demonstrates:
- Commitment to value over vanity
- Alignment over inertia
- Learning over ego
- Strategy over activity
In portfolio environments guided by Benefit Realisation Management, termination is not a failure event. It is a portfolio optimization action.
And perhaps the clearest indicator that governance is doing its job.
Reach a global audience of portfolio, program, and project managers, product leaders, and certification professionals. Explore advertising opportunities .
Sponsored