When should a team in Sion stop devoting time to a project?
Priorities are not set only when projects begin: they are reconsidered whenever a team allocates further time to them. The management question is precise: how can we distinguish justified continuation from commitment maintained because so much has already been invested?
What the literature establishes
Hal R. Arkes and Catherine Blumer (1985, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes) describe the sunk cost effect: a prior investment of money, effort or time can increase the tendency to continue a course of action. Their research highlights, in particular, the concern about appearing to waste resources already committed. For prioritisation, the essential distinction is between what has been irretrievably spent and what the next hours can still deliver.
When responsibility sustains commitment
Barry M. Staw (1976, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance) shows, in a resource allocation experiment, that personal responsibility for an initial decision can encourage further investment following unfavourable outcomes. The mechanism therefore goes beyond a simple calculation error: continuing may also serve to justify the earlier choice. Applied to the allocation of working time, this perspective invites scrutiny of who advocates continuation and on what grounds.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that a disappointing project should be stopped quickly; these studies do not justify that rule. Plausible future benefits, exit costs or safety obligations can make continuation reasonable. The deciding factor should not be past effort, but a comparison of the future consequences of the options genuinely available. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What these data cannot resolve
These studies do not evaluate how businesses in Sion allocate working hours. An allocation experiment or a choice situation cannot capture all the interdependencies within a project portfolio, and continuation alone does not establish bias. Nevertheless, everyday practice remains difficult to scrutinise when reasons for continuing are not recorded before outcomes become known.
A practical check in Sion
Within SHR — Swiss Human Resources' “Time Management & Prioritisation” programme, one possible exercise is to review every renewed allocation of hours to a struggling project over one month. In Sion, this could concern an improvement initiative in hydropower, an administrative project in healthcare, a wine-sector sales initiative or an alpine tourism offering, without treating safety and continuity obligations as optional. Before each decision, record the additional hours envisaged, the expected future outcome, an alternative use of those hours and the reason for continuing, scaling back or stopping. The verifiable measure is the proportion of decisions supported by this prior written comparison: it indicates the traceability of the allocation decision, not a productivity gain already demonstrated. To go further: explore the Time Management & Prioritisation training in Sion in the canton of Valais, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Time Management & Prioritisation in Sion
- time management & prioritisation
- Sion
- research
- training sion