A struggling project: when should commitment be reassessed in Fribourg?
An industrial investment or research partnership does not always yield results that are immediately interpretable. For SHR — Swiss Human Resources' “Management complexe” programme, the managerial question is precise: how can managers reassess a disappointing project without confusing strategic perseverance with defending a past decision?
What the literature establishes
Barry Staw (1976, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance) experimentally studied resource allocation following unfavourable results. In this setting, participants personally responsible for the initial decision committed more additional resources than those who were not responsible. This finding shows that a decision-maker's prior commitment can influence the allocation decision beyond the available information about results.
The sunk-cost mechanism
Hal Arkes and Catherine Blumer (1985, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes) describe the tendency to continue an undertaking after investing money, time or effort in it. Their research highlights, among other factors, the desire not to appear wasteful. Yet expenditure that has already been incurred and cannot be recovered does not, by itself, constitute a future benefit of continuing.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that a disappointing project should be stopped or routinely handed to a new manager. These studies establish no such rule: learning, prospective returns or exit costs may justify continuing. The useful distinction is between a justification based on future consequences and one based on the need to defend the past. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot settle
These classic studies do not determine the right stopping threshold for an agri-food investment or university collaboration. Their research designs do not reproduce the full duration, interdependencies and contractual obligations of such projects. In practice, a budget overrun is therefore a reason for reassessment, not sufficient evidence of irrational escalation.
A practical check in Fribourg
Within the “Management complexe” programme, SHR can propose an exercise applied to an agri-food project in Fribourg involving a bilingual industrial team and a partner from the university hub: before the next review, define a reassessment threshold shared in French and German. At that review, measure the proportion of projects that have crossed their thresholds and have a documented decision comparing continuation, redirection and termination on the basis of future costs and benefits. The numerator counts these documented decisions; the denominator counts projects that have crossed their thresholds, with the result recorded as not applicable if no project qualifies. This measure checks decision-making discipline, not the economic superiority of the choices made. To go further: explore the Complex Management training in Fribourg in the canton of Fribourg, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Complex Management in Fribourg
- complex management
- Fribourg
- research
- training fribourg