In my last post, I talked about how companies sometimes keep non-performing people on their projects. They also keep non-performing vendors and under-performing vendors.

The Rationale

We all hear about projects that are money pits, where the services group that has been brought in isn’t making progress, although this can easily be true of internal groups, as well. In any case, there are all types of reasons for this. Sometimes, it’s actually the customer’s fault, too, and I don’t want to make it seem that only the outside services groups can be at fault in these situations.

However, we do hear companies telling us that they feel they can’t get rid of their services group because they’ve invested too much money in a project. They insist they have to stick with it until they get something out of it or that money will just be wasted.

The Dice Game

Do you think that sounds like someone else? How about the gambler who keeps rolling the dice, thinking if they roll enough times that they’ll win their money back? I think they sound a lot alike.

But you’re now thinking this is different because the gambler will go into debut until the “house” stops giving them credit, leaving them with a huge debt.

But the project is similar. The project will keep going back to the company with this rationale, getting yet more and more money that they didn’t start the “game” with. They’re not borrowing it as the gambler does and not required to pay it back, but they don’t stop rolling the dice as they get further into the hole.

Unlike the gambler who returns home to tell their family they can’t pay the rent or buy food, the corporate types get the same paycheck, regardless. The especially clever ones find a way to declare a success and get promoted.

Nuff Said

That’s all I wanted to do is to point this out. It doesn’t work. Period. It just doesn’t. Anyone who claims it works was, like the craps shooter who goes home with a wad of dough, just the lucky one in the bunch.

Gloria Metrick
GeoMetrick Enterprises