A change in priorities can be justified. New information arrives, a customer changes a request, or we realise the previous plan no longer makes sense. A company needs to be able to change direction. But someone must also deal with the work that change leaves behind.
Imagine a team spending two days preparing an offer. On the third day, the manager decides to take another route. The new decision may be better. That does not remove the previous two days from the cost.
Someone needs to stop the work, inform others, revise the schedule, and explain what no longer applies. If a promise has already been made outside the company, someone on the other side needs to hear about the change too.
This part often has no clear owner. The new decision gets attention. Clearing away the old one is distributed among those who were carrying it out, as though they will naturally finish that work along the way.
When priorities change, say clearly what is stopping, what is being kept, and who communicates the new agreement. Consider how much work is still needed before the change actually takes effect.
It is particularly unfair to assess the team afterwards as though the plan had stayed the same. Deadlines and expectations for the previous work need to be reviewed. People should not have to justify a delay caused by carrying out the new decision.
Not every change of plan needs a long debate. The manager does need to see the full consequences of what they have just decided.
Calling a change an adjustment will not necessarily make its cost visible. That cost lies in work being stopped, work being created, and promises someone must agree again.
Comments