Project Overload: How Approving Everything Paralyzed Teams
A look at an organization that juggled 41 live projects with a capacity of only 12, doubling delivery times and forcing a management overhaul.
Stock photo for illustration only, not from the actual event
- The organization had 41 live projects while its actual concurrent capacity was only about 12.
- Overcommitment slowed everything down, with 6 specialists spread across 19 separate project plans.
- A third of the portfolio consisted of dormant work that remained officially counted as active.
- The new approach enforces a strict capacity statement, clear queues, and a stop-before-you-start rule.
Corporate project management typically begins with an investment committee evaluating individual business cases against a budget. However, a critical factor is frequently overlooked: the actual capacity of the workforce. At the start of the year, one department was running 41 live projects simultaneously, even though a realistic assessment showed they could only handle about 12 projects concurrently with their actual headcount.
No one had intentionally decided to overcommit to that extent. The committee evaluated each case on its own merits without a recognized capacity metric, and a solid business case is difficult to reject simply on the grounds that the team is busy.
Stock photo for illustration only, not from the actual event
The immediate consequence of overcommitment is not an orderly queue, but a uniform slowdown across all operations. Six named specialists were assigned to 19 separate plans, giving each project only a fraction of a week's attention. Elapsed times roughly doubled, causing the projected benefits of the business cases to decay while work was still ongoing.
"Prioritization is not deciding what matters. Nearly all of it mattered. It is deciding what waits, and somebody has to be permitted to say so."
The hardest part to recognize was that projects were never officially stopped. Pausing happens naturally when people are pulled elsewhere, but cancellation requires someone to explicitly admit that an approved case was flawed. Because organizations rarely make cancellation easy, the portfolio continuously expanded, with one-third of the work remaining effectively dormant for months while still counting as active.
From an operational management perspective, project overload occurs when organizations measure productivity by the volume of initiated work rather than completed value. Implementing Work-In-Progress (WIP) limits and publishing capacity metrics help teams visualize actual bottlenecks, preventing resources from being trapped in zombie projects without active sponsorship.
The revised strategy involves publishing a monthly capacity statement categorized by team. A project is either fully staffed or it does not start at all, creating a visible and orderly queue. Initiating a new project now requires explicitly naming what will finish or stop. Furthermore, reporting has shifted to track work started versus work finished, replacing percentage-completion metrics that can rise indefinitely without delivering any actual output.
During the first quarter, the team stopped four projects, deliberately paused six in writing, and completed nine. Notably, three of the four stopped projects turned out to have no active project sponsor left at all.
Source: Dev.to
Found something wrong in this article? Report an issue with this article
Comments
Leave a Comment