The Problem Longevity Problem

There is a consistent theme on many fronts where difficult problems are tackled and then marginalized before they are complete. Often times organizations get into a vicious cycle of trying to change something, or find a solution, and then before the work is complete there is a push to change the direction. This seems like such a simple thing, but incomplete solutions are a a failed effort.  And because they are unresolved, it is a reality that they stand in the way of future progress.  So why would an organization turn its back on a problem left undone?

Here are the core realities that underpin this kind of situation.   The most basic problem is the difficulty of the problem.  Because it is difficult, in general the solution is not known in advance.  Now, here is where you get into a fundamental logical flaw when it comes to unknowns: since it is unknown, how do you know what the solution will be?  If you do not know what the solution will be, then how are you sure it will take 6 months or 3 years?  The truth is you are never sure.  Research is not linear; you don't get in a discovery for every so many hours or dollars.  So everything is done with estimates.  With estimates, there are no guarantees. 

Let's take the Manhattan Project:  the physicists had some very challenging problems.  You can find out a lot of information here at wikipedia.org

Here is  a rough excerpt:
"The project's roots lay in scientists' fears since the 1930s that Nazi Germany was also investigating nuclear weapons of its own. Born out of a small research program in 1939, the Manhattan Project eventually employed more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion ($22 billion in current value). It resulted in the creation of multiple production and research sites that operated in secret.^[2] "

Few organizations today could amass 130,000 people and $22 billion dollars towards a single project like the combined forces of the American, British, and Canadian governments working to a single purpose.  Sooner or later, the scientists and engineers developed the right solutions for the key questions of a nuclear fission bomb.
Of course the difficult problems involved seem simple to the outside world.  The whole kernel of the problem could be summed up as three problems: what nuclear material could detonate like a bomb,  how much material would it take to make a sustained chain reaction, and what would the best way to start the chain reaction.   These seem straightforward.  Remember that this was done long before digital computers, a complete understanding of particle physics, and based on the unstructured ramblings of university professors - all difficult challenges.

Did the Manhattan project have an initial budget and project deadline? Of course it did.  Did it fail to meet the original estimates?  Of course it did.

So risky problems are entered into with estimate  projected budget and timeframe.  Unfortunately, managers choose to take these as the gospel and there's where the problem starts.

The second problem is risk aversion. Managers like to claim that they can accept some risk, but in the end all managers are looking out for number one. Association with a failing project - because it is behind schedule and over budget - is not on the good side of career advancement. If a company can only see over-budgets and time delays, there is a level of risk aversion that may make revolutionary change impossible. There needs to be enough vision to undestand the long term objectives.  This gets harder and harder as companies look closer for profit and sacrifice opportunities for long term growth.  Just remember all those bailed out banks and investment companies that failed because their executives were more interested in short-term (and personal) profit that disintegrated their companies.

The third reason is the personal ambition of the manager in charge of the difficult task.  If a manager can find a way to avoid personal liability by eliminating an important yet unpopular or risky project then it is in his personal interest to do so.  If an important project gets into the infavorable territory, it may be called a success and shuffled into the completed column without any real progress. If you let managers avoid personal liability then it makes sense they will use it to survive those failures.

Comparing most managers to the manager of the Manhattan project, General Groves was a no-nonsense character that planned to win but he understood that failure was not an option so he continued to sacrifice his personal goals for the needs of the organization which was to develop nuclear weapons first.  It probably helped that this was during the war - so things like budgets and delays were not seen as failures unto themselves  because people understood the Nazis might be close to completing the same capability.  But the fact was that Groves saw the project through to the end- taking the heat and stress - and in the end the results changed the way wars are fought.


So we come to the crux of the problem longevity problem.  A difficult project that needs to be solved sometimes - in fact in most cases - can't be solved in the time and budget that was originally set out. If the company cannot accept risk that may be enough to end the project.  If the manager feels it is possible to avoid personal liability then that project may become a casualty without a realistic chance of solving it. 

We can see the footprints of this every where: problems that were assumed solved when some manager completed a powerpoint claming great results.  Then months or years later - well beyond the statue of limitations on the previous manager - that problem resurfaces and we find out that it was never really solved the last time resources were bent towards solving it like we were promised.

IED have been known about for 60 years, and yet the government makes it sound like we are meeting a new threat. Global warming is still not conclusively proven and so the skeptics are justifiably able to stall any climate change solutions. And the Taliban came to power because the CIA wiped their hands and claimed victory against the Soviets.

All of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again.