Buy-in is won for a modest, agreeable project goal, and once money and momentum are committed the objectives shift, with sponsors defending the new scope by momentum and sunk cost alone.
An example
Approving a ninety-day pilot of an automated document-intake tool for her team looked safe to the head of claims at a mid-size property insurer, since it cost a fraction of the full platform. During the pilot, the vendor and the company's chief digital officer connected the tool to underwriting, billing, and the customer portal, and trained a dozen people outside claims. At renewal the proposal had become a three-year, enterprise-wide contract at five times the pilot price, presented as the natural next step. When the claims head asked why underwriting and billing should run on this system, she was told the company was seventy percent of the way there and that switching would now affect four departments. Nobody made the case for the larger scope on its own merits. She asked the chief financial officer to review the proposal against the original pilot charter, and the renewal went back to procurement as a new decision.
Why it works
The sunk investment in the original project makes continuing with the switched scope look easier, and approval is framed as needing no new business case. Stopping looks worse, as throwing away work that is finally showing results, and costlier, because the original approvers must admit they were misled, write off spending, and disband a team they staffed. The sponsor never sells the new scope directly, which is the tell. It goes furthest when the original goal was credible, the drift is gradual, reviews follow the calendar and ignore scope changes, and the original approvers have moved on.
The thinking behind it
Hal R. Arkes Arkes and Blumer's The Psychology of Sunk Cost (1985) describes a greater tendency to continue an endeavor once money, effort, or time has gone into it, partly from a wish not to appear wasteful. The pilot's integrations and trained users are investments approvers do not want to waste, and the sponsor argues from them alone. Treating the expanded scope as a new decision with its own business case sets the sunk investment aside.
Barry M. Staw Staw's Knee-Deep in the Big Muddy: A Study of Escalating Commitment to a Chosen Course of Action (1976) found that people committed the most additional money to a course when they were personally responsible for its setbacks, which he read as self-justification. The pilot's original approvers are tied to it personally and are the least likely to stop it. Fresh reviewers, such as a new finance chief or an outside auditor, are free of that pressure.
Robert B. Cialdini Cialdini's Influence (1984) describes commitment and consistency: once people take a position, especially a written one, they feel pressure to act in line with it. Approving the pilot was such a position, and each renewal is framed as consistent with it. Comparing the current scope with the original charter shows that the renewal is a different commitment from the one first made.
Warning signs
Current deliverables cannot be traced to any line in the approved charter. The original approvers have changed roles or left. Sponsors argue only from momentum, sunk cost, and continuity, and nobody makes the case for the current scope on its own terms. Integrations and users outside the original scope appeared during the pilot. Reviews come quarterly and are never triggered by a change in scope.
How to defend yourself
Name the gap aloud in the meeting: nobody is making the case for the current scope on its merits. An outside auditor, a new finance chief, or a refreshed board can force a fresh-eyes review without embarrassing anyone who approved the first phase. That lowers the cost of saying no for everyone in the room.
- Pull the original charter and set the current deliverables beside it, line by line.
- Ask for the expanded scope to be treated as a new decision with its own business case.
- Separate the original goal from the additions, and renew only what was approved.
How a leader shuts it down
Tie reauthorization to any change in scope, whenever it happens. Have reviewers who did not approve the original project compare the program with its charter. Require integrations and users outside the approved scope to be disclosed as they are added, and price renewals against the original approval.