Hi All,

Thank you very much for your interesting question, I had not thought about this instance in the past. However I believe that it would make the most sense for a company to kill a project if it will not make the company money. If they continue into development and launch the project has the chance to be a total flop and lose the company much more money than it would cost to simply stop at that point.

However, there would seem to be a "point of no return" with a project. For example if a project is being launched and the market is no longer attractive, it may not be possible to stop the project as resources have already been used and the product is already manufactured.

-Andrew Nashed

That raises a great question.

From experience, I was on a project team where we were developing a cough and cold product for the market. At the start of concept, the previous year’s data completely warranted entering the cough and cold market with an additional product; however, during the course of development, the cold and flu season was mild and as a result, the cough and cold products did not sell well, thus causing a “lull” in the market. It was because of this that the project was put into a “hold” status. The company didn’t want to waste more resources on it if the market would “lull” again the following year but they also did not want to have a sunk cost for all of the development that had already been put into place. Depending on how far along in a project you are, it may be the more sensible option to finish development and scale up but hold off on production until the market can be re-evaluated or until the market takes a turn at a later time, if ever.

-Michelle F

I agree with the statements above. I have seen, similar to Michelle, how a product is placed in the development stages and had the approval of the company based on the market but towards the middle of the project it was put on hold. Also, the resources that were heavily invested on the project were all re-allocated to higher priority projects to help recover financially from the initial product. In addition, instead of scrapping the entire project, it was basically placed on the back burner just in case.

As others have mentioned the main reason a product gets "killed" midway through the research phase is simply due to the money. If the research and development of the device is taking too long and upper management is not seeing the proper growth and timelines are not being met, they can begin to slowly defund the project, and focus on another product. Potentially pulling a product midway through in the planning phase could only be done by a larger corporation because they can take the hit of the potential lost money and due to them being a larger corporation they have other potential projects they could focus on. However, for a smaller company or even startup, most of the effort is focused on this one project and if the product gets "killed" its essentially the end of the comapany, or it would certainly be bleeding of money.

I have heard from fellow coworkers of projects being "killed" because of a shift within the market or money is shifted to another project due to unforseen circumstances. In this instance, the project is not fully killed but just put on hold until all issues are resolved.

Chris

This is a great question, and I am currently experiencing that in my current position. Most of the time, projects that are given the GO decision are executed till commercialization. Most of these projects are usually well planned, budgeted and executed. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, the organization may decide that pursuing such project may impact the organization reputation or it may not bring profits to the organizations. Therefore, in many of these instances the project gets "shelfed" which means that all the work in that project ceases until these circumstances are removed. Once these circumstances are removed, the organization will again pursue the project in full speed. In my example, the company had a project shelfed for almost 4 years because the market was not evolved enough to receive such an advanced technology. Therefore, the company decided to halt the work on that project until further notice. Recently, I was brough on that project to carry on what others have started. Most of the time, the organization will not decide to pursue a project if that project is against the organization mission, corporate strategy or it will not bring enough revenue to the organization.

A project can be killed from my understanding for many reasons, but the most common are lack of resources due to expenses from other divisions, and most definitely if competitors come to market with better product beforehand, also acquiring all intellectual rights, whereas ensuring protections for decades.

From my experience and knowledge a lot of things get killed but really get placed on the back burner as priority shifts with the intent of getting back to it later. As Michelle said it really depends on how far along the product is.

In my opinion, there is really no scrap of a project due to patent issues or money. There is always a priority change in which project management plays a huge role depending on the business needs.

I've seen some products being put on hold due to complexity levels in which some of the features were just added to a functioning instrument. This actually is a smart way for users who love the current product in the market and trust it instead of going with a completely different system or user interface.

In conclusion, it is more of what the business need is at the time. Nothing gets completely scrapped but reprioritized.

Just to provide another perspective, at MSK we file patents on technologies like medical devices in order to protect IP and to ultimately outlicense. Before we file a patent, we evaluate the technology and the market. Once we move forward with patent protection, in parallel, we work on a technology development/marketing plans. Depending on the technology and market some technologies are licensed quickly, while others its harder. Again if there are not the proper resources/funding available to move the technology forward it is hard to keep up on patent protection. A provisional filing is around $3-$10k depending on the complexity of the technology and converting to PCT in filing internationally can be upwards of $100K to prosecute the patent. Since patent protection is covered by our office we have to evaluate during the conversion, if the market is there and there are potential licensees. If not we will decide not to convert or in other cases where we have already converted to PCT and nationalized in multiple countries we evaluate during the technology development and marketing and if it has been several years or companies have passed we will then abandon the patent (stop paying maintenance fees) in order to stop incurring past costs. Since we are a hospital/research facility we wouldn't necessarily stop a project, but our office would evaluate if we are paying for IP protection, because if we aren't expected to get a return, we aren't going to be reimbursed for patent costs so that may "Kill" the invention. Overall if the market isn't there, that would "Kill" a technology because at the end of the day we are looking to get a ROI.

This is a very interesting topic to bring up. If the market does not seem appealing or in bad condition, then it would make sense for the company to decide to stop production. However, this could also, hurt them as well. Many times it may seem that there is no more need for the product, but when it goes on the market it may be very successful. Sometimes the consumers do not realize that they need the product until they see it built. This is not always the case; this is with pure luck that the product becomes successful. It would also make sense to look for a way to improve and better the design rather than completely stopping or holding off the product. This may delay the release of the product, but while waiting for the market to improve, the company can create a better version of the product.

Thank you for an interesting question with a lot of different views. In this unforeseeable situation, it's difficult to say "to kill" or "not to kill", it's a case by case basis. And if it is "to kill", I agree with some of you that when the market is not lucrative and supportive, the project is not fully "killed" but maybe hold off till a later time or change priority. Killing a project should only be the last resort when faced with seemingly insurmountable obstacles.
I think killing a project midway would make sense if for example the technology used is out of date/there is something new coming out that is absolutely better then changing the project is a better idea than investing in dying technology.

I don't think killing a project midway make sense 100% if the product is just out of fashion, or marketplace being unattractive, the products can still have a chance to become successful or even shift the market if the products are exceptional.

I believe the companies main priority is to produce a device that will help the company profit, and we know that this isn't always the case. If a company has already started funding a project and has invested x amount of dollars into the research and development of the product and suddenly the marketability of the product changes I don't believe the company should completely "kill the project". As upper management, I would see if maybe it would be best to;
1. Pause development and resources temporarily into the market became more favorable
2. Try to see if the project could be leveraged a different way in order to fill another market gap
3. Finish project because the market may change again (this one depends on how close the company was from completion)
4. Improve/alter our device so that it different than the competitors on the market

Many of the posts above mentioned that often rather than killing a project, it is just placed on hold until circumstances permit it to continue, and I think this is very true, but I also liked how that hm243 and MonicaGoncalves mentioned that another option to Go, Kill or Hold is to change the scope of the project so that it better aligns with current market needs and company strategy. This may be a difficult decision to make, depending on how far along the project is and how drastic the change in scope is, but in the long run it may be quicker and less work to do this than to start a completely new project.