Escalation Vs Escalation

There are many instances in which individuals can become locked into a costly course of action. Because it is often possible for persons who have suffered a setback to recoup their losses through an even greater commitment of resources to the same course of action, a cycle of escalating commitment can be produced.
Escalating commitment (or escalation) refers to the tendency for decision makers to persist with failing courses of action. Escalation is determined, at least in part, by decision makers' unwillingness to admit that their prior allocation of resources to the chosen course of action was in vain (the self-justification explanation). There is a distinction of note; drawn between alternative (to self-justification) explanations of escalating …show more content…
It, generally, always starts with poorly defined and realized requirements. Good requirements are a solid foundation by which to (1) measure performance, (2) box scope, (3) measure success and (4) realize defined benefits. A perfect example of this would be a recent merger target undertaken. The financial teams were insistent that a specific hospital was ripe for purchase and executed the initial steps to do so. There only requirements at the time were singularly focused on financial gain to the company. As steps were undertaken to start the merger, I engaged to further elaborate on the requirements from a business alignment and customer/patient care perspective. As several financial leaders had already invest significant capital to further the merger already, there was not much of a sounding board to fully mature requirements and risk assessments by furthering the project. As time wore on, it became apparent, that despite significant negative impact to the customer and organizational business that likely would result in market loss and very complicated interfaces and new business process, more investment was introduced by way of marketing (to sway the patient base) and consultants (increased cost) to rework business process to compensate. In the end, investments were increased to almost double the original budget, yet the core requirements and risks were not mitigated to sufficiency. Financial leadership “doubled down” in an effort to try and compensate for initial poor decisions in an effort to recoup the investment in the short run. The merger was abandoned in the final days of finalization and a lessons learned and root cause analysis effort was conducted; the findings of which were rooting in the same concepts of escalation of commitment, among several other

Show More

Police Brutality Research Paper

Case Study: Decision-Making Pitfalls

Tinker Vs. Des Moines Schools Case Study

Chapt.11 Essay

Exam 2 Study Guide Answers

Aggression and Bush Assertive Communication Essay

Hearts And Minds Film Analysis

Notes On Learning Styles Inventory

OB Course Note Essay

HIST 1302 FINAL EXAM REVIEW Essay