Donato BlandolinoFull calendars, no results: Why resource shortages during critical project phases are usually a myth, and what really helps.
There is one thing we hear more often than anything else during critical project phases: “We lack the resources. Our experts are involved in too many projects at once.”
That sounds understandable. At first glance, it often even appears to be true. Calendars are full, key people are only available between appointments, stress levels are high. And yet, in most of the cases we work on, this statement does not reflect the underlying truth.
Because working at full capacity and being effective are two entirely different things. Anyone who confuses the two is addressing the wrong problem.
An assignment in practice: full calendars, no results
An anonymised example from our work illustrates the pattern particularly clearly. We were called into a mechanical engineering company with plants in Europe and Asia. A key transformation initiative was making no progress, while an SAP programme was running in parallel under immense pressure. The organisation’s diagnosis was clear: too few resources.
The key people were constantly tied up. Calls with Asia in the morning, European coordination meetings in the afternoon, internal alignment meetings in between. The impression from the outside: working at full capacity, constant stress, no breathing space.
The reality behind it: hardly any real value creation. Sound process foundations, robust planning, a clear system logic, precisely the elements that underpin a transformation and SAP initiative, were constantly deferred because those involved were stuck in coordination meetings.
The myth of resource shortages
A resource shortage is one of the most convenient explanations an organisation can find for a lack of progress. It shifts the cause outside the organisation. Those with too few resources bear no blame for stagnation.
Throwing more capacity at a focus problem does not make it better. It makes it more expensive. An overloaded organisation without clear priorities then gains additional people who also get caught up in the same endless coordination.
When meetings replace value creation
In many organisations, a full calendar has become proof of importance. But a meeting is not a result. At best, it is the route to a result, and at worst, a substitute for one.
Maximum utilisation with minimum impact: The organisation is moving, but it is not moving forward. It is going round in circles.
Focus is a leadership decision
Focus does not emerge by itself when you have enough resources. Focus is a leadership decision. It means consciously deciding what matters now, and just as consciously deciding what can wait.
That is uncomfortable because it means making trade-offs. Anyone who sets priorities must put other things on hold. That is precisely why the decision is often avoided. But without that decision, every additional resource remains ineffective.
How we resolve situations like these
Our response to this situation is always the same: listen, understand, speak plainly. We look at what the key people are actually working on, not what they should be working on. We state what we see, even when it is uncomfortable.
From there, we establish structure: priorities, a clear decision-making framework across sites and time zones, responsibility assigned where it can actually be exercised. Meetings that produce no decisions are removed. Constant coordination gives way to progress again.
The real lever: commitment, follow-through, clarity
Anyone in a critical project phase who feels that resources are insufficient should first ask a different question. Not: Do we have enough people? But: Are our people working on the right things, and do our decisions lead to action?
Full calendars are not proof of effectiveness. Sometimes they are the opposite. The difference between being busy and making progress is determined not by utilisation, but by focus.
