A reflection on language, resistance, and the future of flexible project management

Last year, our team set out to answer a question that might sound almost trivially simple: does it matter what we call things?

Specifically, we were looking at the abandonment option in Real Options: the decision to exit a project early when evidence no longer supports continuing. We conducted a Delphi panel evaluation and a practitioner survey to identify and validate alternative labels for this option. The hypothesis was that better terminology could reduce the psychological resistance practitioners feel toward using it, and more accurately reflect what early project termination actually is: a constructive, value-preserving decision.

The spark for this work came from a conference. When we presented on Real Options at the PMI conference in Manila, a lively discussion broke out around one uncomfortable truth: people really don’t like abandoning projects. The word itself seems to carry weight.

And just recently, at our local Heidelberg PMI session on March 26, 2026, completely unrelated to our study, participants were naturally gravitating toward softer framings on their own. People talked about freezing projects. About putting something on the shelf. Nobody said “abandon.” That moment reinforced for us that this instinct is real, widespread, and worth taking seriously.

The Paper, the Rejection, and the Reviewer Who Disagreed

One of the papers I submitted last year captured the findings of our study. It was rejected.

I’ll be honest: I take the reviewers seriously, and I’m willing to accept that my writing style or the paper’s structure may have contributed to that outcome. That’s fair feedback, and I’m working on it.

But there is one point of feedback I disagree with, vehemently.

The reviewer questioned whether anyone would actually stop saying “abandon” or “terminate” in favor of something like Value-Focused Termination, dismissing the premise as “nonsense things that certain consultants might say.”

I understand the skepticism. But I think it fundamentally misunderstands how language operates in professional and organizational contexts.

Words Are Not Just Labels – They Are Levers

Language plays a critical mediating role in how decisions get made. Research consistently shows that professionals associate the term abandonment with failure and loss. In contrast, expressions like stopping, closing, or redirecting convey intentionality and professionalism. The framing of a project – through its names, labels, and descriptors – shapes both emotional responses and the perceived legitimacy of the decisions managers make around it.

This isn’t soft thinking. It’s well-documented in behavioral economics, organizational psychology, and decision science. The words we use influence how options are perceived, which options get considered, and ultimately which actions get taken.

If practitioners hesitate to recommend stopping a failing project because the word “abandonment” feels like an admission of defeat, then that hesitation has real cost – to budgets, to teams, and to organizations. Changing that word isn’t cosmetic. It’s operational.

So yes, we believe terminology matters. Deeply.

What Comes Next

The paper’s journey continues, and we’ll see where it lands. But we haven’t been waiting.

We’ve already moved to the next stage, and we’re excited to share it: our findings have been incorporated into a book releasing on April 2, 2026.

Flexible Projects: Using Real Options to Deliver Target Benefits

This A6-format book of over 200 pages integrates Real Options Analysis with project governance in a way that’s genuinely accessible – no financial modeling background required. It shows project leaders, portfolio executives, and governance professionals how to:

• Stage capital commitments so you’re not overexposed early
• Expand when evidence supports it, rather than on hope or momentum
• Limit downside exposure through structured decision points
• Make disciplined stop-or-scale decisions with clarity and confidence

The goal was to give practitioners a practical framework for designing flexibility into investments from the very start, and to do it in language that actually invites engagement rather than triggering resistance.

We’d Love to Hear From You

We’d be grateful if you’d read the book, review it, and, most importantly, put it to use.

But beyond the book, we’d genuinely love to know what you think:

Do words matter when making project decisions?

Have you ever hesitated to recommend stopping a project because of how it might sound? Have you found yourself reaching for softer language – pausing, shelving, redirecting – to get a room to actually consider an exit? Or do you think the terminology is irrelevant and the numbers speak for themselves?

Drop a comment, send a message, or start a conversation. This question sits at the heart of our work, and we don’t think the discussion is anywhere near finished.