How can the early closure of a project be recognized as a smart, strategic choice rather than failure?
That was the question of our latest study: Rebranding ‘Abandon‘ in Project Management – a collaborative exploration conducted with experienced project managers using the Delphi method.
The Negative Connotation of ‘Abandon’
In traditional project management, the word abandon carries a negative connotation. It evokes failure, waste, or defeat. However, in practice, terminating a project is, in fact, often a rational decision driven by realizing that conditions have changed regarding priorities, resources, or the external conditions in which the project exists.
Our study aimed to reframe the language and mindset around this decision, shifting from blame to strategy, and from loss to learning.
A Real Options Perspective
Real Options is the foundation of the research, a decision-making framework originally developed for finance and later adapted for project management. It treats project choices as options – opportunities to expand, defer, pivot, or stop – based on new information. The goal: maximize value while minimizing risk. We wanted to know how the ‘abandon’ option could evolve into value-preserving alternatives, shaped by behavioral insights and strategic reasoning.
The Delphi Panel: Expert Consensus, Iterative Insight
We engaged experienced project professionals in a Delphi-style study to answer that question. Participants represented a truly global perspective, spanning from Chile to Australia, and including experts from Pakistan, Serbia, and Germany. Through multiple rounds of anonymous feedback, they evaluated and refined a set of new terminologies and decision framings, testing how language influences perception, communication, and behavior in project contexts.
A complementary practitioner survey (N=47) confirmed that linguistic framing matters: when managers use constructive terms, they are more likely to make timely, transparent, and value-aligned decisions.
From ‘Abandon’ to ‘Strategic Realignment’
The panel proposed and ranked new terms that better capture the intent and value of early project closure, not as giving up, but as a responsible choice that protects value. Here are a few examples:
| Traditional Term | Rebranded Alternative | Intent |
|---|---|---|
| Abandon | Strategic Realignment | Redirect when priorities shift |
| Terminate | Value-Focused Termination | End early to preserve realized value |
| Suspend | Retain Knowledge | Capture learning |
| Stop | Constructive Wrap-Up | Conclude deliberately to optimize outcomes |
| Failure | Early Harvesting of Value | Celebrate partial success or insights gained |
Why Words Matter
Language shapes how we think, feel, and act. Our findings revealed that:
- Linguistic reframing reduces embarrassment and stigma associated with stopping a project.
- Behavioral cues encourage reflective learning and strategic redirection rather than reactive decision-making.
- Cognitive alignment promotes consistency with analytical models like Real Options Analysis, making it easier to quantify and justify non-financial decisions.
Changing our words changes our mindset, allowing teams to make bold, value-driven moves without fear. The final results are the rebranding of ‘abandon’ and adding new terms to bridge the semantic gap in the framework.
Managerial Implications
The enhanced framework isn’t just about semantics, it’s about decision quality and organizational health.
It enables project managers to:
- Apply real options logic in post-project reviews, even retroactively.
- Distinguish failure from strategic termination.
- Embed value-driven governance in agile and iterative environments.
- Quantify knowledge-based returns alongside financial outcomes.
Ultimately, this rebranding enables organizations to optimize their portfolios, conserve resources, and mark strategic closure as a sign of maturity.
Looking Ahead
Our goal is to make this framework accessible to the broader project management community.
We are preparing an open-access publication detailing the updated real options framework and linguistic recommendations for practitioners, educators, and researchers.
By redefining ‘abandonment’, we invite teams to see endings not as failures, but as the strategic beginnings of new possibilities: Strategic realignments.
Acknowledgment
Our sincere gratitude goes to the experts* who contributed their time and insight to this study. Their feedback was crucial in refining this framework and validating the idea that language can and should drive better project decisions.
*In alphabetical order:
Dr. Khalid Ahmad Khan, Dr. Stefanie Gerlach, Francisco Emanuel Almonacid Cañete, Milena Savković, Pooja Mohnani, Robert Trender, Tiendung (TJ) Le, Usha Bogapurapu