Organisations often face a choice between launching one large project or making ongoing small changes. Neither option really fits every situation. The best choice depends on your risk tolerance, speed of change, capacity to adapt and costs.
What a Large Project Offers and What Hides Beneath
A Large project can deliver a major impact all at once. Plus, you align leadership, gather resources and set a clear long-term goal. That creates momentum and can provide efficiencies at scale.
Large Project Problems
Yet many big projects suffer from hidden costs. They expose you to lock-in, and once you commit, changing direction becomes expensive. Interdependencies mean that if one task slips, others suffer. Studies show that significant delays often start small but cascade into much larger problems. Temporal buffering of tasks helps limit those cascading delays. Research into Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM) recommends using time buffers to absorb variability in task execution so that uncertainties do not derail the schedule or costs.
Also, you often underestimate how complex a large change will be. The planning fallacy remains common. People assume ideal conditions, so they ignore past difficulties. Eventually, that leads to surprises.
Why Small Ongoing Changes Can Be Better
Small ongoing changes let you adapt faster. It lets you deliver something useful sooner. Allowing you to test and learn continuously. Thus, you limit risk because each change has less impact if it fails.
You also improve cost predictability. Smaller efforts tend to judge effort, time and resources more accurately. You reduce waste. You also build a culture that expects change and values feedback.
One concept that helps is “incremental change.” Organisations use it to improve steadily rather than all at once. It reduces disruption and keeps the team engaged.
Concepts to Make Your Decision
Here are some concepts that often go unspoken but can matter:
- Key Domino Projects. Identify changes that act like dominoes. One small, well-chosen change can trigger broader systemic improvements. The impact often exceeds the investment.
- Temporal Buffering. Schedule tasks and phases with gaps between dependent functions so that a delay in one does not force all others to reschedule. Research indicates that specific buffer sizing techniques can help mitigate risk and protect timelines.
- Cost-Benefit Sweet Spots. Often, the highest return comes not from the biggest projects but from modest ones that solve common bottlenecks. Look for areas where small fixes yield large benefits.
- Adaptive Governance. If you go large, you need strong governance. If you go small, governance still matters, but can be lighter. Either way, decision-making must match the scale and risk.
Which Should You Choose?
A single large project makes sense when requirements remain stable, you control many of the variables, and you need large-scale change quickly.
Small ongoing changes make sense when you expect uncertainty, when things shift often, or when you need to test and adapt. They are safer when the budget is tight or when you need to preserve flexibility.
Often, the best solution is a blend of both. You start with incremental changes that prove value, learn what works, and then scale up. If you combine phases of small change with strategic large workstreams, you can control risk and deliver impact.
Conclusion
Choosing between single large projects and small ongoing changes matters. Big projects bring scale but hide risk and cost. Small changes provide adaptability and reduce waste. Concepts like temporal buffering, domino effects, incremental change and adaptive governance help you pick the approach suited to you.
Use single large projects vs small ongoing changes as a framework. Match your approach to your organisation’s stability, culture and appetite for risk. That way, you deliver more predictably and avoid costly surprises.
If you want help applying these ideas or adapting them to your own project, contact us. We’d be glad to discuss your situation and suggest strategies to keep your project from going over budget.