Before you stop a funded project that still has advocates, put the original success criteria next to the current evidence and answer, in writing, what more money would prove, what the company gives up by continuing, and how the wind-down would work. Paste the approval memo, the latest results, the remaining budget, the team's request for more time, the roadmap work waiting behind the project, and your draft board narrative into one request. Instruct Pingpong to test whether the case for continuing rests on new evidence or on money already spent, and to flag any wording that rewrites what the board originally approved. Review your written answers in a second round.
This page is for chief executives, product and finance leaders, and directors deciding whether to stop a new product line, major build, or transformation program before its budget runs out. Executive starting points live under Pingpong for executives.
Six questions to answer before the decision meeting
- What did we say success would look like? Quote the approval memo. If it had no measurable criteria, say so.
- What does the evidence show today? Use the same measures, and note anything counted differently since approval.
- What would more money prove? A request to continue should name a result, a date, and an amount, set before the money is spent.
- What waits while this continues? Name the people, the delayed work, and any revenue tied to it.
- Who is affected by stopping? Customers on the product, the team, and the sponsor who championed it.
- What do we keep? Code, data, customer insight, or people who can move to other work.
Two ways the board story goes wrong
The first is calling a program the board approved as a revenue line "an exploration" after the fact. Directors remember what they approved. The second is putting the blame on individuals. A clear account of the bet, the result, and the cost protects the people who took the risk and makes the next bold proposal easier to fund.
A worked example
This example is illustrative and does not describe a customer. Sixteen months ago, the board of a 600-person logistics software company approved $9 million over two years for a carrier marketplace. The approval memo set targets for month 18: 40 paying shippers, $3 million in annual recurring revenue, and a 4% take rate. Today, with $6.8 million spent and $2.2 million left, the marketplace has 11 paying shippers, $420,000 in recurring revenue, and a 2.1% take rate after discounts. The product sponsor and the general manager ask for $4 million beyond the remaining budget and 12 more months, citing a pipeline of 30 shippers.
The chief executive pastes those documents, the roadmap, the contracts summary, and a draft board memo.
A useful pass finds that most of the pipeline consists of existing customers of the core platform offered free pilots. None of the original targets is within reach, and the request sets no new targets. Meanwhile, an enterprise integration on the core platform has slipped two quarters, and two renewals worth $2.5 million in recurring revenue depend on it. The 11 marketplace customers have contracts running into next year. The draft memo calls the program "an exploration that produced valuable learnings," which does not match what the board approved.
The chief executive decides to stop new development. A six-person team supports the 11 customers through their contract terms, with migration or refund options reviewed by counsel. Fourteen of the 22 people move to the core platform, starting with the delayed integration, and HR leads the conversations about the remaining roles. The marketplace's carrier data feeds a core reporting feature. The product sponsor presents the stop recommendation alongside the chief executive. The revised memo states the original targets, the results, the $6.8 million spent, the unspent $2.2 million, and what the company keeps.
A short final test can be right when advocates name a specific result, with one measure, a small budget, and a stop date agreed first. If stopping the project means changing what the company is, see answer the board's questions before you pivot.
A request you can copy
Below are the approval memo for a funded project, current results, remaining budget, the team's request to continue, the work waiting behind it, and a draft board narrative. Compare the original success criteria with current evidence using the same measures. Test whether the case for continuing rests on new evidence or on money already spent. List who is affected by stopping and what we can keep. Flag wording that changes what the board approved. Stop there so we can answer in writing, then review our answers.
How Pingpong runs the review
The web review app sends your request through several models in order. Each later model receives the original request and every earlier answer, with instructions to assess the work so far. For the steps inside the app, see running your first review.
What a model can't review
A model does not know your team's morale, the sponsor's standing, or what customers said in private. HR owns decisions about roles, counsel owns contract obligations, and you and the board own the call.
When the decision goes to the board, see war-game a decision before the board meeting. More guides live under work decisions before you commit.