Session Notes: Project Recovery: Getting a Challenging Project Back on Track
Recorded: 22 April 2026 at 10:12 Published: 22 April 2026 at 10:12 attendees-only
project-recoverypharmaceutical-projectspatient-safetycrisis-managementteam-managementstakeholder-alignmentmethodologyleadership-decisionssupply-chaincapability-mapping
Executive Summary
Mugunthan Maheswaran shared a compelling case study of rescuing a mission-critical pharmaceutical project from near-certain failure using a systematic Stop-Reset-Run methodology. Faced with an 80-person team, six-month deadline, and interdependent projects, he made the difficult decision to halt go-live based on patient safety principles, conducted comprehensive diagnosis across business-process-capability dimensions, and successfully restructured the project for delivery. The session provided practical frameworks for project recovery while emphasizing the unique responsibilities of pharmaceutical project management in ensuring patient access to life-saving medicines.
Full Notes
The Crisis and Decision to Act
Maheswaran was approached by a former colleague who had taken a senior sponsor role for a struggling program, sensing within weeks that it would become 'very painful.' The project involved over 80 people with a six-month go-live deadline, complicated by simultaneous implementation of other interdependent projects with no rollback capability. The team showed mixed signals - some committed, others trying, and a third group mentally disengaged, waiting to see what would happen. Management expectations were clear: diagnose the problems and ensure delivery happens. This dual mandate created the challenge of understanding root causes while maintaining delivery momentum, forcing Maheswaran to balance competing priorities from day one.
Diagnostic Framework and Root Cause Analysis
Maheswaran implemented a three-dimensional diagnostic approach examining business, process, and capability perspectives. Business issues included a problematic big-bang implementation approach, continuous scope creep, and unclear requirements that changed based on demo feedback. Process problems centered on misaligned ways of working, particularly expecting remote team members to deliver on local manufacturing processes without clear requirements. Capability gaps revealed unclear organizational charts, undefined roles and accountabilities, and complete misalignment of expertise. This systematic diagnosis revealed the project was trapped in a circular problem-solving pattern - fixing one issue only to discover another, like 'fishing in dark' with no end in sight.
The Critical Go/No-Go Decision
Recognizing the need to establish a 'point of no return' to avoid sunk cost fallacy, Maheswaran made the difficult decision to recommend halting the go-live. The decision was anchored in pharmaceutical core principles: 'We are not the project management company. Our role is caring for patients. Can we deliver the drugs to the patient? No.' This patient-safety focus provided the moral authority to stop a project representing millions in investment. Communicating this to senior management required 360-degree impact preparation, showing consequences of going live unsuccessfully, and proactively requesting 2-3 weeks to develop realistic recovery proposals rather than appearing unprepared with problems but no solutions.
Stop-Reset-Run Recovery Implementation
The recovery followed a disciplined three-phase approach. Stop involved a one-month assessment period, allowing stressed team members to take vacation while conducting thorough analysis and defining conditions for success. Reset required complete team restructuring through capability-first staffing rather than preserving existing personnel, establishing clear accountability structures, and implementing three-tier problem solving (team level, escalation level, global expert advisory). Run focused on tactical planning that bridged high-level strategy with detailed execution, integrated planning across dependent programs, and meaningful KPI monitoring. This systematic approach built team confidence as problems got solved efficiently, management became actively supportive rather than just demanding reports, and clear gates ensured dependencies were met.
Leadership Lessons and Long-term Impact
The project ultimately achieved successful go-live with high confidence, demonstrating that mission-critical project recovery provides accelerated learning opportunities. Key leadership insights included the importance of going to senior management with the right preparation, knowing your audience and anticipated questions, and focusing storytelling on company impact rather than just problems. Team management during crisis required distinguishing between poisonous individuals and those who had lost trust but retained capability, always prioritizing required capabilities over preserving existing team composition. The experience validated that 'mission critical projects are the safest fastest way to turn stress into your strength' - providing intensive development opportunities under pressure that accelerate professional growth more than routine project management roles.
Key Decisions
- ✓ Decision to halt project go-live based on patient safety and supply chain risk assessment
- ✓ Implementation of Stop-Reset-Run methodology with one-month assessment period
- ✓ Complete team restructuring using capability-first approach rather than preserving existing staff
- ✓ Establishment of three-tier problem solving structure with global expert advisory board
Action Items
- → Project teams — Define minimum viable product scope and move non-essential features to backlog open
Key Insights (15)
summary
Project recovery framework implemented
Stop-Reset-Run methodology successfully rescued mission-critical pharmaceutical project from near-certain failure, enabling go-live after strategic pause and restructuring
Mugunthan Maheswaran project-recoverypharmaceutical-projectsmethodology
summary
Leadership decision on patient safety
Point of no return established — made difficult decision to halt go-live to prevent supply chain failures that would impact patient access to life-saving medicines
Mugunthan Maheswaran patient-safetyleadership-decisionssupply-chain
summary
Three-dimensional diagnostic approach
Business-Process-Capability framework identified root causes: big-bang approach, scope creep, remote work gaps, and unclear accountability structures
Mugunthan Maheswaran diagnostic-frameworkroot-cause-analysisproject-management
summary
Team restructuring with precision staffing
Capability-first approach to team reset rather than preserving existing personnel — mapped required capabilities before assigning staff to roles
Mugunthan Maheswaran team-managementcapability-mappingstaffing-strategy
key Insight
Patient impact drives decision authority
Core principle focus — when facing impossible delivery timelines, anchor decisions in patient safety and drug supply continuity rather than project management metrics alone
Mugunthan Maheswaran patient-safetydecision-makingpharmaceutical-priorities
key Insight
Conditions for success create accountability
Proactive dependency management — clearly defined what other programs must deliver as prerequisites, creating shared accountability across interdependent projects
Mugunthan Maheswaran dependency-managementstakeholder-alignmentaccountability
key Insight
Three-tier problem solving prevents bottlenecks
Escalation structure implementation — first level team resolution, second level escalation, third level global expertise advisory board prevents problem-solving delays
Mugunthan Maheswaran problem-solvingescalation-managementexpert-networks
key Insight
Mission critical projects accelerate learning
Stress-to-strength transformation — rescuing failing projects provides fastest path to developing advanced project management capabilities under pressure
Mugunthan Maheswaran professional-developmentcrisis-managementlearning-acceleration
action Item
Implement minimum viable product focus
Project teams → Define MVP scope and move non-essential features to backlog to prevent scope creep during recovery phases
Mugunthan Maheswaran scope-management
quote
Core principle for patient-focused decisions
If I go live with this, we will struggle on the supply chain and we will struggle on the production. So stop this. We are not the project management company. Our role is caring for patients. Can we deliver the drugs to the patient? No.
Mugunthan Maheswaran patient-safetydecision-making
quote
Management support philosophy
Tony, if you want to make a difference, go for it. And I understood it is really difficult. It's not throwing the bus. It is really something going to be a big learning problem.
Mugunthan Maheswaran leadership-supportlearning-opportunities
quote
Mission critical project value
A mission critical project is the safest fastest way to turn stress into your strength and clearing faster. So if somebody ask you to rescue a project for it is very very good experience.
Mugunthan Maheswaran professional-developmentcrisis-management
resource
Stop-Reset-Run methodology
Three-phase project recovery approach: Stop (pause for assessment, team rest), Reset (capability mapping, precision staffing, clear accountability), Run (tactical planning, three-tier problem solving, KPI monitoring)
Mugunthan Maheswaran project-recoverymethodologyframework
resource
Business-Process-Capability diagnostic framework
Three-dimensional analysis for project diagnosis: Business aspects (scope, requirements clarity), Process aspects (ways of working, remote/onsite alignment), Capability aspects (roles, accountability, expertise alignment)
Mugunthan Maheswaran diagnostic-frameworkroot-cause-analysisproject-assessment
resource
Three-tier problem solving structure
Escalation framework: Level 1 (team-based resolution), Level 2 (management escalation), Level 3 (global expert advisory board for specialized technical challenges)
Mugunthan Maheswaran problem-solvingescalation-managementgovernance
Full Transcript (click to expand)
Apr 22, 2026 Project Recovery: Getting a Challenging Project Back on Track - Transcript 00:00:00 Vera Örså: Perfect. So looking at Borch as a bit since 2013. So I joined as a child there. So this is really an interesting topic. every situation class who I would like to share my own experience with you. So maybe look at this time just want to ask you a question. How many of you had a similar situation like okay the project is completely out of track I need your help to recover it. Please rise your writing. How many of you had a situation or will take up next time if you want to experience the same? Okay. But let's go to an interesting case. So this is this is the view. So you have seen this. I have showed you this and one great day morning exactly last year February one of my ex-colague we work with he got a new position different department he call me hey I need your help you have five minutes oh it's not going to be five minutes for So he called me he got a senior role and he's the sponsor for this program and this program is not really on track. 00:02:02 Vera Örså: He sensed it within a couple of weeks. This is going to be a very very painful situation and he asked me can you please help me? Okay, good. Of high level I understood what it is talked about, right? Within a few minutes. Then I had to think a little bit. I said, "Okay, I will come next day." I went to my medical and I explained him the situation and he seems to be having more visibility of his program situation and he told me only one thing. It made me to decide this way or that way. Tony, if you want to make a difference, go for it. And I understood it is it is really difficult. It's not throwing the bus. It is really something going to be a big learning problem. So why I was approached? I was thinking about myself. Okay. There are many project managers, program managers across why he approached me because we worked together in the past and we have a track record. 00:03:19 Vera Örså: Okay, I've delivered a good resident and trustable. So he reached me okay for me what it is okay I can learn I can go through this experience so it's kind of a win-win situation so I said okay so challenge accepted difficulties before my pass so what is the challenge challenge is it's a big project it should go live in six months or to go live in six months It's clear but why because there is a simultaneous implementation of different other big projects and it has dependency to each other. So it's always a moving target and um if you go live you cannot come back. There is no roll back in some project or in some system you implement okay we found out in the weekend it's a problem okay one day you roll back and back on track in in the old way but here in this situation you cannot roll back to the site I met my team the new project team it's over 80 people and then uh the management also So the management give me the gave me the confidence they will support me. 00:04:52 Vera Örså: This made me relaxed and also the team was giving me different signals. Some people are okay for a guy. Other people are like other set of people can try. The other set of people they mentally gave up. They're just there want to see the popcorn what is going to happen. So different set of people but the management expectation is super pure. Do the diagnos and also ensure the delivery happens. That's the complete message. Bottom line, ensure the goal life is possible. This is the expectation. So with this expectation, we always have to manage what are the root causes, what caused in the past to come to this situation. At the same time, we need to deliver what is promised that the team is struggling to deliver. So have to balance these two different goals. How do I do where do I start? I I was really struggling talking to different people, interviewing, getting all the signals. Then I understood I need to start with one thing that is this picture. 00:06:08 Vera Örså: Three aspects of a diagnos perspective, process perspective, capability perspective. We will go bit more deeper in next slide. But these are the three aspects that keep someone to focus during the diagnos. Okay. What are the business aspect? What is the process like? Do we have the right capability? Do we have the right staff? So these are the questions we will map it later. But the uncertaintity continued same story. I don't know if it can really go live or not. It was continuing. But can we do like that? No. We need to think why we are always in a circle. I felt like that we have a problem here. We fix it then there is another problem that we fix it and it's like a circle then we are round and round it's like a fishing in dark you don't know when this will be fixed and I fix it or not maybe because the management is expecting for me to deliver maybe maybe it's continuing and I continue in this way forever is it a smart way to heal the ambiguity Now therefore first what I did you know the three aspects of the uh diagnose I started mapping these are just an example from the business side it's a big pan approach this was the main reason and then there is a scope creep always people add new wish new desire new things 00:07:46 Vera Örså: are changing this the requirements are not clear oh I meant like this oh the the demo they give a feedback back the developers are fixing and over all of these are business side of uh contribution factors and then on the process side it's a gap of way of working the project required a lot of people those who work on site not really remote this is clear because it is highly related to the process in the local manufacturing so people working from Far they don't have a clear requirement from us but they are expected to deliver how this will happen. So the way of working is totally wrong and then the capability point of view it's when I ask for the chart they don't want to show me their chart because it is not so clear who is responsible to whom what what their roles are what they accountable for. Therefore, it's a complete misalignment of the expertise. So, we need to define there is a point of no return because this is the smartest way to save before you hit on the water. 00:09:09 Vera Örså: So, there is a sink effect you know when the ship is sinking the rats are coming onto the top assuming at certain point there will be a recovery. This will happen a lot during when we invest in the stock market you invest in something if the company is crashing you think no I don't sell my stock it will at the end it's so we had to define there is a no point of no return so that before that point I had to make a decision and that decision is sorry you cannot go live it is really hard to communicate to the senior management that we cannot go live. It is really impactful. It is really a lot of lot of millions of of money. And then I was only thinking one one thing at that moment when I decided okay we should stop this ro is caring for patients. Can we deliver the drugs to the patient? No. We are not the project management company. Okay. Then our let's stay with the core principle. If I go live with this, we will struggle on the supply chain and we will struggle on the production. 00:10:30 Vera Örså: So stop this. This was the decision part. So how do I communicate this to my senior management? I had to bring the awareness of in the 360 degree. It's not just going to them saying okay my project not going live. Then they start asking thousands of question. had to prepare myself very strongly what is the impact if we go live if you're not successful and what that means for ro then the senior management understands okay that's a clear impact then what is the new proposal I'm not ready to be very close then I I always wish to go to the senior management with a proposal but at first I had to communicate said that I cannot go live then I want I proactively wanted to tell them I need at least two to three weeks to prepare my proposals. I wanted to dive deep in and do the assessment and provide the realistic proposal and that way it worked. He said okay you can take uniform no problem but come with the right proposal then how will we manage differently this is also something I wanted to convey to the senior management okay last two years now you're asking for more time okay the obvious question is maybe you will come up in the next year when you go live with the same problem so I wanted to tell them that how are the 00:12:16 Vera Örså: man restructuring a project a big program it's a strategic recalibration of a complex mission definitely lot of thoughts going around okay should I change this team should I continue how I work uh can we really reach the point uh should I add something new capability. So lot of questions coming into the mind. However, what worked for me is really stop reset run. Super simple principle and it worked. Stop for one month because I wanted to do the assessment. I let all the colleagues go for vacation or whoever wants to go vacation go. And because they were already struggling a lot in the past couple of decades. So it's it's okay you take some time also to rethink and recalibrate yourself. You did the assessment made the recommended options and also clearly defined my conditions for success. This is a game changer in my presetting because okay I will deliver this and this and this easy to say but I wanted to go to the management and say if I want to achieve this I want this this this this because it is highly complex and it depends on different other programs. 00:13:45 Vera Örså: I also want other programs to clear my path so that I can achieve my goal. Right. Reset. During the reset we need to fully reset the team. Bring a clear rock chart accountable person. Let the people to know some of them not delivering bringing new capability. So it is a capability mapping followed by precision staffing. That situation most of the people they're like okay started thinking we have a new team. Let's not destroy the team. let's use this this this person. Never do that. Always do the capability first. Start from scratch. If I want to do this project, what are the capabilities I need? Then you can map to the staff and then simple as that run excellence in execution clear tactical planning. Most of the team does high level planning and then 500 lines of Excel cover in the SW detail planning. There is a capital planning required which is in between. This can be followed by the management where we tell the story. 00:14:57 Vera Örså: And then I implemented three levels of problem solving stages. First level with certain people and then the escalation. Second level problem solving and final level with expertise in this topic around the world. They are the advisory board. Three stages of problem solving. Then the people when they see the problem is solved. Okay. My part is okay. I can deliver. The team is commented. The management is doing not just sitting somewhere and asking for the reporting. They are helping that agenda as well. Then it's clear KPI monitoring and test. So we are on our way to success. We now go live this year and high confidence there is no problem. So we will go live. What made us is really segment in different work streams clear accountability and fix needs there and create an advisory mode. Fun fact, a mission critical project is the safest fastest way to turn stress into your strength and clearing faster. So if you if somebody ask you to rescue a project for it is very very good experience in a good project learn. 00:16:30 Vera Örså: Thank you. Any questions? very much. No questions. you kind of glossed over the response of your leadership when you told them you couldn't go live according to their requirements. Can you give us a little more insight into how that conversation went and why the confidence that you were giving them enabled to do the stop reset? It is not easy but we need to go with the right senior management. Hey, so go with the right people. Prepare up front. Know the leader who you are speaking to. They know exactly what are the questions they will ask. Prepare it very clearly with all the mitigations. Go with the right story. The storytelling is very important. It's not just going through their life. It's rather saying what is good for the company because he's not interested to to hear the problems. He's interested to hear the impact that they we analyzed and how we can mitigate the impact and the confidence is really based on the assessment we did and provided all the recommendations and sources. 00:18:29 Vera Örså: to add a support. Yeah, we have Rosh is quite high level, right? So we it's not my level, it's also two levels higher. We went to the top level to say we have a problem. Um you also you glance very quickly over the team spirit. I mean it's okay once you deliver the deals to the board or the management but the actual delivery is done by people. How did you manage with the people that were like the core kind of okay I'm here I'm watching Netflix and you do the work there are plenty of them. So those can be actually the poisoning factor of the project. How do you deal deal with that? So um if it is really a poison you have to it's but if it is really they are lost the trust but they have the right capability if we can if we can coach them if we can train them then we can provide another opportunity too and if they have also the right capability then no problem can bring back and then there are always a high performers and there are always people very technical uh but misalignment they were expected to deliver reporting but I mean they're taking care but why do they care about the project management and steer groups they don't care so it's it's a whole set of 00:20:08 Vera Örså: resett but at the same time always think about capabilities what are the capabilities then you would also So when you have you will identify I have identified couple of sorry Michael yeah a follow a followup question um so you've had the courage to stop just saying you know the the business impact we need to do the right thing you've described what you needed for success so I guess if I was that governance committee and said we've given you everything in August how confident are you because programs every project has uncertainty right Now how confident are you in that delivery date? How are you managing that expectation as it's never 100%. How have you communicated that? So that's a very interesting question because as I mentioned it is a complex project or complex mission with dependency with other projects. One level is having a very good integrated plan. What my project plan it should have an integrated plan. Second level is having checkpoints and gates together with all these programs. So they have been reflected our conditions for success. 00:21:23 Vera Örså: If I need a master data for example, another team should do it. This is the gate they need to prove they have done master data migration. If I want another freeze, I wanted to freeze this test specification or data migrant state. So the grades are keeping us okay if you achieve the application high confidence that we are right and then uh for the own project we have a very good KPI whichever KPI just bring it's really meaningful KPI define and we closely monitor that so that gives us okay we are even advancing more than what we wanted to deliver See mainly mainly what is important to creating a minimum viable product. It's not really creating it. People have several wishes. They like to they have ideas. Okay. But we always define stop the sport define is it was it really necessary for the if not put it in the back question. Um thanks for the presentation. First of all um I have two questions actually. One, what is the what was the commercial uh loss not delivering on the first delivery day and secondly what would you have done or said if they would said okay um we understand their vision uh you need to deliver on the initial time whatever it takes make it happen okay um we understand your concern not delivering on the initial target date Um but uh um you need to deliver on the stage to make it happen whatever it takes. So the first of all I cannot qualify you because it is quite a confidential failure or commercial loss but we will we will have a supply chain issue we will and it's not only the cost and it's also the patients are expecting life-saving medicine and they say So we we have implemented the project and we are not able to supply the answer. And then about your second question it is not only our mistake of the program it's a different levels of program different levels of leadership and why they didn't ask so far how the program is doing so they don't want to attack if if they try to attack then it's also a problem they know it situation how we can be solved. It's not hey you didn't deliver it's a problem. Yeah, we didn't monitor. So, I'm already prepared for Thank you. Transcription ended after 00:26:19 This editable transcript was computer generated and might contain errors. People can also change the text after it was created.