The Pros and Cons of ‘As Soon as Possible’ vs. ‘As Late as Possible’ in Project Management

The Pros and Cons of ‘As Soon as Possible’ vs. ‘As Late as Possible’ in Project Management

In project management, there’s a common debate between the ‘just in time’ (JIT) methodology and the opposite approach of being proactive and starting as early as possible. Lean principles and Six Sigma techniques have made ‘just in time’ processes popular, advocating for minimizing waste and reducing delays by acting at the last possible moment. But is this always the best approach?

Living on an island, where harsh weather and unpredictable sea links can disrupt transport, has shaped my perspective on project timing. For instance, winter storms can leave people stranded, and last-minute travel plans often result in missed opportunities. The same logic applies to project management: waiting too long to address tasks can put the entire project in jeopardy.

Take something as simple as catching a flight. If I have an hour to spare before a flight, and the airport is 30 minutes away, I prefer to leave early. Rather than risk encountering traffic delays, I would rather spend that extra time at the airport reading a book before boarding. This is a risk-based decision, ensuring a margin for unforeseen delays. Similarly, in projects, leaving things to the last minute means there’s no room for unexpected obstacles—like illness or absent staff— which can derail a whole initiative.

By starting tasks early, even in draft form, you can mitigate this risk. Applying the 80/20 rule—completing the bulk of the work first—helps to ensure that critical components are handled, and only the finer details need attention later. On the other hand, delaying the start can leave you with 80% of the task incomplete and rushed toward the end. The key is to recognize problems early so that solutions can be implemented with time to spare.

Interestingly, the world of change management often promotes the opposite view, advocating for delivering training and communication at the last possible moment. The reasoning here is that fresh information is easier to remember and apply immediately. However, I find this approach counterproductive. Take driving lessons as an example: no one would take a single lesson and then take their driving test the next day, expecting to be fully prepared. Real, practical learning often requires repetition and time to embed skills. A last-minute approach to training can induce stress, leaving individuals with little time to absorb and reflect on new concepts.

As a person who tends to reflect deeply and take time to practice, I prefer to prepare early. The idea of cramming information at the last minute has never worked well for me. Similarly, in project management and change processes, I believe it’s better to begin communicating and training earlier, allowing time for individuals to process and act. Sudden, last-minute changes often lead to frustration, especially in a busy, information-saturated environment.

There’s also the matter of people’s preferences in managing change. Most employees appreciate having time to warm up to new ideas. While change is often disruptive, allowing time for reflection and preparation minimizes resistance. The ‘just-in-time’ method of delivering change often feels like a rushed surprise, and in my experience, surprises rarely lead to positive outcomes—especially during busy periods like the holiday season.

While it’s clear that ‘just-in-time’ principles can work in certain environments, particularly when the context allows for minimal disruption, I strongly believe that a proactive, early-action approach to project management and change leads to more sustainable success. Early preparation provides room for contingency planning, reduces stress, and ultimately enhances project outcomes.