...even if you ignore all the circumstantial evidence pointing to a not so rosy situation we still do have the very CEO of CIG stating that even after more than doubling the amount they asked for for all the stretch goals now they do not have enough to complete SC proper and need future revenues to do it...
"we sort of gauge the size of the team and kinda like the ambition of what we're doing based on how much money we sort of make every month so... we have a bunch of cash in reserve but if like we're bringing in a decent amount of new people 'cause it's more about less about ... concept sales help"
When I read this sort of stuff I'm never sure if my overwhelming feeling is one of sadness, or one of irritation. Mostly likely it's a mix of both.
Underpinning both examples is, for me, arguably the significant worry that even if they have/had a plan, they are paying it scant regard and are just busking their way through. This is fine for small projects and small teams, but
definitely not for large projects with teams spread across the globe.
If this
is the case - and I've zero evidence either way, but the circumstances suggest - then I doubt that even CIG know how far into/through the project they are, which would render any dates they give meaningless - of which we have evidence to date. Sad really, as proper project/programme oversight isn't
that difficult, and certainly not rocket surgery.
I'm used to providing P&L (profit and loss) to date and projected, every month to various boards/committees, and whilst (sometimes) the end-date projections could look worrying, at least you could have a grown-up conversation with the customer/sponsor. Whilst they were not happy when things were slipping, they were comforted that at least we were on top of what was going on, and I think CIG are doing themselves and their backers a disservice by not coming clean if (and I stress
if) things are looking worryingly bad. Assuming they know.