Meaning

When an APM, PM, or Superintendent waits too long to escalate an issue, the problem does not stay contained. Time passes, options narrow, and what could have been a simple decision turns into a disruption that affects schedule, cost, or relationships.

Escalation is often avoided because it feels like admitting a problem. In reality, delaying escalation removes control. The longer an issue stays at the wrong level, the harder it becomes to resolve cleanly.

Example Under Pressure

A Superintendent identifies a conflict between a trade’s installation sequence and the current schedule. The issue is manageable early, but the Superintendent decides to “work through it” rather than escalate, hoping it can be resolved without involving the PM.

As the work progresses, the conflict worsens. Trades fall out of sequence, productivity drops, and recovery options disappear. When the issue is finally escalated to the PM and leadership, the only remaining options involve overtime, resequencing, and cost impact.

Leadership is frustrated, not because the issue existed, but because escalation happened after control was already lost.

Principle Clarification

This principle establishes that escalation is a method of maintaining control, not a signal of failure. When issues are escalated early, decision-makers have time and options. When escalation is delayed, authority is forced to react to outcomes instead of guiding them.

“Early escalation protects the project. Late escalation protects no one”