Change management is pivotal to project success, especially when navigating shifting timelines or evolving requirements. The choice between Full Track and Fast Track changes can significantly affect outcomes.
Full Track changes provide thorough planning and risk management, making them ideal for high-risk industries like healthcare or construction, where precision is critical.
Conversely, Fast Track changes allow for compressed timelines by overlapping tasks, a strategy often used in tech companies like Tesla to push product updates ahead of competitors.
However, while Fast Track can shorten schedules by up to 30%, it also carries an increased risk of rework and team burnout, with 40% of fast-tracked projects encountering these issues1.
Making the wrong decision can derail a project, leading to delays, budget overruns, and missed objectives. In fact, studies show that 40% of projects fail due to poor management of timelines and resources2.
Let’s find out which one fits your project the best!
What Are Full Track Changes?
Full Track changes involve a structured, meticulous approach to change management, ideal for high-risk, complex, or long-term projects. This method prioritizes thorough planning, risk mitigation, and stakeholder involvement to ensure that every change aligns with project objectives.
Unlike Fast Track changes, which focus on speed, Full Track changes follow a controlled, step-by-step process that significantly reduces the risk of scope creep and budget overruns.
Full Track changes are crucial for industries like construction or healthcare, where even minor errors can have significant consequences. These changes undergo rigorous evaluation, helping to prevent disruptions that could delay delivery or inflate costs.
According to Prosci, projects with formal change management processes are 40% more likely to succeed than those without3, emphasizing the importance of a disciplined approach like Full Track changes.
Focusing on detailed analysis, Full Track changes offer greater predictability in outcomes. While the process may be slower and more resource-intensive, it ultimately leads to higher project success rates, with fewer instances of budget overruns or rework—issues that can derail a project if not properly managed.
In fact, organizations that actively apply structured change management are 1.5 times more likely to stay on budget, making Full Track changes a smart choice for projects where accuracy and long-term success are non-negotiable.
Tip: Use Full Track changes when your project requires extensive risk management, detailed stakeholder approval, or when failure could have severe consequences. This method ensures every aspect of the change process is aligned with the project’s broader goals, delivering success without unnecessary risks.
Pros and Cons of Full Track Changes
Advantages
Thoroughness and Risk Mitigation: Full Track changes are ideal for projects where precision is critical, such as in construction or healthcare. This approach ensures that each change is evaluated in-depth, reducing the likelihood of errors or scope creep.
Better Control and Quality Assurance: Full Track changes provide strict oversight, ensuring that all potential impacts on budget, timeline, and resources are managed carefully. This control reduces risks and allows for high-quality output, especially for high-stakes projects where mistakes can be costly.
Drawbacks
Slower Implementation: Full Track changes require time for detailed evaluations, stakeholder reviews, and risk mitigation. While this reduces risks, it can slow down project timelines significantly.
In dynamic industries, such as software development, this delay can be a disadvantage if quick changes are needed to remain competitive.
Resource Intensive: Full Track changes demand more time, personnel, and financial resources. Managing every aspect of the change process requires more oversight and detailed documentation, which can strain team capacity and budgets.
In contrast, faster approaches like Fast Track may reduce costs and time but come with higher risks of rework and quality issues.
What Are Fast Track Changes?
Fast Track changes are a project management technique that compresses a project’s timeline by overlapping tasks traditionally done sequentially. This method accelerates project completion when time is critical without changing the scope.
It’s particularly effective when tasks on the critical path—directly impacting the project’s completion—can be performed simultaneously.
Fast Tracking is common in industries like construction, product development, or software projects, where delivering quickly is a top priority.
When to Use Fast Track Changes
Fast Track changes work best when a project is delayed, a deadline is looming, or the client demands an expedited delivery. For instance, in a construction project, tasks like electrical work and framing can be performed at the same time to speed up the build.
This technique is useful for projects where time-to-market is critical, like launching a new tech product, as it allows the project team to catch up on lost time.
Key Benefits
The primary advantage of Fast Track changes is speed. By overlapping tasks, project timelines can be shortened by up to 25%4 without increasing the project budget or altering the scope.
Fast Tracking also provides flexibility in managing schedules, making it possible to meet urgent demands or shift resources more efficiently. This is particularly beneficial when a project must stay competitive in the marketplace or when unexpected delays must be compensated for.
Pros and Cons of Fast Track Changes
Pros:
- Speed: The most obvious advantage of Fast Track changes is reducing the project timeline. By executing tasks concurrently, teams can meet tight deadlines or speed up product delivery without additional costs.
- Flexibility: Fast Tracking allows teams to adapt quickly to schedule changes or urgent demands. It allows for reallocating resources and managing multiple tasks at once, making it highly effective for dynamic industries like tech.
Cons:
- Higher Risk: Fast Tracking increases complexity, as tasks performed simultaneously require careful coordination. Overlapping critical tasks without proper oversight can lead to errors and costly rework.
- Potential Quality Issues: Because tasks are rushed, there’s a risk of compromising quality. Fast Tracking often means fewer review cycles, resulting in overlooked issues, lower-quality outcomes, and possible rework.
Managing the Risks
Detailed planning is essential to mitigate the risks of Fast-Track changes. Only truly independent tasks should be executed simultaneously. Introducing additional review points or frequent progress checks helps ensure that overlapping tasks don’t compromise the project’s quality.
Regular monitoring and close communication between teams are critical to managing the increased complexity.
Full Track vs Fast Track Changes: Key Differences
Implementation Speed
When it comes to speed, Fast Track changes outpace Full Track by compressing timelines through task overlap. This method can accelerate project delivery by up to 25%5, allowing projects to meet tight deadlines without altering scope.
For instance, teams can work on coding and testing simultaneously in a software development project, significantly reducing time-to-market. However, this speed comes at a higher risk of missteps, as overlapping tasks can lead to dependency issues.
Full Track changes, on the other hand, follow a sequential, step-by-step process where each phase must be completed before moving to the next. This approach reduces the risk of mistakes but extends the timeline, making it ideal for high-stakes projects where precision is critical. In industries like healthcare or construction, where errors can have severe consequences, Full Track ensures thorough execution, albeit slower.
Risk and Quality Management
In terms of risk and quality management, Full Track changes excel by offering a structured approach with multiple quality control checkpoints and detailed risk assessments. Each change undergoes rigorous evaluation to ensure it aligns with project goals, minimizing the chances of scope creep or budget overruns.
For example, in a large-scale healthcare IT implementation, Full Track helped mitigate regulatory compliance risks by thoroughly vetting every change.
In contrast, Fast Track changes prioritize speed over structure, increasing the likelihood of errors. Overlapping critical tasks can lead to missed details or rework, which may negate the time saved. A study from Simplilearn6 found that while Fast Track reduces timelines, projects using this method had a higher risk of requiring rework, highlighting the trade-off between speed and quality.
Stakeholder Involvement
Full Track changes demand thorough and continuous stakeholder involvement at each phase, ensuring alignment with project objectives and risk mitigation early on. This proactive approach may slow down decision-making, but it helps prevent last-minute objections that can derail a project.
For example, involving stakeholders in every step of the change process in a construction project ensures that client requirements, safety regulations, and budget constraints are met.
In contrast, Fast Track changes involve stakeholders only during critical milestones, limiting feedback opportunities. While this speeds up the process, it can lead to misalignment and unexpected challenges later.
Bordio notes that without proper stakeholder involvement, Fast Track projects risk encountering objections when changes are implemented too quickly for stakeholders to keep up.
Resource Allocation
Full Track changes are resource-intensive, requiring more time, personnel, and financial oversight due to their detailed nature. Teams must allocate resources for risk assessments, stakeholder reviews, and multiple approval stages, which can strain both budget and team capacity. In industries like construction or healthcare, this high level of oversight ensures long-term success, but it comes at a higher upfront cost.
Fast Track changes, by contrast, are more cost-effective in the short term, as tasks are executed simultaneously, requiring fewer resources for immediate completion. However, the increased likelihood of rework or quality issues may offset these savings due to the rapid pace.
PMI research shows that projects using Fast Track changes often need contingency reserves to cover the potential cost of fixing errors that arise from overlapping tasks.
When to Choose Full Track Changes
Full Track changes are most effective for high-risk, complex projects where regulatory compliance, stakeholder management, and detailed risk control are crucial. These are particularly common in sectors such as healthcare, construction, and finance, where errors can result in significant setbacks, cost overruns, or legal ramifications.
1. Healthcare Projects
In healthcare projects, Full Track changes ensure compliance with regulatory standards such as HIPAA, which are non-negotiable.
For example, when implementing new systems like Electronic Health Records (EHR), healthcare organizations require thorough planning and testing to ensure patient safety and data protection.
Research shows that organizations with structured change management processes are 1.5 times more likely to meet project objectives than those without such strategies, particularly in compliance-heavy fields like healthcare. Furthermore, healthcare construction projects—such as new medical facilities—use Full Track methods to ensure that every safety regulation and medical requirement is met without costly mistakes. This reduces the chance of expensive delays or failures during construction phases.
2. Construction Projects
Large-scale infrastructure projects, such as the construction of airports or hospitals, heavily rely on Full-Track changes to ensure every stakeholder is aligned and all safety codes are followed.
Projects like the Dubai Metro successfully used a Full-Track approach to mitigate design and engineering risks, ensuring the project remained within budget and on schedule. This approach is ideal for projects where quality control is vital to avoid structural risks or non-compliance with local building regulations.
3. Finance Sector
In the finance industry, Full-Track changes are used to implement complex regulatory updates and system overhauls. For instance, HSBC’s global financial compliance updates relied on structured change management to ensure adherence to diverse regulations across multiple jurisdictions.
Using a Full-Track method, the bank minimized risks associated with non-compliance and operational disruptions. This structured approach also reduces the likelihood of failing regulatory audits, which can lead to hefty fines or loss of reputation.
Benefits of Full Track Changes
- Risk Mitigation: Structured checkpoints and continuous evaluation reduce the risk of project failure or non-compliance.
- Long-Term Success: Full Track changes align projects with long-term goals by thoroughly vetting each change for potential risks.
- Stakeholder Alignment: Continuous involvement of all stakeholders ensures that decisions are fully informed and in line with the project’s objectives.
When to Choose Fast Track Changes
Fast Track changes are highly effective when time is the primary constraint and project deadlines must be met without altering the project scope. This method is beneficial in fast-paced industries like construction, technology, and manufacturing, where speed to completion or market delivery is critical for success.
By overlapping tasks typically performed sequentially, project managers can compress timelines and meet deadlines without increasing overall project costs.
Construction Projects
Fast-tracking is commonly used in construction projects to overcome delays and meet tight deadlines. For example, a contractor may decide to run electrical wiring and framing simultaneously to make up for lost time instead of waiting for one task to finish before starting the next.
While risky, this method allows projects to stay on schedule without significantly increasing the budget. Construction firms use fast-tracking to prevent schedule overruns, particularly when dealing with supply chain disruptions or labor shortages.
Technology Projects
In industries like software development, fast-tracking is critical for getting products to market quickly and staying ahead of competitors. Companies such as Tesla have successfully used fast-tracking to shorten development cycles and launch new products ahead of schedule. By running coding and testing phases in parallel, tech firms can reduce their time-to-market.
Manufacturing and Event Management
Fast-tracking is also prevalent in manufacturing, where assembly lines can be optimized by handling tasks concurrently to maximize resource use. In event management, fast-tracking helps companies set up venues and arrange logistics at the same time, ensuring events are completed on tight schedules. In both industries, fast-tracking is used to meet tight client deadlines or make up for unforeseen delays.
The Role of Agility
Fast-tracking requires high levels of agility and risk management. Project managers must monitor multiple parallel tasks and maintain clear communication with stakeholders to avoid bottlenecks and resource conflicts.
Detailed project management tools like Gantt charts and task trackers can help mitigate these risks. According to PMI7, while fast-tracking can reduce project timelines by up to 30%, it also increases the risk of rework by 40% if not carefully managed.
How to Decide: Quick Decision-Making Framework
1. Evaluate Project Complexity and Risk
If the project involves high-risk, complex tasks—for example, those requiring compliance with strict regulations or safety standards—Full Track is the preferred approach. For instance, healthcare or construction projects often face significant penalties if compliance is overlooked. Full Track changes help reduce rework by 50% in such industries.
In contrast, Fast Track works well for projects with lower risks but urgent timelines, such as software development or product launches, where gaining market advantage is crucial. Fast Track can accelerate delivery by up to 30% but carries a 40% risk of rework if not managed properly.
2. Analyze Deadline Flexibility
Projects with flexible deadlines or long-term delivery goals will benefit from Full Track, allowing for methodical, phased changes. On the other hand, if deadlines are rigid—for example, due to client demands or competitive pressures—Fast Track changes are more suitable. Fast Track allows for task overlap, helping you meet deadlines without altering scope, though it requires tight monitoring to manage dependencies and risks.
3. Assess Resource Availability
Full Track changes generally require more time, personnel, and budget due to detailed planning, stakeholder approvals, and risk mitigation stages. However, projects with limited resources but urgent deadlines may benefit from Fast Track, as it can reduce idle time by overlapping tasks.
In these cases, resource management tools like Microsoft Project balance workloads and prevent bottlenecks. Be aware, though, that Fast Track increases the chance of burnout if resources are stretched too thin.
Read More: Ultimate Guide to Burn Rate Chart
4. Determine Stakeholder Involvement
Full Track is ideal when the project requires extensive stakeholder feedback and ongoing approvals. For example, large-scale infrastructure projects may involve multiple regulatory bodies whose input is critical at every phase.
Conversely, Fast Track is more suited to projects where stakeholder involvement is either minimal or pre-aligned, minimizing the need for frequent check-ins. To maintain alignment, project managers can use real-time communication tools like Mirorim, ensuring stakeholders are kept in the loop without delaying the project.
5. Consider Long-Term Impact vs. Speed
Full Track changes are best for projects that prioritize long-term success and stability. This method significantly reduces the risk of failure or rework, making it ideal for sectors like finance or aerospace, where precision is key.
However, for industries where speed to market is essential, such as tech or retail, Fast Track is the better option. Fast Track helps launch products faster, allowing companies to stay competitive, although it comes with a higher risk of quality issues if not closely managed.
Decision Matrix
| Factor | Full Track | Fast Track |
| Project Risk | High-risk, complex projects (e.g., healthcare, construction) | Lower-risk, time-sensitive projects (e.g., software launches) |
| Deadline Flexibility | Flexible, long-term deadlines | Rigid, compressed timelines |
| Resource Availability | Requires more time, personnel, and budget | Can manage with fewer upfront resources |
| Stakeholder Involvement | Requires frequent approvals, high stakeholder involvement | Minimal or pre-aligned stakeholder involvement |
| Long-Term Success vs. Speed | Prioritizes long-term stability | Prioritizes speed and market competitiveness |
Conclusion
Choosing the right approach is critical for project success. Full Track changes provide thorough risk management for complex projects, while Fast Track prioritizes speed for time-sensitive ones. To make the best decision, consider project complexity, deadline flexibility, resources, and stakeholder needs.
Review your past projects to see which approach delivered better results and minimize risks in future projects. Mirorim’s tools can help streamline this decision-making process by tracking deadlines, resources, and stakeholder involvement in real time.
Take control of your project’s success—create a free account on Mirorim today and make informed decisions faster and more efficiently.
References
- Parsi, N. (2017). Flying Higher: Project Success Rates Are (Finally) on the Rise—And Are Giving Organizations Room to Grow. PM Network, 31(3), 58–61. https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/flying-higher-project-success-rates-on-rise-10697 ↩︎
- Raymond, D. (2024, February 3). The 10 Causes of Project Management Failures. ProjectManagers.net. https://projectmanagers.net/the-10-causes-of-project-management-failures/ ↩︎
- Anderson, S. (2024, July 31). The Correlation Between Change Management and Project Success. Prosci. https://www.prosci.com/blog/the-correlation-between-change-management-and-project-success ↩︎
- Landau, P. (2024, July 19). Fast Tracking: Schedule Compression in Project Management. ProjectManager. https://www.projectmanager.com/blog/project-management-fast-tracking ↩︎
- Landau, P. (2024b, July 19). Fast Tracking: Schedule Compression in Project Management. ProjectManager. https://www.projectmanager.com/blog/project-management-fast-tracking ↩︎
- Monnappa, A. (2024, July 23). Fast Tracking vs Crashing: Key Differences. Simplilearn.com. https://www.simplilearn.com/fast-tracking-vs-crashing-article ↩︎
- Fretty, P. (2012). On the right track. PM Network, 26(9), 50–55. https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/fast-tracking-projects-save-time-3847 ↩︎
