In a previous article on Leveraging Red, Amber, and Green (RAG) for Effective Project Management, we explored how the RAG system helps project managers and teams communicate complex project statuses to stakeholders in a clear, concise, and actionable manner. The tool’s simplicity is one of its greatest strengths, but this strength can quickly become a weakness if it is misused. While the prior article covered the fundamental aspects of RAG and how it can be a powerful asset, it didn’t delve into the potential pitfalls that, if left unchecked, could undermine the long-term effectiveness of this communication tool.
RAG, at its core, is designed to streamline communication about complex situations — a common occurrence in engineering, software development, and large-scale project management. However, this simplified approach can easily be derailed if misapplied. In this article, we’ll explore several traps project managers and stakeholders should avoid to preserve the integrity and utility of the RAG framework, ensuring it remains an effective tool for communicating project health.
Don’ts
- Don’t Use RAG to Convey General DifficultyOne of the most common missteps in using RAG statuses is using them to express the overall difficulty of a project. Just because a project is difficult doesn’t mean it’s out of control. Every project has challenging moments — be it managing limited resources, navigating tight deadlines, or solving technical complexities. However, reporting difficulty through a RAG status does more harm than good.The purpose of RAG is not to gauge the emotional or subjective experience of project management. Instead, it’s designed to convey facts, actual metrics, forecasts, and key performance indicators. By sticking to tangible data, you ensure that stakeholders have a clear, accurate picture of where the project stands. Difficulty is often a subjective measure, and by presenting it through RAG, you risk diluting the signal-to-noise ratio, muddying the waters for those relying on concrete information to make decisions.Solution: Root your RAG communications in data. Red indicates that specific risks or issues need immediate attention; amber suggests that there are concerns that could escalate without intervention; and green means everything is under control. Keep your communication focused on these factual parameters to avoid confusion.
- Don’t Use RAG to Reflect General UncertaintyUncertainty is an inherent part of every engineering and project management effort. It’s the nature of the beast — unpredictable events happen, unexpected challenges arise, and new information surfaces as the project progresses. However, using RAG to reflect a general sense of uncertainty can obscure the real issues that need to be addressed.Unless uncertainty arises from specific, identifiable risks that threaten project outcomes, it’s better to avoid expressing vagueness through the RAG framework. Stakeholders need to know when uncertainty impacts the timeline, cost, or quality of deliverables — not that things feel generally unpredictable. RAG should highlight situations where uncertainty has a tangible effect, rather than being a reflection of the inherent variability present in every project.Solution: Be precise in your RAG communication. If there are uncertainties, identify and communicate them clearly. Highlight risks that have measurable impacts or those that may require mitigation plans. Generalised uncertainty doesn’t offer actionable insight, but specific risks do.
overcome entrenched biases
- Green Does Not Mean Easy or UnimportantA green status can leads to misinterpretation within management teams and stakeholders alike. In some cases, people associate green with simplicity or assume that green signals a task or milestone that isn’t crucial. This misunderstanding can lead to a lack of attention from stakeholders when everything seems “fine.”It’s essential to establish that green does not mean trivial or non-challenging. Instead, it signifies that all elements are under control, and no immediate intervention is needed. A green status should be celebrated as a positive outcome of good planning, risk management, and execution.Solution: Encourage stakeholders to recognise that a green status doesn’t imply unimportance or ease. It simply means that the project is being managed effectively. Even green tasks deserve continued attention and oversight to ensure they remain on track.
- Amber is Comfortable — Too ComfortableAmber is the gray zone between green and red, often representing uncertainty or risk. Many project managers and teams can get too comfortable staying in the amber zone for extended periods. It feels safer than declaring a situation as red, yet it still acknowledges that things aren’t perfect. However, this sense of comfort in amber can dilute the urgency to address the issues at hand.Staying in amber for too long can signal to stakeholders that it’s okay to linger in a risky situation without taking decisive action. Over time, this can lead to project stagnation. The perception that “amber is good enough” is a dangerous one, as it can breed complacency, allowing small issues to fester until they evolve into more significant problems that are harder to resolve.Solution: Treat amber as a temporary state that requires focused attention. If a project or task remains amber for too long, it’s a sign that further action is needed to prevent deterioration. Amber should be a call to action, not a comfortable resting place.
- Red is Not a ShameIn the world of engineering and project management, things go wrong — that’s part of the process. Unfortunately, many project managers and teams treat a red status as a source of shame or failure, causing them to avoid reporting critical issues. This mindset undermines the value of the RAG system, as red is a necessary signal to regroup, reassess, and correct the course of the project.Red should not be feared. Rather, it should be seen as a constructive signal that something needs immediate attention. Reporting red is an opportunity to rally resources, engage stakeholders, and address problems before they worsen. Removing the stigma around red can lead to more open and honest communication, which in turn helps keep projects on track.Solution: Cultivate a culture where red is not synonymous with failure but with transparency and responsiveness. Red status should trigger a structured process for issue resolution, not finger-pointing.
Guidelines
- Anticipate and Set Clear RulesFor the RAG system to work effectively, teams must establish clear rules and guidelines for when and why a project transitions between RAG statuses. For example, a shift from green to red should be rare, significant, and supported by data, rather than being based on a sudden gut feeling. Similarly, amber should be seen as a temporary state rather than a holding pattern.Furthermore, consider setting a maximum allowable duration for a project to remain in red status. This ensures that teams are actively working to resolve the issues rather than accepting failure as a long-term condition. Clear rules help teams anticipate and mitigate risks before they spiral out of control.Solution: Define explicit criteria for RAG transitions, so everyone understands when and why a status change occurs. Make it clear that each colour is meaningful and actionable, not arbitrary.
- Beware of the Boiling Frog SyndromeThe “Boiling Frog” syndrome describes a situation where gradual deterioration is overlooked until it’s too late. This can happen when teams linger in amber status for too long, becoming desensitised to the ongoing risks and challenges. Eventually, the situation deteriorates to the point of no return, with stakeholders blindsided by a sudden shift to red.Solution: Amber should never be treated as a long-term state. Always follow up on amber statuses to ensure that risks are being mitigated and that the project remains on course. Regular status reviews can prevent the “Boiling Frog” effect from setting in.
- Management Behaviours and Their ImpactUltimately, the effectiveness of the RAG system depends heavily on the behaviours of management. If leadership cultivates a culture where amber is seen as neutral or acceptable, the purpose of RAG as a clear and actionable communication tool is undermined. Management should emphasise that amber is a sign of uncertainty or risk that requires action — not a comfortable middle ground.Solution: Lead by example. Management should take every RAG status seriously and provide the necessary support and resources to address amber and red statuses proactively.
Conclusion
The RAG system is a powerful tool for simplifying the communication of complex project statuses, but it must be used thoughtfully and deliberately. By avoiding the common traps outlined above, you can ensure that your RAG statuses remain meaningful, actionable, and beneficial for long-term project success. Always focus on fact-based communication, clearly define risks and uncertainties, and use each colour with intent to drive clarity, action, and decision-making.
