(1) If between very good and inadequate there is only one status that is yellow, every person that is at least a little rational would stive for a safe distance to failure (inadequate) and therefore reach something like a “four”. And if this pattern is applied (in companies) for Project Management, there will be a systemic determination for only sufficient output and results.
(2) This situation can be improved by introducing a Biathlon System where a project “checks” one target after the other. If a shot misses the target, a penality round is due. Two missed shots, two penalities. This is a strongly deficit-oriented system but at least it includes a strong incentive to fail as less as possible.
(3) If we now think of a strengths based system, we can imagine something like a ladder where a project climbs up the rungs up to the top. And if we - furthermore - would bind the allocation of ressources to those projects which have a good performance (because they are hardworking) we could have two effects:
- the projects would strive intrinsically for a good performace to get more resources
- the competition between projects for resources would favour successful projects
My strong guess would be, that this methodology would lead to a much lesser need for Task Forces, because the scarce resources could be distributed in an order that will create and favor successful projects.
But if a company pushes a wide mass of yellow projects in front of it, every project would suffer and problems as well as risks will rise asymetrically (maybe because of the GYR system).