On September 17, a U.S. Marine Corps F-35B fighter jet crashed in South Carolina, putting the $1.65 trillion program back in the spotlight. Fortunately, the pilot ejected successfully and was not seriously injured. Preliminary investigations suggest the crash was likely due to a "malfunction." The estimated cost of a single aircraft is about $100 million.

This is the latest in a series of crashes involving F-35 fighter jets. Previously, this expensive aircraft model experienced its first crash in South Carolina in 2018, crashed in Japan in 2019, and another crash in Utah last year. The F-35 comes in multiple variants, configured not only for the U.S. Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force, but also in customized versions for several allied nations participating in the program.

The entire program has long been plagued by delays and cost overruns. According to a report submitted by the U.S. Government Accountability Office to a congressional committee in May, the original development cost of the fighter in 2001 was $34.4 billion, but as of May this year, the estimated cost had ballooned to $57.5 billion. When considering the full lifecycle of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter program, the total cost of procurement, operation, and maintenance over its 77-year service life will approach $1.7 trillion.

One of the root causes of the program's ten-year delay and 80% cost overrun lies in the complexity of its scope.

The F-35 fighter was originally conceived in the 1990s as a "Swiss Army knife" of fighters, suitable for multiple military branches. Based on a common platform, the aircraft could be configured as a carrier-based jet for the Navy, a vertical takeoff and landing jet for the Marine Corps, and a conventional fighter for the Air Force. However, each use case required extensive customization. In March 2021, then-House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith referred to the F-35 fighter as a "money pit" in an interview. But as a New York Times opinion piece from 2021 noted, the aircraft is "too expensive to fail."

The lessons from this military program's failure should serve as a warning to all corporate executives: when planning complex projects, especially strategic ones aimed at transformation, defining scope clearly is crucial. Focus on the core objectives of the project, avoid adding unnecessary features, and implement good project management.

Attempting to build a "Swiss Army knife" fighter that meets the needs of three military branches was clearly a mistake. The initial program overestimated the cost-effectiveness and availability of common components, which was the primary design rationale for the Joint Strike Fighter program.

Organizations undertaking large projects should develop a habit of rigorously scrutinizing every major requirement and asking the following fundamental questions: 1) Are these requirements necessary or merely desired? Even if necessary, are there simpler alternatives? 2) Why are these requirements needed now rather than later? How will they interact with other requirements? 3) Do the requirements involve technical, regulatory, or legal uncertainties? (This question is especially important for cutting-edge technologies) 4) Finally, does the organization have the capability to build, scale, adopt, and operate the project?

By keeping initial requirements simple and clearly defining the scope, many pitfalls can be avoided from the outset.

Good project execution requires good management, and management begins with facing the realities of the project. Before investing significant time, resources, and money, organizations should engage domain experts and project management professionals who can critically analyze the scope of work and provide unbiased cost estimates, resource requirements, and realistic timelines.

In short, by applying data-driven, fact-based management and repeatedly verifying project estimates and plans to ensure a high degree of objectivity, organizations are more likely to deliver projects on time, within the intended scope, and on budget.

This is not to say that organizations should not undertake strategic and complex initiatives, but rather to approach them with caution, involving not only stakeholders who want the project to move forward but also listening to the concerns of detractors.

Most importantly, organizations should involve project management professionals early on to understand the costs, resources, and timelines required for such projects, and set a clear, precise scope for the project to avoid falling into a "money pit" that drains company resources.