Product Operations Program ManagerBarcelona, Cataluña, Spain
Many organizations use the RAG (Red-Amber-Green) system to track project status — timelines, risks, budgets, quality... But some companies have started dropping amber, arguing it’s often used as a “safe” middle ground: not quite green but not ready to admit it’s red either. In practice, this can delay escalation until things deteriorate further.
At the same time, much of today’s world has become binary — yes/no, on/off, in/out. So why not apply that same clarity to project reporting? Should we accept the ambiguity of Amber, or embrace a straightforward green-or-red model to drive transparency and accountability?
How do you handle this in your organization, and what has worked best for you?
It depends on what your criteria are for the colors. Sometimes, G = on plan, Y/A = off plan with mitigations in-place, and R = off plan w/o mitigation or no plan. in other cases, it is risk based. When risk based, the severity level is different depending if the project is within one function, or reported to the board of directors. Sometimes the colors are how it feels to a stakeholder.
Stoplight colors are at-a-glance KPIs. Without clear meanings, people can argue ad nauseum over what color they want to assign a project, risk, etc.
On that note, I typically don't like binary good/bad KPIs. If too much turns red but people know it's not a serious concern, it gets ignored. If the threshold to turn red is too high, problems are often overlooked. That is well established in engineering applications like aviation and motorsports. A warning light that is always on is distracting and gets ignored, but there is often one caution indicator when things are getting hot, and another signalling to cut power now before catastrophic failure. Saving Changes...
It all depends on what actions the colors inspire. If senior stakeholders have a track record of ignoring projects flagged as amber, then it adds no value. If on the other hand that has been an effective method of getting senior stakeholders to intervene to help get a project back on track, it does add value.
In general, I'm not a fan of subjective color-based evaluations as no matter how much you try to make them objective, they can be gamed. I'd much rather see a combination of quantitative and qualitative metrics and let the context of each project drive the resulting behavior.
Kiron Saving Changes...
Thomas WalentaGlobal Project Economy ExpertHackenheim, Germany
Eduard,
I prefer sticking to three levels; the move from green to amber should trigger questions, while the move from amber to red should prompt actions. The reporting RAG is inherently ambiguous and subjective; it reflects the project manager's expression of status, not a rational assessment.
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
That’s a great question, and one that goes deeper than traffic lights.
Amber isn’t the problem; how we use it is.
In healthy project cultures, amber is not a hiding place
It’s an invitation to dialogue. It signals, “we’re off-track but still within recovery range,” encouraging timely learning and collaboration before things turn red.
The issue arises when organizations treat amber as a comfort zone rather than a communication trigger. Then it becomes a mask for fear or a symptom of weak psychological safety, people hesitate to “go red” because they expect blame instead of support.
So rather than removing amber, I’d rather redefine it:
Green = aligned and stable
Amber = requires focused attention and shared problem-solving
Red = requires escalation and decision
Transparency is not achieved by reducing colors, but by building trust in the conversations behind them.
The way I used it at one company, which seemed somewhat effective, was to send out updates in advance and then, during the meeting, we focused on the reds and ambers, spending minimal time on the green projects. I think a greater concern is identifying watermelons - green on the outside and red/amber on the inside - and making sure status is being reported accurately. I'm not saying any of my peers would have intentionally misreported anything, but I will say that optimism bias was part of the company culture and was reflected, at times, in status meetings and company decisions. Saving Changes...
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
This “Amber trap” happens in several organizations. Personally, I still find value in keeping Amber, but only if it’s clearly defined and not used as a comfort zone. It works when it signals “risk emerging but under control” rather than “we don’t want to say red yet.” That said, I agree that a binary model can force sharper accountability in cultures where transparency is already strong. But I don't think this is about the color itself, but more the clarity and courage behind the reporting. Saving Changes...
I’ve seen both approaches work, but it depends on your team and culture.
Amber can be useful if your goal is to highlight early warning signs without triggering panic — it gives a chance to course-correct before issues become critical. But it’s true that sometimes it becomes a “safe zone,” and actions get delayed.
Green/Red forces clarity and accountability: either the project is on track or it needs immediate attention. For fast-moving environments where quick decisions are key, this binary approach can work better.
In my experience, some organizations use traffic-light plus commentary: keep Amber for early warnings, but always pair it with a note on next steps. That way, you get the nuance without losing accountability. Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
When companies put things in binary mode their are missing the thresholds that helps to act in advance. Saving Changes...
Product Operations Program ManagerBarcelona, Cataluña, Spain
Thanks everyone for the insightful comments, they all make valid points. I personally find value in Amber as long as it triggers actions to go to green, as opposed to a passive flagging exercise.
Community Champion
