I vividly remember a
major project in the late 1990’s in which our time and attendance software
needed to update all existing software to handle the year 2000 and beyond. The
legacy software which lots of clients still used had algorithms built into the
code which invalidated the year “00” and the century “20”. As you can
predicate, “Project 2K” initially had a narrow scope, make sure all time and
attendance reports and date references could handle the year 2000. This project was critical since small
companies used the software to prepare payroll and the thought of our software
blowing up on the eve of the year 2000 was unconscionable.
Scope creep reared
its ugly head, as the marketing team began making requests to add in some new
reports with this same release. Dr.
Stolovich states in Project Mangement Concerns,
project that's been spec'd and revise that once its tested and acceptable to add additional
features or to meet another need." (Stolovich, n.d.)
In this scenario, the director of engineering who managed all of the software projects, diplomatically valued the request for the new reports and assured the stakeholders that would be added in the next release. After several passionate meetings, an informal change control system, the C.E.O. of the company determined that at least two reports would be added to this release within the same timeframe. Dr. Stolovitch recommends using a change of scope document in Monitoring Projects to get written confirmation and clarification of the change to the original scope of the project. It clearly lays out what the change is, what the implications are, what the timeline, resources, budget, and deliverables are going to be and going to be effected. You work the change of scope document with the client and get their commitment and signoff and then you communicate the changes, and you reallocate time and resources. (Stolovich, n.d.)
Scope creep always has residual effects. In this case, additional quality assurance personnel had to be added to the project. Some were dedicated to testing the upgrade of all releases of the software on various platforms. The additional Q&A resources were used to test the new reports. Although the timeframe was met, the number of hours expended by human capital and additional resources dedicated to the project halted all other projects until this release was completed.
Profit is always a game changer. Reflecting on this project now, if I were the project manager back then, I would have done a cost variance and estimate at completion. If the C.E.O. were provided with the actual costs of adding these reports to the current release and the difference between what the original scope of the project and the cost of letting another project be shelved to reallocate the Q&A personnel to this project, it might have vetoed the reports in this release. The Earned Value Analysis helps project managers determine whether a project is ahead or behind schedule and whether it’s over or under budget, while only tracking resource expenditures. (Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton, and Kramer, 2008, p.327).
References:
Portny, S. E., Mantel, S.
J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., Sutton, M. M., & Kramer, B. E. (2008).
Project management: Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Stolovich, H. (Producer). (n.d.) Monitoring Projects. Laureate Education, Inc. Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Fype%3DCourse%26id%3D_2823017_1%26url%3D
Stolovich,
H. (Producer). (n.d.)Project Management
Concerns: ‘Scope Creep’. Laureate Education, Inc. Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_1373695_1%26url%3D
Your post is an excellent Post-Mortem review of how Scope Creep can effect a project. it is wonderful that you raise the issue of a Cost Analysis, and you seem to include not only the direct costs of the change, but the indirect costs of how the change effected the rest of the company's bottom line. It is often the case that passion from stakeholders can win out, especially if cost and other repercussions are not utilized as a defense. I wonder, did Marketing have their own Cost-Analysis of how the two items selected would drive future business and revenue? Potentially their argument could have been backed by similar financial predictions, which might have helped them to win their passionate plea. I like how the form provided by our text includes "Impact Variables" that should be considered (Greer, 2010, p. 37). Clearly this form should be considered from both sides of a proposed change, as it would be normal that the side requesting the change may not be able to see the impact from the other side. A similar form such as a "Scope Change Order Rebuttal" would have been useful in the case you describe. Although the decision to add two things was handled by the manager, it might have been helpful if he had gotten additional buy-in from his stakeholders (designers) in the process by sharing the overall request, and allowing others to assist in the decision making process.
ReplyDeleteReferences:
Greer, M. (2010). The Project Management Minimalist: Just enough PM to rock your projects. Special edition prepared for Laureate Universities International. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Laureate, Inc.
Eileen,
DeleteThanks for your response. You make some valuable observations. Greer does suggest discussing the impact of the change with your team. This discussion should result in some alternatives based on the team's brainstorming session. In this scenario, the CEO was the sponsor, but once he was made aware of the implications, the number of the reports was narrowed down. Thanks again for your feedback.
Reference:
Greer, M. (2010). The Project Management Minimalist: Just enough PM to rock your projects. Special edition prepared for Laureate Universities International. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Laureate, Inc.
Hi Carol:
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your experience. I agree that when changes to any project are suggested, a cost variance should be conducted to determine if the project is running under, at, or over budget. If the project is already over budget it may not be financially feasible to allow any additions to the project (Portny et al., 2008). As you mentioned, other projects had to be placed on hold in order to shift resources to the your project increasing the cost of the project. I would be curious to see a cost-benefit analysis of this decision. Though the C.E.O. approved the addition of the reports I makes me wonder if the decision was an informed one or was it based on peer pressure. What do you think?
Reference:
Portny, S. E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., Sutton, M. M., & Kramer, B. E. (2008). Project management: Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.
Thanks Brad for your comments. I think the decision was well thought out, and the cost of adding these two reports outweighed the projects put on hold to reallocate resources. The stakeholders who requested the reports generated enough business to add the additional resources.
DeleteCarol,
ReplyDeleteYou have done an excellent job in presenting a well-crafted and fully supported blog. I am a firm advocate of providing senior management with actual cost comparisons of what additions to a project means to the bottom line. Information that reveals the difference between the projected scope and the original scope of the project should always provide a CEO with the opportunity cost associated with letting another project be shelved to reallocate additional personnel to a project. This can be a real eye opener and a game changer.
Love your Dilbert too..
Synthea Freeman