Analyzing Scope Creep

Source:  thinkstock.com

When managing projects, it is not uncommon for unanticipated issues to arise which may result in an expansion of the scope of a project.  A term for this is called “scope creep” – a pejorative name given to the natural process by which clients discover what they really want (Helms, 2002).  Scope creep may include things such as being pressured to include activities or deliverables which weren’t part of the original project vision, or receiving extra funds with an expectation to change aspects of the project.  There may also be occasions when timelines are impacted due to changing priorities of team members or stakeholders.

My personal experience with scope creep is described below with a focus on the main issue encountered, how stakeholders dealt with the issues at the time, and how I was able to manage the issues and control the scope of the project.

Background

In December of 2011 I inherited a project for redesigning an onboarding training program for a business line of over 2,000 employees located in Shanghai, China; Geneva, Switzerland; and Indianapolis, IN.  The project was approximately 50% complete and was due to launch in mid-February of 2012.  I was to oversee the completion of approximately 30 instructor-led training courses which had been assigned to subject matter experts and also to personally develop 11 web-based eLearning asynchronous modules.

Issue

The issue that arose three weeks prior to launch occurred when department subject matter experts began piloting the asynchronous modules and determined that more detailed information was warranted.  They requested the materials be redesigned for facilitator-led classroom sessions. 

Solution

Because of what had already been approved for the project activities and deliverables, I was able to communicate with the project sponsor, drivers and supporters the justification for following the project plan as detailed on the design documents.  As the discussions took place, piloting and refining of the asynchronous modules continued and all were launched according to the timeline.

Looking back at the ease with which the issue was solved can be attributed to the way in which my predecessor defined and managed the project, for instance:

• There was a dedicated project sponsor.
• Business leaders from each department served as project drivers and supporters. 
• The project documentation included an organization tool called a Design Document with detailed information for each of the courses being developed (Laureate Education, Inc., n.d.).
• All tasks were listed and coded with a priority of high, medium, or low
• Top priorities were always handled first.
• Lower priority tasks were delegated (with the project manager retaining responsibility for completion).
• There was an established culture that this project was paving the way for future similar projects and as such perfection was avoided.
• Each Design Document had been approved with the understanding that project would involve two phases.  The first phase would launch according to the approved Design Documents, after which evaluative data would be collected to measure the overall effectiveness of the entire program, and then a second project phase would commence to refine the instructional materials as needed.
• There were bi-Weekly status calls with project sponsor, drivers, and supporters.
• There were weekly meetings with those assigned project tasks which provided the opportunity to identify those who were doing well and those needing assistance.

Scope Creep Reminders

For the future, it’s important to remember that scope creep is likely to happen, more so when:  1) the scope and requirements documents are unclear or insufficiently detailed; 2) the stakeholders expect something different from what is planned; and, 3) stakeholders are uninvolved until the end of a project.  Planning is always the best solution (Starr, 2010):

STEP 1:  At the beginning of a project, document what is in and out of scope.

STEP 2:  Get the scope document approved by all primary stakeholders (decision-makers).

STEP 3:  Upon receipt of a scope change request, notify all scope signers of the nature of the request.

STEP 4:  Perform an assessment of the request, specifying the impact upon the budget, [resources], and/or schedule.

STEP 5:  Determine your own recommendation.

STEP 6:  Present the assessment and your recommendation to the scope signers for approval or rejection.

Be sure to DOCUMENT EVERYTHING!

References

Helms, H. (2002). In defense of scope creep. Retrieved from http://alistapart.com/article/scopecreep

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (n.d). Project Management in Education & Training [DVD]. In Monitoring projects. Baltimore, MD: Dr. Harold Stolovich. 

Starr, J. (2010). Managing scope creep. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/

           joanstarr/managing-scopecreep1

Communicating Effectively

Source: www.microsoft.com

Dr. Harold Stolovich advises project managers to be clear, concise, and focused in order to help project team members stay on target. Stolovich reminds us that communication is not just about the words.  Effective communication is influenced by (Laureate Education, Inc., n.d.):

·         spirit and attitude;

·         tonality and body language;

·         timing; and,

·         the personality of the recipient.

As part of this week’s assignment I had the opportunity to review a message sent in three different modalities, each of which elicited a different response from me outlined below.  

Email	Voicemail	Face-to-Face
The tone in the email message seemed self-centered.  It was all about what the email sender needed instead of why the missing report was so crucial.  It seemed as if the email sender was blaming the receiver for not being timely with the report.	The tone in the voicemail was semi-demanding and abrupt, and reflected impatience in retrieving the requested information.	The body language was clearly sincere in communicating not only the importance of the report but offered flexibility in the timing for receiving it.

While the face-to-face communication was by far my most preferred method; this is not always possible in today’s organizations with employees in different locations throughout the country and even the world.  Stolovich recommends meeting with stakeholders at the beginning of project to determine standards of communication including: frequency; communication types; response time frames; language (words and phrases); format; and rules of participation in the project (Laureate Education, Inc., n.d.).

“Whether you are planning a meeting or working with a new meeting professional as a client, setting communications preferences can be the secret recipe to business relationship success.” (Sanders, 2012)

For the project manager’s toolkit, here are a few communication tips for effective projects (Laureate Education, Inc., n.d.): 

1. Important communication is best delivered with all team members present in a live setting if possible.
2. Avoid ambiguity.
3. Document everything, including verbal discussions.

References

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (n.d). Project Management in Education & Training [DVD]. In

     Communicating with stakeholders. Baltimore, MD: Dr. Harold Stolovich.

Sanders, T. (2012). What’s your communication preference? Meeting Professionals International.

     Retrieved from http://www.mpiweb.org/Portal/Management/20120807

    /What_s_Your_Communication_Preference