Showing posts with label Stakeholders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stakeholders. Show all posts

Sunday, February 24, 2008

PROJECT MANAGEMENT: A BEST PRACTICE FOR PREVENTING SCOPE CREEP

One of the most insidious things that will wreck havoc on your project is scope creep. The term refers to the addition of one addition after another to the original objective. The additions are usually done in a subtle manner and seem minor initially. Unchecked, you may find yourself with an objective that is more complicated, time-consuming, and expensive than the objective that was originally agreed upon.

Once a baseline has been created, there are only “preliminary” requirements and “baselined” requirements. Train your people to use these terms “preliminary” and “baselined” before the word “requirements.” Consistently using the adjectives will ingrain the fact that a baseline already exists and that any and I mean, any, other requirements are preliminary ones that are not part of the baseline. Consistently using these qualifiers reinforces the fact that all requirements are preliminary until they are included in the baseline.

One way that a customer or a stakeholder can try to introduce an addition is by insisting that his people meet directly with your people. He insists that he wants the information “raw.” He believes that if the information passes through the project management office (PMO), the information is filtered before it reaches him. As a Project Manager, you may have to permit his people meet your people directly as he requested. However, your permission should be given with the condition that your people are not authorized to accept or otherwise permit any changes to the original project objective. Any proposed additions must go through the PMO. Make sure that your people and theirs acknowledge and agree to that condition—in writing if you think that it’s necessary.

An effective way to create an environment that discourages scope creep is through the careful use of terminology. Here’s an example.

After the project’s scope has been agreed upon, the scope is captured in a baseline. This baseline is one of the most important documents in the project. Time and again, everyone from the project team to the stakeholders will return to the baseline. You might say that the project baseline is the reference standard of the entire project.

If you think about it, the baseline captures more than the project scope. It also incorporates the time and costs. The baseline typically takes the form of a tracking Gantt chart. A tracking Gantt shows the actual project’s progress beside the original forecast. The Gantt shows the project’s duration by task. The sum of task durations is the agreed-upon schedule (or time) of the project. The agreed-upon costs are visible behind the chart. The costs are shown by resources and the amount of resources used by individual tasks. These explain why the baseline is so important. It contains the triple constraints of scope, time, and costs.

The baselining, i.e., act of creating the baseline, is typically done at the end of the project planning phase. As the term suggests, the project has been planned and the stakeholders have signed off on the plans.

From that point, the Project Manager (PM) should clearly notify all stakeholders that from this point forward, the team will be strictly adhering to the change control process. The PM must emphasize the seriousness of the change control process. From this point forward, the PM must emphasize that the baselining process must be followed.

An addition, if it is accepted without going through a formal change control process, becomes a requirement. It becomes part of the scope. This is what scope creep is—the scope changes incrementally, i.e., it creeps.

Returning to that earlier example, the PM should instruct his team to never say or use the term “requirements” by itself. Again, never use the term “requirements” by itself with stakeholders and especially customer-stakeholders. Remind them that the scope and project requirements were already agreed upon and documented in the baseline.

Once a baseline has been created, there are only “preliminary” requirements and “baselined” requirements. Train your people to use these terms “preliminary” and “baselined” before the word “requirements.” Consistently using these adjectives will ingrain the fact that a baseline already exists and that any and I mean, any, other requirements are preliminary ones that are not part of the baseline. Consistently using these qualifiers reinforces the fact that all requirements are preliminary until they are included in the baseline.

Any change that pops up after the baseline is not included in the scope. It is referred to as a “preliminary requirement.” It stays preliminary until it goes through the change control process. If the change is accepted, then it turns into a “baselined” requirement.

I consider this to be a best practice for psychological reasons. Stakeholders, especially customers, tend not to take the original requirements of the planning seriously. Consequently, these stakeholders never treat the baseline with respect. Left unchecked, these stakeholders will continually submit new requirements and expect their acceptance without any consequences. That should not be the case. The baseline reflects everything that all stakeholders had agreed upon. Any changes have a “preliminary” nature until they are formally accepted.

It’s a subtle thing that works. Train your team to always make the distinction between preliminary and baselined requirements and the environment will change. Everyone will stay alert and know the difference between the original and the still-unaccepted requirements.

One of the most insidious things that will wreck havoc on your project is scope creep. The term refers to the addition of one addition after another to the original objective. The additions are usually done in a subtle manner and seem minor initially. Unchecked, you may find yourself with an objective that is more complicated, time-consuming, and expensive than the objective that was originally agreed upon.

Once a baseline has been created, there are only “preliminary” requirements and “baselined” requirements. Train your people to use these terms “preliminary” and “baselined” before the word “requirements.” Consistently using the adjectives will ingrain the fact that a baseline already exists and that any and I mean, any, other requirements are preliminary ones that are not part of the baseline. Consistently using these qualifiers reinforces the fact that all requirements are preliminary until they are included in the baseline.

One way that a customer or a stakeholder can try to introduce an addition is by insisting that his people meet directly with your people. He insists that he wants the information “raw.” He believes that if the information passes through the project management office (PMO), the information is filtered before it reaches him. As a Project Manager, you may have to permit his people meet your people directly as he requested. However, your permission should be given with the condition that your people are not authorized to accept or otherwise permit any changes to the original project objective. Any proposed additions must go through the PMO. Make sure that your people and theirs acknowledge and agree to that condition—in writing if you think that it’s necessary.

A practical way to create an environment that discourages scope creep is through the careful use of terminology. Here’s an example.

After the project’s scope has been agreed upon, the scope is captured in a baseline. This baseline is one of the most important documents in the project. Time and again, everyone from the project team to the stakeholders will return to the baseline. You might say that the project baseline is the reference standard of the entire project.

If you think about it, the baseline captures more than the project scope. It also incorporates the time and costs. The baseline typically takes the form of a tracking Gantt chart. A tracking Gantt shows the actual project’s progress beside the original forecast. The Gantt shows the project’s duration by task. The sum of task durations is the agreed-upon schedule (or time) of the project. The agreed-upon costs are visible behind the chart. The costs are shown by resources and the amount of resources used by individual tasks. These explain why the baseline is so important. It contains the triple constraints of scope, time, and costs.

The baselining, i.e., act of creating the baseline, is typically done at the end of the project planning phase. As the term suggests, the project has been planned and the stakeholders have signed off on the plans. From that point, the PM should clearly notify all stakeholders that from this point forward, the team will be strictly adhering to the change control process. The PM must emphasize the seriousness of the change control process.

The PM must clearly notify all stakeholders that, from this point forward, the team will be strictly adhering to the change control process. The PM must emphasize the seriousness of the change control process. From this point forward, the PM must emphasize that the baselining process must be followed.


An addition, if it is accepted without going through a formal change control process, becomes a requirement. It becomes part of the scope. This is what scope creep is—the scope changes incrementally, i.e., it creeps.

Returning to that earlier example, the PM should instruct his people to never say or use the term “requirements” by itself. Again, never use the term “requirements” by itself with stakeholders and especially customer-stakeholders. Remind them that the scope and project requirements were already agreed upon and documented in the baseline.

Once a baseline has been created, there are only “preliminary” requirements and “baselined” requirements. Train your people to use these terms “preliminary” and “baselined” before the word “requirements.” Consistently using the adjectives will ingrain the fact that a baseline already exists and that any and I mean, any, other requirements are preliminary ones that are not part of the baseline. Consistently using these qualifiers reinforces the fact that all requirements are preliminary until they are included in the baseline.

Any change that pops up after the baseline is not included in the scope. It is referred to as a “preliminary requirement.” It stays preliminary until it goes through the change control process. If the change is accepted, then it turns into a “baselined” requirement.

I consider this to be a best practice for psychological reasons.

Stakeholders, especially customers, have a tendency to not take the original requirements of the planning seriously. Consequently, these stakeholders never treat the baseline with respect. Left unchecked, stakeholders will continually submit new requirements and expect the acceptance of these additions without any consequences. That should not be the case. The baseline reflects everything that all stakeholders had agreed upon. Any changes have a “preliminary” nature until they are formally accepted. The distinction is subtle and should continually be pointed out.
Train your team to always make the distinction between preliminary and baselined requirements and the project environment will change.

Through this practice, a PM will not be forced to implement the ban on unauthorized changes alone. Team members will stay alert and know the difference between the original and the still-unaccepted requirements. This involves them in the fight against scope creep. The team helps the PM with one of the most vexing problems that confront a PM during the execution phase of the project, namely, scope creep. Training your team in the manner described above turns the effort to control scope creep into a team effort.


Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, October 6, 2007

PROJECT MANAGEMENT: HOW TO DEAL WITH VAGUE OBJECTIVES

It’s not unusual for an objective to be initially defined vaguely for any number of reasons. It may be a first-time objective. It may not have been thought through all the way and it’s your assignment to flesh the objective.

Do not make the mistake of accepting a project that has a vague objective(s)!

In fact, even if the objective seems straightforward, I think it’s a good idea to check it against your SMARTs. This familiar technique—you can google it easily—ensures that the objective is really clear. If it doesn’t pass your SMARTs, then you have to push back and insist on further clarification.


Remember, you have to clarify it before you accept it.

SMART is a mnemonic (ne-mo-nic) for the five standards that must be met by your project objective.

Specific + Measurable + Agreed-upon + Realistic + Time-bound


Here are the details.


Specific
An objective must have enough specific detail so you know what the final product or service is supposed to resemble.
Measurable
Quantify the objective and use an objective standard if possible and desirable. Reduce subjectivity since it leaves too many things open for conflict.
Agreed-upon
The standards of performance must be established before the project gets underway. This is especially important when there are numerous stakeholders.
Realistic
Negotiate. Exploit the flexibility of the triple constraints. Frequently, a project seems too difficult or impossible because of the project’s constraints. If the constraints are negotiable, risk is lessened and the likelihood of success improves.
Time-bound
A deadline motivates action. A lack of urgency tempts people to procrastinate. Always have a time constraint.

Additional Remarks:


The SMART process is iterative, i.e., it uses successive rounds to zero in on the most precise solution. Be forewarned that this is a time-consuming process. On the other hand, time-consuming as it is, you can be sure that it will save even more time by preventing (or at least minimizing) the chance that you will have to re-do the project.

Try to meet all stakeholders at each round of the process. Do this for everyone’s sake. Stakeholders who are neglected or even just feel left out frequently tend to put pressure elsewhere on your project. Invite them since you need to protect their self-esteem and sense of participation.

Summarize and paraphrase each stakeholder’s input until the stakeholder agrees that you, the PM, understands.

At the end of each round, prepare a draft statement of the negotiated objectives and circulate it. Invite feedback and discussion.

You’ll know that the objective is clear when it passes the SMART test and is accepted by all stakeholders. Ideally, this group should include even those stakeholders whose objectives were eliminated. This group may not like the final decision but the important thing is their acknowledgment of the fact that their objectives will not be in the final project. Remember: the objective has to pass the SMART test and is accepted by all stakeholders.


Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, June 9, 2007

PROJECT MANAGEMENT: HOW TO HANDLE A PROJECT WITH TOO MANY OBJECTIVES

Project objectives are usually negotiable. It’s not always a situation where, as the saying goes, “it’s not for me to reason why but to do and die.”


Most conflicts about objectives occur because of multiple stakeholders. Each stakeholder wants his/her objectives included in the project. If you know it’s not possible, say so! If you don’t, you’ll suffer a thousand deaths.

I know because that’s what happened to me the first time. Fortunately for me, the second time this situation confronted me, a more experienced PM (Project Manager) came to my rescue and taught me the following techniques.

Begin by identifying the disparate objectives. Categorize them by type, purpose, stakeholder, and any other salient attributes, e.g., duration, cost. Most of all assess each objective’s feasibility according to your project constraints. For each project objective, distinguish between what’s being asked as opposed to what’s feasible.

You may find that it’s actually possible to accomplish all the objectives but not within the original constraints. This gives you a good reason to approach your project sponsor or customer, explain the additional objectives and how achieving them will add value. Then ask for their decision. If they want to proceed with all those objectives, request for the additional resources. Either way they know the situation and must live with the consequences of their decision.

If you don’t receive the additional resources and they still insist on all the objectives, you have to let them negotiate with each other. Explain very clearly that you can’t do everything that everybody wants given the constraints you have. Explain, therefore, that some stakeholders will not see their objectives included in the project.

For specifics, try taking these steps:

1. Convene the stakeholders who are most likely to be affected. Let them negotiate with each other. Request them to tell you their decision. If they won’t or can’t, then…

2. Rank the conflicting objectives according to the value that will accrue to the customer or your organization. Select the highest value objectives. If the highest value objective isn’t clear, then…

3. Bring your project sponsor into the situation and request him/her to help the stakeholders resolve their conflict. If that doesn’t work, then…

4. Select the objectives that will satisfy the greatest number of stakeholders. If that doesn’t work, then …

5. Escalate it to your sponsor or superior and request them to make the decision. If that doesn’t work, then…

6. Select the objectives according to their duration (faster wins over slower), difficulty (easier over harder) and simplicity (simple over complex).


Credit for helping me develop some ideas go to Mike D.
Sphere: Related Content