Scope
Creep:
“The natural tendency of the client, as well as project team members, to try to
improve the project’s output as the project progresses” (Portny, Mantel,
Meredith, Shafter, Sutton, 2008, p. 350). In other words, as the duration
of a project continues in the time line, the client (or team members) propose
changes and/or improvements that change the project’s scope. These
alterations typically increase the size and/or budget of the project as well as
require extended time lines, more or different personnel, and could ultimately
impact the satisfaction of the client.
Last
summer, I co-wrote a new sixth grade chemistry science unit for my
county. I applied and was very excited about the opportunity to spend my
summer working on curriculum (and get paid for it)! The task involved
writing a nine week unit that centered around a problem to create a project
based learning opportunity. The project manager was also adamant about
avoiding kitchen chemistry stating that the lessons should be authentic!
“Be creative” he said, “the project can be anything you want!” As a
writing team, we struggled to find a project or real life situation that
seamlessly fit the stated requirements, not to mention all the indicators and
objectives. We finally decided to have students create a bio-plastic beam
and then test it for strength. We researched plastics and building
materials, tested prototypes and procedures for safety, drafted documents, and
created half the unit’s lessons based on this idea. Mid-way through the
summer, we met for a face-to-face check-in meeting and the project manager told
us it was a great idea! He really liked the work we had completed and we
had the go ahead to create the rest of the unit. We were told that
subject matter experts would be reviewing the completed lessons and that the
feedback would be used to modify them if needed.
In
early August, at our next face-to-face meeting, we received the feedback from
the SME about the first half. The feedback was positive but we were told
that the project would fit better in a different unit – so we needed to adopt
another project for the chemistry unit (one that the project manager created
and was not fully developed). The new idea was based on pyrotechnics and
special effects. Basically, we now needed to revise the first half of the
unit and finish the rest based on this new project idea. We were very
disappointed and tried to fight for our original project which stalled the work
until we gained more feedback from the SME and other stakeholders. By the
time all the communications were completed, we had one week to finish all the
work associated with the unit.
Looking
back on the project, communication throughout wasn’t clear between us (the
writers) and the project manager. As a project manager, I would have
checked-in more frequently with the writers to ensure progress and provide
feedback. The writers could have made revisions in real time instead of
going back weeks later to fix lesson structures and activities. The
writing was done via google docs which has features to aid online communication
– unfortunately, we didn’t use all the features to their full capabilities.
It was frustrating to know that we did several weeks worth of work all while
the project manager knew that it would have to be redone/revised to fit a new
project. I understand that the PM wanted to have the conversation with us
in person, but by doing so, it delayed our project and in the end, parts were
left incomplete due to no additional time given past the deadline. As a
project manager, “scope creep is inevitable with projects” (Portny et al, 2008,
p. 348), but being flexible and ready for them helps lessen the impact.
In my case, more communication would have helped to keep all stakeholders on
the same page of the project.
References:
Portny,
S. E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., Sutton, M. M., &
Kramer, B. E.
No comments:
Post a Comment