You are managing a software development project, and one of the developers tells you that he added a new feature that he heard the sponsor talking about in a hallway conversation. The developer compl
You are managing a software development project, and one of the developers tells you that he added a new feature that he heard the sponsor talking about in a hallway conversation. The developer completed the work after hours, and it does add a lot of value to the solution. How should you manage this?
A. Thank the developer for his hard work and communicate this as a win in your next status report.
B. Document this as a change request and follow the Change Control process to ensure it is documented and approved.
C. As there were no costs incurred from the work and no schedule impact, you do not need to do anything.
D. Ask the developer not to implement the change as it was not approved, and explain that any scope changes must be reviewed and approved before implementation. Saving Changes...
I don't think this is a realistic scenario but if it has happened then I think that steps must be taken to use the work the developer has completed.
If the project is internal, that is you don't try to make profit out of it, and the sponsor is paying then the final decision should rest with him or her.
If you are delivering the project to an external entity then you must propose the change and ensure you get paid for it even if the developer worked in his spare time. If the change is not approved then you haven't lost anything as the developer has worked overtime.
The most foolish thing to do is to prevent a very good peace of work being delivering invoking project management processes. Unfortunately some times the processes prevent good work from being delivered.
I believe that It’s safe to say that we all want our developers to provide the highest value possible on any given work-area within the “scheduled constraints.” In my experience, such outputs occur when developers feel vested in their efforts; that is, they believe they have something “long term” to gain by putting in “extra effort” to deliver something above par.
Fostering an environment where developers have this vesting, can (if appropriately managed) greatly benefit all parties. The opposite of this vesting provides results that often extend the project, as the end-state quality falls short of expectations, creating sign-off contention.
Each project is unique, and the environment may have NO tolerance for such activities. However, if there is tolerance, then the resource may simply need encouragement to disclose these “extra no-cost, no-penalty efforts,” so contingencies can be arranged. Stated differently, if you have a resource that puts in extra efforts to deliver quality, then I would be cautious about playing the “whack-a-developer” game, as you may stunt creativity and energy that you may desperately need later in your project.
So your answer would be "B" or "D" ?
...
1 reply by George Freeman
Mar 28, 2020 6:24 PM
George Freeman
...
Vijay,
If ethical and accountability lines have NOT been crossed, then the call is in the hands of the project manager recognizing the tolerance of the organization and the state of the project.
What I have spoken to in both of my comments relates to a project manager who is working under charter and who is fully accountable for the success or failure of the project. Under that structure, as long as ethical and accountability boundaries are intact, the right answer is only known contextually.
I don't think this is a realistic scenario but if it has happened then I think that steps must be taken to use the work the developer has completed.
If the project is internal, that is you don't try to make profit out of it, and the sponsor is paying then the final decision should rest with him or her.
If you are delivering the project to an external entity then you must propose the change and ensure you get paid for it even if the developer worked in his spare time. If the change is not approved then you haven't lost anything as the developer has worked overtime.
The most foolish thing to do is to prevent a very good peace of work being delivering invoking project management processes. Unfortunately some times the processes prevent good work from being delivered.
One way of looking it is :
1. No cost implication due to change, but it might affect the schedule and Quality ( Differs from the agreed scope of the project)
2. Adds value to the project ( Uncertain how much value)
3. PM should encourage creativity and effort
But on the Other hand:
1. Change was only talked about and not officially approved
2. As part of Project Management one should have approved changes to execute them, which might affect the cost, quality and schedule.
3. There could have been a 5th option "E" which would be to hold on to the input from the developer and proceed for a Change request to get verified from the sponsor. Once officially approved, then proceed to integrate the change from developer.
So for me...all the answers seems not appropriate. But if I had to choose one of the four....I will go with D first.
...
1 reply by Adrian Carlogea
Mar 28, 2020 7:37 PM
Adrian Carlogea
...
Yes option E would have been the best but as it does not exist my common sense tells me that it should be B. As I said my only comment is that the work should not be rejected just because the process has not been followed.
For me B is the answer that makes most sense but please don't trust me as I am not an expert on this. Also A could be a good result.
B makes sense because if good work has already been done you want to take advantage of it and not block the person who has performed it. Also B allows for the change control process to happen.
D involves blocking the team member from doing his work and also losses some good results that have already been achieved.
Probably PMs tend to answer D because they feel that they have lost control and others make decisions without their approval. Saving Changes...
Vijay said that the work the developer had done adds a lot of value so I assume that this answers YES at point a).
As for points b),c),d) these can be done too once the work has been completed. For example if the code was not properly tested then do test it. :)
I am not for undisciplined work but sometimes breaking the discipline can help you achieve a lot of good things.
Personally I have seen cases in which the sponsor goes directly to developers and asks them to develop something for him. When this happens the best thing is for the developers to start working immediately so that they don't loose time and the other related tasks can be performed latter.
If the sponsor knows what he wants and the developer can provide that then why should we make things much slower?
Hi Adrian...
What you say makes sense if developer is a Freelancer. But if he is part of an Organisation and team, PM has to make sure the project Plan is executed. And the change the sponsor asked for was not part of the Scope agreed, which might be, if the scope was officially approved.
...
1 reply by Adrian Carlogea
Mar 28, 2020 7:39 PM
Adrian Carlogea
...
I am not sure if this has anything to do with freelancing but on the projects on which I have worked team members often deal directly with the business users and sometimes with the sponsor while the role of PM is to ensure that everything is documented and approved.
I would reluctantly say D. as the formal processes of PMBOK have not been observed. Although in this case it may lead to a successful outcome in other instances this may not be the case.
However with the projects sponsors approval I would say B. and then A.
It is important that team members feel part of a team and do not go off on a tangent without other members of the team and the project manager knowing what that team member is up to in relation to the project.
The team member does display initiative and maybe he should of presented the business case and proposed solution before committing any additional time and resources to the solution.
Daire Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
Mar 28, 2020 1:57 PM
Replying to VIJAY KUMAR
...
Kiron I also thought of answer D. But the PMP training I am going through these days ( on Simplilearn) says the Answer is "B". That confused me a Lot.
The point is this is not a valid exam question. PMI does not allow a question refering to an specific domain. I was part of the exam certification questions creation group by 10 years acting as Subject Matter Expert inside QA group. If that changed in the last 3 years the forget my comments. Unfoetunatelly some people sells training without enough knwledge Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Mar 28, 2020 2:05 PM
Replying to VIJAY KUMAR
...
So your answer would be "B" or "D" ?
Vijay,
If ethical and accountability lines have NOT been crossed, then the call is in the hands of the project manager recognizing the tolerance of the organization and the state of the project.
What I have spoken to in both of my comments relates to a project manager who is working under charter and who is fully accountable for the success or failure of the project. Under that structure, as long as ethical and accountability boundaries are intact, the right answer is only known contextually.
...
1 reply by Adrian Carlogea
Mar 28, 2020 7:50 PM
Adrian Carlogea
...
If the PM is a permanent employee of a Project Management department or PMO or if he/she is a consultant or contractor then he would not have the power to make such decisions.
On the other hand if the PM works for the business department to which the project is being delivered then he can be delegated the authority to make such a decision. In my opinion fully accountable for the project is the sponsor and not the PM and making business related (scope) decision is not the responsibility of the PM. At least this is what I have seen so far.
One way of looking it is :
1. No cost implication due to change, but it might affect the schedule and Quality ( Differs from the agreed scope of the project)
2. Adds value to the project ( Uncertain how much value)
3. PM should encourage creativity and effort
But on the Other hand:
1. Change was only talked about and not officially approved
2. As part of Project Management one should have approved changes to execute them, which might affect the cost, quality and schedule.
3. There could have been a 5th option "E" which would be to hold on to the input from the developer and proceed for a Change request to get verified from the sponsor. Once officially approved, then proceed to integrate the change from developer.
So for me...all the answers seems not appropriate. But if I had to choose one of the four....I will go with D first.
Yes option E would have been the best but as it does not exist my common sense tells me that it should be B. As I said my only comment is that the work should not be rejected just because the process has not been followed. Saving Changes...
What you say makes sense if developer is a Freelancer. But if he is part of an Organisation and team, PM has to make sure the project Plan is executed. And the change the sponsor asked for was not part of the Scope agreed, which might be, if the scope was officially approved.
I am not sure if this has anything to do with freelancing but on the projects on which I have worked team members often deal directly with the business users and sometimes with the sponsor while the role of PM is to ensure that everything is documented and approved. Saving Changes...
