Jonathan DoylePM Consultant| Adduco Consultancy LtdLondon, United Kingdom
I have worked on previous internal projects where bugs have been identified and fixed with the focus on those that need to be working properly in order to reach UAT sign off. The remaining ones have either been pushed to business as usual (BAU) as a priority ticket or as a ''nice to have'' both being looked at post project go-live. However, in some internal projects that I have worked on the companies tend to stick to a 2 week grace period, once go-live happens, where internal stakeholders can still contact the Project Manager in relation to any tidying up of the project. In some situations there is still some project budget left and as some of the development work is identified during UAT and still needs to be worked on sometimes Project Sponsors urge, and it is tempting, that the remaining money in the project budget is spend on fixing bugs during the 2 weeks grace period. I have worked in situations where I have pushed back and said no, the project will not incur any development cost beyond go-live. In other situation I have agreed, albeit reluctantly, for some work to happen.
What is you preferred approach in this scenario?
Do you stand firm, protect the budget but potentially be perceived as a little ridged or are you more inclined to let some development work happen, keep the Project Sponsor happy but may push the project budget to the wire? Saving Changes...
Sort By:
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
Sorry if I will not write something new but I will write about my personal experience. Perhaps it helps. As project manager the focus is to validate the scope ("the process of formalizing acceptance of the completed project deliverables" as stated by the PMBOK). Before that quality control activities have to be performed on the deliverables. While performing quality control activities all related to testing is performed. Activities, tools and deliverables for the quality control have to be defined for the subject matter experts you engage as project stakeholders. They have to estimated all related to testing and bug fixing inside those activities. So, that´s all for you as project manager. Anything that somebody claims to be included in your project is a matter of project change and has to be included inside the project change control process. Regarding the project change control process as project manager you are in charge to supervise the creation of all needed to allow some stakeholders to take the decision about to include this in the current project or to open a new project or do not do that. Saving Changes...
Dominic LawProduct Manager| PCCW GlobalHappy Valley, Hong Kong
I see the issue is the agreement of acceptance criteria at the project planning stage. If the criteria includes a 2-week grace period, then there should be budget planned for it. If there is any change to the acceptance criteria, it is change management. If there is a lot of work during the 2-week grace period, then it is quality management and risk management. I believe this would save a lot of argument at the end of the project. Saving Changes...
Gail BertrandProject Manager| Air ProductsAlphen A/D Rijn, Netherlands
I would expect in the project to have estimated some resource for supporting testing and performing defect fixing during the test period, so you would have some budget available and hopefully have the resource available too. If the defect is really new work or enhancements then the change control process will allow you to review this is a structured way and determine the path forward. This may indeed mean that some minor activities are passed to the Business As Usual team (if they are accepted by that team) and some may create new projects. The projects I have been involved in have categorized defects when they are recognized, which helps in the assessment phase, and also have a Stability & Warranty period agreed (probably the same as your Grace Period) in which the project team is responsible for the code still. If you perceive there are specific or potential risks in the test phase, then this should be identified and accounted for in your risk assessment. At the end of the day, all projects by definition are different and the Project Manager will need to balance all aspects to come to a decision Saving Changes...
Jonathan DoylePM Consultant| Adduco Consultancy LtdLondon, United Kingdom
@ Sergio I completely agree with your approach and I think that it is a very valid one especially if you are in a large organisation who are willing to embrace that approach but what about the smaller companies? The ones that are willing to accept that Project Management is a key part of delivering any key initiative but are not willing fully embrace the PMBOK practises if it means hitting a deadline or squeezing a bit more out. In theory the additional work should be a change request – and I am a big advocate of change requests- but at the same token some Sponsors are willing to squeeze as much as they can out of a project and leverage their seniority to push the additional work though. Saving Changes...
Jonathan DoylePM Consultant| Adduco Consultancy LtdLondon, United Kingdom
@ Dominic – I think that your approach is a good solution to the situation. I like the approach it accepts the defined grace period but after that it says: enough is enough – time to bring out the change request forms. Saving Changes...
Jonathan DoylePM Consultant| Adduco Consultancy LtdLondon, United Kingdom
@Gail Projects are all different and I think by categorising defects, including those for BAU is a good way to push through a transition from project to business acceptance. I think that acceptance from the business of the BAU team is maybe a different question to post as that can be quite a challenge within its self – especially if your project needs a Product Owner at the point of handover to the business.
I have always hoped that some of my projects did have some budget left over from testing but a lot of the time that hasn’t been the case for me, at times I wish it had! Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
@Jonathan: I am talking about follow a process. No matter it is formal or informal. I have worked a lot with small companies in my country (Argentine Republic). So, I firmly believe we need to follow a process. The art is to install the process after get the agreement of all stakeholders working on the "pain" of each stakeholder. It is an art. The art to demostrate to each stakeholder that she/he will be more rich with something you are delivering than without that. And rich is not about money only. Saving Changes...
Jonathan DoylePM Consultant| Adduco Consultancy LtdLondon, United Kingdom
Sergio, it is an art, an art that takes time to master especially if your stakeholders are always different. Saving Changes...
