Please login or join to subscribe to this thread
When working with government institutions in a country like Kosovo, there are some incompetent people (employed by politics) who do not clearly understand projects and gold plating.
Trying to make themselves important, for example, they ask for more and more software features that are out of original scope. Most of times you have to implement those features otherwise the entire project may fail.
It is unfortunate to heat so because for sure it will affect the budget and schedule. What does the Project Managers usually do in this case ?
Rami, I tend to also have the same perspective as Sabedin and its just not in Kosovo, have seen many projects that gets gold plated for similar reason, either you do it or else the competition will do it. At the end one tends to make sacrifice at places where it beats the code of ethics as well. Survival :(
In cases like these, do you try to convince the client to take this additinal scope as a new project instead of adding it to the current project amd disturbing the estimates and baselines ? If not, then do you reestimate everthing and ask for extension ?
it also depends Rami on how good one has done the stakeholder management part. So in some cases it is easy to convince the customer of either putting this in via additional scope with proper estimate on cost and time OR ask them of getting it done as a wave 2 deployment.
However, some stakeholders it is not possible, so what we do is ensure the risk related to lower quality of the end product is documented and put it within the steering committee. Depending on the size of the steering committee it is sometimes resolved within it and if not we just do it. There is no other alternative, but you would inform your organization of the risks associated as the timeline moves, the quality will impact and at the end relationship strains
As you said, in theory, PM should not allow scope creep. However, in order to enhance stakeholder satisfaction, especially the customer/client, I won't mind some gold plating if it does not cause major impact to the budget and delivery outcome. If it causes big impact to outcome, then "NO" because it is deemed to failure if "Yes" anyway. I believe people normally respect professionalism of a PM; otherwise it is a bully! Well, it is an art of management, isn't it?
I just have a small question: Even if it is small impact, how do you justify the additonal scope and its impacts ?
Please login or join to reply