Gold Plating

Hi Rami,

Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts. I definitely agree with everything you said. However, I want to understand how to solve a problem that is in the culture of organization. If I say "no" I wont be having a job because someone else will do it. I want to understand how to suggest to improve the situation. I know what ideal situation is - that is to make an assessment and stand one's ground and say no. Is this practical in situation where I described? Would not it be big bang approach?

I would love to hear your thoughts :)

Best regards,
Adil

As per PMI, one has to manage the stakeholder's expectations, needs and desires.
One can understand the needs during stakeholder engagement. But can you identify the desire and this can change during the course of the project for the same stakeholder or a new stakeholder comes in.

There is a very thin line as the CLIENT can always say the project did not meet their requirement. However, if there is a list of clear and measurable metric, is it not possible to control scope creep or gold plating?

Is it not possible to demonstrate such things with Cost of quality?
How then are the deliverables validated or accepted?

There are team members who think certain attributes are to be there in the project, just because it was their in their previous projects. There is no concern on the cost or schedule.

Such request can be demonstrated with impact study on scope, cost and schedule and key stakeholders have to be engaged and communicated.

You are incorrect that PMI does not allow gold plating. it may discourage that, but it does not disallow it and the change process is perfectly capable of managing such.

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 do not think a wrong can sometimes be called right and so it becomes right. It is not only PMI cautioning us against Gold Plating and Scope Creep, the whole history of project management is filled with failures rooted in these evils. How can someone even try to justify gold-plating? Stakeholder Satisfaction does not allow for gold plating, it allows for proper change management procedures amending the scope and thus inclusion of requirements, which in my opinion, cannot be called as gold-plating. Gold-Plating is something which is not in scope, not officially asked for, and still is included in the product, maybe due to scope creep or some unknown pressures. This is explicitly NOT allowed and can never be justified. When we have a method to cater for scope changes, then how can one allow gold-plating or scope creep?

Hi Adil,

Of course No should not be your first reaction. You should assess the change, the impact of the change and how it affects the project scope, budget and milestones and then prepare a report and submit the same to higher management as follows:

I do not recommend to carry on with the request of X to (Mention the Request Specifics) due to the following reasons: (Beside each point mention the effects of this change)

1- Impact
2- Risk
3- Cost, Scope and Schedule

That is the only and best thing you can do, to communicate all these details in writing to higher management and the client. Hope this helps.

By the way, I did not understand what you mentioned exactly by: "If I say no, I won't be having a job" ... Can you elaborate on this please ? Thanks

Rami, I agree with what you have mentioned completely. When I have been under these situations, this is what I have done too - assess the impact of the change and provide recommendations to the management. Then the management says this is the way business is done here so continue, you have our approval. This situation is what I meant by "if I say, I wont be having a job".
I do not say that gold plating should be acceptable because of the argument "this is how its done", "this is how business works". This is why I suggested in my first post that solution is not with PM alone. The solution to gold plating is educating the client as well as the performing organization about the impact of gold plating - increased budget, decreased staff morale, worst case project failure. Without client and performing organization management understanding this, PM alone cannot solve the problem. Of course PM's job is to educate.