Please login or join to subscribe to this thread
There could be two types of deletion or more
1. Forgotten or ignored, mostly to cover lost time or cost (running out of time and/or money), and
2. Deleted as no longer required.
For the first one - I am not sure if there is a common name but it is "incomplete work". This would be unprofessional (if forgotten) or unethical (if ignored) --- and a deviation from the baseline that MUST be fixed.
for the second one it is purely a change of scope whether formalized or not.
When you work inside a company where selling something (because you are a service provider) is a must then you could experience this type of situations. And the terminology does not matter. What matters is to define and to agree the change management process from the very begining. All changes are welcome but people have to understand: 1-the stakeholders are the owner of all related to changes. 2-all related to changes will be described inside the change management process.
Sharing this from another discussion:
I'm teaching project management and was recently asked about uncontrolled scope shrinkage or the opposite of scope creep. As I've been presenting it, scope creep is small, incremental, and uncontrolled modifications or additions to scope - these become scope change when they are recognized and accepted into the project, with the corresponding changes to time, cost, and quality.
I like the term "scope seep" to apply to small, incremental, and uncontrolled changes that are reductions in scope, such as if a scope element is missed or reduced without consideration for time, cost, and quality. These could be steps that are skipped in the mistaken belief that the project will "save" time or cost. These scope seeps could similarly result in a change in scope, if the missed element is not added back in and the change in time, cost and quality are similarly determined.
Like creep, seep can also result in re-work if the missed element must be added back in, thereby incurring additional time and cost.
I use the term "scope atrophy". I see this primarily on improvement initiatives where we start out with a broad set of goals, and as we move forward, we focus on certain ones, while others wither away due to lack of attention/prioritization.
We talk about benefits erosion and the same term could be used when referring to progressive reduction of scope.
I've been using the term Scope Exchange in a recent project as a variation of this. I have to agree with Robyn on Scope Seep though, and might start using that instead.
A web development endeavor had three major parts, all of which could be stand alone items. Due to Senior Management being unable to clearly visualize what they wanted, when we got about 15% in, the scope wildly changed. In order to have a remotely, timely deliverable due to the scope creep (or explosion in this case), we cut two of the parts and pushed them to version 2 development so that we could launch something in a reasonable time frame to make investors happy.
So we had to trade out some of our scope to make room for the new scope, and new priorities.
Please login or join to reply