- is not ready to sign off requirements
- changes scope of delivery for the phase / scrum in between
- at the time of delivery comes up with new requirements or changes what was requested earlier
- acceptance criteria defined / discussed at the start, is not considered at the time of delivery
As the client is a government entity, adherence to certain processes were exempted at the organisation level. Now with the current situation, the project is running into a big trouble.
Have anyone faced such a situation, if so how did you come out of it? Any suggestion to resolve the situation is welcome.
Have you tried to understand what makes him not sign off the requirements? What makes him to change his stance when it comes up for acceptance? Were the delivered artifacts really not what he wanted? Try to find the root cause of the issue and act on them.
Is there a change control mechanism in place, though it looks like it might not be?
Though certain processes were exempted, maintaining the baselines and tracking them is really important. Reinforce the importance and benefits of doing such exercise.
If all of this still doesn't work, escalate the situation. Saving Changes...
Schedule a meeting, discuss and understand where the challenge is.
As Satish mentioned, look out for change control mechanism in place. If still this doesn't work, bring this to the management's notice. Saving Changes...
AKSHAY JAINPlanning Group Leader| YOKOGAWA, BahrainGwalior, Mp, India
You have real problem if your basses are also unrealistic and want result at any cost and don't bother how you do it. In that case there is no solution for this, clients do so because they themselves do not know what they want and transfer responsibilities of future failures on others. Official way to deal such thing write letters to such clients and give them clear warning with open requirements project will not proceed and they are responsible for delay. But for doing so your company must be cooperative since this will create disputes and such client will target specific weakness of you or some one sided clause of contract. But in case your own company don't cooperate you are just in begging mode and don't have much options. Saving Changes...
Be creative in getting approvals: if you have a discussion, phone conversation or meeting where there is an understanding, explicit or not, of approbation, send an email to the persons involved stating the decision(s) taken by the group.
If they change their mind, send a new message saying that you will assess the impact of the change on the scope, budget and timeline. Then do it.
While it might be a difficult way of operating, they are the client. They pay you. They get to decide what, when and how they get what they pay for.
As my previous boss used to say: "Remember the Golden Rule: clients have the gold; clients make the rules." Saving Changes...
Anonymous
Thanks Stephane, Rami, Akshay, Anupam & Satish for your valuable suggestions.
As this is a Govt. entity, options for escalations are very constrained.
The discussion minutes and requirement spec are shared without any response.
Now we are running weekly sprints to ensure the scope is not varying too much. Cannot reduce the sprint duration as the prime stakeholder cannot spare more time.
My organisation is supporting the project and want to wrap up and close the project with minimal damage.
One of the reason for clients non-cooperation is, the project was forced on the person, against own interests.
...
2 replies by Rami Kaibni and Venkata Rama Satish Nyayapati
Oct 18, 2016 1:36 AM
Rami Kaibni
...
I see so there was a stakeholder issue from the beginning. Well, I guess then mitigation is the only solution to end up the project with minimal damage.
Oct 19, 2016 12:21 AM
Venkata Rama Satish Nyayapati
...
Coming out with minimal damage is acceptable in such circumstances. This experience must be added, as a top priority, in the lessons learnt for the project.
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Oct 18, 2016 12:33 AM
Replying to anonymous
...
Thanks Stephane, Rami, Akshay, Anupam & Satish for your valuable suggestions.
As this is a Govt. entity, options for escalations are very constrained.
The discussion minutes and requirement spec are shared without any response.
Now we are running weekly sprints to ensure the scope is not varying too much. Cannot reduce the sprint duration as the prime stakeholder cannot spare more time.
My organisation is supporting the project and want to wrap up and close the project with minimal damage.
One of the reason for clients non-cooperation is, the project was forced on the person, against own interests.
I see so there was a stakeholder issue from the beginning. Well, I guess then mitigation is the only solution to end up the project with minimal damage. Saving Changes...
Jason DavisPractice Director| Netsmart TechnologiesKansas City, KS, United States
I have run into this on a few occasions as well as I have a client that is like this currently. What I have found is that as we get into a new gate, the first thing that is now done is a review of the success criteria for that gate, get sign off on that, before any work is done in that next section/milestone area. I have found that this sets the expectation of what is to be accomplished as well as what a successful milestone means to both parties. This can slow the process some but I have also found that this step also allows the gate/milestone to progress faster along the way to gain the ground back once you have the playing field well established and a firm change control process and criteria to stand behind.
...
1 reply by anonymous
Oct 20, 2016 12:38 AM
anonymous
...
Thanks Jason.
That is a good approach, will try and see how that goes. Hope its not too late for us now.
Thanks Stephane, Rami, Akshay, Anupam & Satish for your valuable suggestions.
As this is a Govt. entity, options for escalations are very constrained.
The discussion minutes and requirement spec are shared without any response.
Now we are running weekly sprints to ensure the scope is not varying too much. Cannot reduce the sprint duration as the prime stakeholder cannot spare more time.
My organisation is supporting the project and want to wrap up and close the project with minimal damage.
One of the reason for clients non-cooperation is, the project was forced on the person, against own interests.
Coming out with minimal damage is acceptable in such circumstances. This experience must be added, as a top priority, in the lessons learnt for the project. Saving Changes...
Anonymous
Oct 18, 2016 4:25 PM
Replying to Jason Davis
...
I have run into this on a few occasions as well as I have a client that is like this currently. What I have found is that as we get into a new gate, the first thing that is now done is a review of the success criteria for that gate, get sign off on that, before any work is done in that next section/milestone area. I have found that this sets the expectation of what is to be accomplished as well as what a successful milestone means to both parties. This can slow the process some but I have also found that this step also allows the gate/milestone to progress faster along the way to gain the ground back once you have the playing field well established and a firm change control process and criteria to stand behind.
Thanks Jason.
That is a good approach, will try and see how that goes. Hope its not too late for us now. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
