David FerreiraProject Manager| Kingston Health Sciences CentreNapanee, Ontario, Canada
I'm curious what your thoughts are for having requirements and scope finalized & approved in the planning stage.
We have a steering committee who approved the charter. The charter provides preliminary scope.
In planning, we have another team of key stakeholders who are driving requirements.
At our kickoff, I presented the prelim scope with the mention that this is subject to change based on the requirements we gather next and what gets approved by steering. So, coming out of planning there'll be a revised scope statement.
So far so good, right? Now here's where things get hairy.
This is a rather large, vocal team with lots of requirements being discussed. Although I feel it's not my decision to say "no" to anything, I do remind the team to keep requirements in line with the vision of the project.
Once requirements are finalized, I plan to present back to steering requirements that don't fit within the preliminary scope. This will include my own recommendation whether scope should be expanded to meet these requirements (my recommendation would be based on technical feasibility, alignment to vision, how much risk it introduces, costs, time etc.).
Steering will then make the final call and that will lead to a set of accepted requirements and a finalized scope statement.
Do you see any flaws with this plan? Any suggestions on how you would improve this flow of getting a finalized set of requirements and scope?
Thanks everyone! Saving Changes...
Sort By:
Drew CraigSr. Agile & Product Coach| VanguardPhiladelphia, Pa, United States
Seems pretty good to me. I'm in a similar situation, although the number of Stakeholders is seemingly less. What I did was similar to what you described above. I find that as much transparency as possible is best. Understanding the needs of the Business, and driving for their success, having their best interest in mind.
In my situation, there is a set timeline, so I had that to my advantage to what was feasible in the allotted time. So we scoped the requirements into a Phase 1 and Phase 2 implementation.
Good Luck!
...
1 reply by David Ferreira
Jan 14, 2017 6:35 PM
David Ferreira
...
Thanks Andrew. Yes, that's a good point - I have no schedule constraint! Based on what we get back for req'ts though, will split into phases (1 - mandatory, 2- nice to haves ... with a good chance ph 2 might never happen)
Saving Changes...
David FerreiraProject Manager| Kingston Health Sciences CentreNapanee, Ontario, Canada
Jan 14, 2017 5:40 PM
Replying to Drew Craig
...
Seems pretty good to me. I'm in a similar situation, although the number of Stakeholders is seemingly less. What I did was similar to what you described above. I find that as much transparency as possible is best. Understanding the needs of the Business, and driving for their success, having their best interest in mind.
In my situation, there is a set timeline, so I had that to my advantage to what was feasible in the allotted time. So we scoped the requirements into a Phase 1 and Phase 2 implementation.
Good Luck!
Thanks Andrew. Yes, that's a good point - I have no schedule constraint! Based on what we get back for req'ts though, will split into phases (1 - mandatory, 2- nice to haves ... with a good chance ph 2 might never happen) Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
The first thing to take into account is: you are the project manager. Your focus is all related to project and in case of the requirements it does means project requirements, not product requirements. From product requirements you and your team will create project requirements which are the basement to get the plan. Second, the only thing you can assure as project manager about the project is: changes will occur. No more than that. And you are not the owner of changes. Your stakeholers are. The only thing you must do as project manager is to assure that all activities related to give the needed information to your stakeholders to decide about changes are completed. And for each change, if approved, a new version of the whole project will be there to be evaluated by the steering commitee. What is implied is you have to define your change management process as soon as possible and agreed it with all your stakeholders.
...
1 reply by David Ferreira
Jan 15, 2017 11:18 AM
David Ferreira
...
Thanks for your feedback Sergio. I agree about the importance of CM and this is one of the first things I cover in each kickoff.
Saving Changes...
David FerreiraProject Manager| Kingston Health Sciences CentreNapanee, Ontario, Canada
Jan 15, 2017 8:39 AM
Replying to Sergio Luis Conte
...
The first thing to take into account is: you are the project manager. Your focus is all related to project and in case of the requirements it does means project requirements, not product requirements. From product requirements you and your team will create project requirements which are the basement to get the plan. Second, the only thing you can assure as project manager about the project is: changes will occur. No more than that. And you are not the owner of changes. Your stakeholers are. The only thing you must do as project manager is to assure that all activities related to give the needed information to your stakeholders to decide about changes are completed. And for each change, if approved, a new version of the whole project will be there to be evaluated by the steering commitee. What is implied is you have to define your change management process as soon as possible and agreed it with all your stakeholders.
Thanks for your feedback Sergio. I agree about the importance of CM and this is one of the first things I cover in each kickoff. Saving Changes...
I have the feeling the healtcare industry has it set of difficulty with the various stakeholders. The media also people see things on way and finance or legal would have a different view. It is true in many industry, but my experience in the healtcare stetup make me believe it is different and not simple.
The understanding of the project context is difficult for the medical team.
But your description seem real good to me in term of practice.
...
1 reply by David Ferreira
Jan 16, 2017 11:25 AM
David Ferreira
...
Healthcare can be complex. Typically we need to work on obtaining buy-in often with many stakeholders. We are in the process of updating our PMO methodology to align with change management best practices (something in between Kotter and Prosci) to help us achieve this.
Saving Changes...
Stéphane ParentSelf Employed / Semi-retired| Leader MakerPrince Edward Island, Canada
The only thing I would add, David, is to loop the stakleholders team into the recommendation preparation phase.
If they invested that much time into the requirements, they will have a certain amount of ownership. If you go ahead and prepare your recommendation without their involvement, you will frustrate all that momentum you have built with the group.
My suggestion is to facilitate the review process with the stakeholders team until the group has worked out the overall recommendation. If, as PM, you have an opinion, you should be part of the team and have someone else facilitate this exercise.
...
1 reply by David Ferreira
Jan 16, 2017 11:30 AM
David Ferreira
...
Thanks Stéphane. Completely agree that we owe it to the stakeholder team to see this through full-circle with what the group's overall recommendation is for each requirement.
Initially I was thinking of just having the recommendations be based on the team leads' opinion, but you're right, empowering the stakeholder team to make the recommendations would be ideal.
Personally I haven't facilitated this large a group before and as you indicated, having a formal review process in place would help get us there.
Saving Changes...
David FerreiraProject Manager| Kingston Health Sciences CentreNapanee, Ontario, Canada
Jan 15, 2017 8:17 PM
Replying to Vincent Guerard
...
I have the feeling the healtcare industry has it set of difficulty with the various stakeholders. The media also people see things on way and finance or legal would have a different view. It is true in many industry, but my experience in the healtcare stetup make me believe it is different and not simple.
The understanding of the project context is difficult for the medical team.
But your description seem real good to me in term of practice.
Healthcare can be complex. Typically we need to work on obtaining buy-in often with many stakeholders. We are in the process of updating our PMO methodology to align with change management best practices (something in between Kotter and Prosci) to help us achieve this. Saving Changes...
David FerreiraProject Manager| Kingston Health Sciences CentreNapanee, Ontario, Canada
Jan 16, 2017 9:37 AM
Replying to Stéphane Parent
...
The only thing I would add, David, is to loop the stakleholders team into the recommendation preparation phase.
If they invested that much time into the requirements, they will have a certain amount of ownership. If you go ahead and prepare your recommendation without their involvement, you will frustrate all that momentum you have built with the group.
My suggestion is to facilitate the review process with the stakeholders team until the group has worked out the overall recommendation. If, as PM, you have an opinion, you should be part of the team and have someone else facilitate this exercise.
Thanks Stéphane. Completely agree that we owe it to the stakeholder team to see this through full-circle with what the group's overall recommendation is for each requirement.
Initially I was thinking of just having the recommendations be based on the team leads' opinion, but you're right, empowering the stakeholder team to make the recommendations would be ideal.
Personally I haven't facilitated this large a group before and as you indicated, having a formal review process in place would help get us there. Saving Changes...
