Jul 18, 2017 10:28 AM
Replying to Edward Daniels
...
Eduin,
It is not ideal not to have a scope but sometimes it is what it is. I have two words for you; Progressive Elaboration!
As you know more, the scope definition gets better until an approved architecture or plan is approved. You didn't provide more information, so it is a little to really hard to see if you are at a point where the scope is actually relevant. I have a degree in Civil Engineering and I can’t see how a project is going to get off the ground without some scope definition at some point. If your client is planning to build a high-rise, construct a dam, bridge or road, the elements to be defined are not infinite.
Your scope at some point will have to be defined, at least in my limited knowledge of civil engineering projects, you can't just start paving a road without scoping out how many miles, geographical survey, soil testing and I can really go on. I personally would love to see a high rise construction go up with no approved plan from a city along with structural plans to support it.
I think it may be too early to worry too much about the scope of work where you are in the project. Your client may be right, they have money to do something, the scope isn't relevant if they haven't really thought about what they want to construct. For example, if they want to build in a swamp vice build on a hill, two different geological and geographical surveys will dictate if the project will start or a non-starter.
For civil engineering projects, I would be more concerned about getting them onboard and letting them see how things are progressing than pushing them for the scope. For all other projects, we just need to set expectations and let our clients know that while it is ok to not have the scope, it is essential to work towards getting it as soon as possible so that project feasibility is known. After all, if a project is deemed not feasible for whatever reason, you shelf it.
