Implementing Project Changes
Your project is always in a state of flux. Changes are called for from management, team members come and go, and new technology sprouts up along the way to completion. All around you are temptations to shift the focus of the project, to change your vision, and to broaden the scope just a bit at a time.
You must resist these temptations. Little, innocent changes pile up and result in scope creep. Changes to the project, no matter how small they may seem at first glance, are always major changes! Stay firm and require management, the customers, and the project team to stay focused on the original vision. Scope creep is when your project scope is defined and then it grows a little at a time. If a change to the project scope must happen, because of internal or external forces, you will need to enter the proposed changes into the CCS.
Changes from Internal Forces
When delays caused internally by the project team happen—due to the team’s inventive changes, a lack of quality in the product, or a failure to complete assignments—and inevitably they will, the project manager can do several things to resolve the problem and keep on schedule. While these are not changes to the project deliverables, they are changes that jeopardize the project from being completed on time, on budget, and with the expected level of quality. The project manager must take corrective actions to get the project back on track, including
-
Hiring additional resources to complete the project on schedule
-
Changing FS (finish to start) tasks within the PND to be SS (start to start) so tasks can happen in tandem rather than in sequence
-
Reassigning highly skilled resources to the critical path to speed the completion
-
Reassigning tasks evenly among the remaining project team to keep on schedule
-
Applying management reserve to lagging tasks
-
Removing a portion of lag times to take up slack within the project
Changes from External Forces
When delays to the project are caused from external forces, such as the customer, management, or business cycles, the project manager can do all that he can to ensure the project will finish on schedule and on budget, but often delays or expenses are unavoidable. In these instances, the project manager must rely upon his negotiating skills to use leverage to secure additional finances, time, or both.
The Iron Triangle of project management comes to mind. The Iron Triangle is an equilateral triangle. The sides of the triangle (time, cost, and scope) must all be in balance with one another for the project to be successful. If a new deliverable is added to the project, there will likely be a need for more time, more money, or both. For a project to be successful, all three sides must remain in balance. You can’t expect a $500,000 project scope to be met with a $300,000 budget.
If the deadline of the project cannot be moved, but the newly incorporated deliverables have put an unforeseen strain on the project team, new resources may be required. There are only so many hours in a day, and it is not reasonable for a project manager to ask, or require, the project team to work all of them. In these instances, the most direct route to satisfying the demands of the project change are additional resources.
This means, usually, additional funding. The new resource may be a consultant, an independent contractor, or an internal resource that the project team absorbs. Whatever the solution, the project manager must work to quickly educate the resources on the project plan, their requirements for the plan, and when their assignments are due.
The project manager should make an effort to make the resource feel comfortable and welcome to the project. Poor project managers add team members, show them their assignments, and leave them to figure things out for themselves. You must welcome the new team member, introduce that person to the team, and explain why she was brought on board. A comfortable, happy team member will be more productive than one who is confused, misinformed, and uncertain of why she is on the team.
In some instances, changes to the project will not require additional resources, but just more money. For example, the new project deliverable may change the number of workstations, servers, or application licenses that are needed to complete the plan. These all will require additional funds. In such cases, if the deliverable must be met, then additional funds will have to be assigned to the project. There is no negotiation—it’s simple arithmetic: additional technology equals additional funds.
Negotiate for Tiered Structures
A tiered structure allows the IT project manager to agree to meet the new requirements of the project scope, but the deliverables are released over multiple dates. For example, if the project deliverables have changed to be a database-driven web site with e-commerce support, the IT project manager can bargain to meet the new scope but with multiple release dates. First, the web site can be released, then the tie-ins to the database, and finally the hooks into the e-commerce solution. Of course, the web site would be updated on each release to reflect each new add-in.
With this type of approach the project manager wins, as he’s given more time to ramp up his team to deliver the project. And the organization wins, as there are usable resources at each delivery.
Extension of Time for Delivery
At the very least, when a project scope has undergone serious changes, and no additional resources are available for the project, a delay is likely. What else can you do when significant deliverables have been added to your project? At first, you should examine the PND to determine if any slack exists or whether some tasks can begin SS rather than FS.
After those adjustments, the project manager must take a serious look at the project delivery date. If the date is not feasible, then additional time must be added. Neither you nor management should consider the project late—additional deliverables were added to the scope and additional time is required to meet those changes.