Analyzing Scope Creep

     Scope creep is defined as the natural tendency to try to improve the output of a project as the project progresses (Portny et al., 2008). Our Blog assignment instructions this week tells us that in many projects there may be pressure to include activities or deliverables that weren’t originally envisioned as part of the project. Other factors such as receipt of additional funding, changes in timelines or priorities of stakeholders as well as the loss and replacement of project team members can all cause distractions and changes in the direction of a project. This is essentially scope creep.

     To help further explain scope creep, I’ll relay a current project of mine that I inherited with a huge scope creep problem. The project was originally taken on to double the production from a machine by designing a new steel serration process that took one strip of steel and produced two equal halves used to manufacture a product. The project started off like any other. However, it was not managed by a Project Manager (PM). It was loosely managed by the stakeholders, the maintenance team and the plant manager. Lynch et al. (2007) state that a PM must lead projects in several phases, one of which is the control phase. In that phase, monitoring of the scope, schedule, budget, risk and stakeholder and sponsor expectations are a must (Lynch et al, 2007). For this project there was no PM, no project charter created, no scope and no Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) created for this project. Essentially there was no one central person to control the project. Despite this, the project ran smoothly in the beginning. However once the machine was built, tuned in and put into trial production the lack of control became evident and the scope went wild.


     First off, there was not material pre and post control envisioned. Ultimately, three major pre-processing and three major post-processing material handling devices were added. As you may have guessed, these were not originally planned for. The budget for the machine went completely out of control with these additions. The unspoken and unwritten scope was forgotten and suddenly the project went from a simple serration process to a material handling behemoth which coincidentally serrated bars.

     Specifically the scope creep has resulted in a nearly never ending project. As the material handling beast grew there was a loss of control of the budget, resources, and schedule. Most of all the project team members became mired in indecision and confusion. At the time, the stakeholders dealt with the issues by becoming frustrated, barked out orders and threatening that heads would roll. This was wrong in a couple of ways. First off, never lead from a position of power that creates fear. While fear is a motivator, it does not result in the best effort from employees. Secondly, this was effectively telling the project team to “just do something to fix the issue.” That led to an uncoordinated effort and one that mostly shot from the hip and was not well thought out or planned.

     Portny et al. (2008) state that the PM must control the project by using a set of activities that ensures the project proceeds according to plan and produces the desired results. One such activity is to meet and reconfirm the plan by reviewing and assessing the project’s goal and deliverables (Portny et al., 2008). After the scope crept this should have been the first course of action by management.

     Looking back now and based on that idea, had I been in the position of managing the project I would have held a meeting to assess the current status of the project. First item of discussion would be based on a sunk cost analysis and whether the project should continue or not. If it was determined the project could still result in a successful profitable outcome, the next topic would be to discuss the scope. I’d want to get down to how the scope could be reaffirmed and then modified to meet the current state of the project with clear limits on further creep. This would be done by cutting out partially completed project additions that were not necessary and/or were money pits and only completing those additions that were necessary for the project to successful complete. Once all of that is established, I would then create a project charter complete with a scope, a WBS, a budget and a schedule. The charter would be signed by all of the stakeholders and a project re-kickoff meeting held to announce the new course to team members. Additionally, the analysis would determine whether any team member changes are needed.

     As it stands now the project is progressing and the scope has been refined and limited. We are just now beginning to see daylight at the end of the tunnel that is not an on-coming train. The project does seem to have an end in sight that is favorable.

     In closing, scope creep can lead to project overruns in the form of missed timelines, failure to produce deliverables, and budgets gone amuck. Precise and constant controls of the project are a must by the PM in order to maintain control and deliver a project on time and on budget.


References

Lynch, M. M., & Roecker, J. (2007). Project managing e-learning: A handbook for successful design, delivery, and management. London: Routledge. Copyright by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Portny, S. E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., Sutton, M. M., & Kramer, B. E. (2008). Project management: Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.