Introduction
How one manages change is very vital to the success of a project and more so during its implementation. What the managers do may benefit the entire players or even turn disastrous at the end. Scope change is basically the adjustments made in the products related to a project in regards to its scheduling of activities and/or cost of implementation. It comes about when one or more parties with an interest in the project raise a query concerning its progress and implementation. This will always result to some delay in the scheduling of the project activities and also costs outside the budget may have to be incurred.
Managing change
Why one has to manage scope change at this phase is to ensure that it goes on as scheduled and within approved budget. It also ensures that prioritization of changes is done during the implementation phase at the institutional level. It is important to manage scope change to ensure there is a middle-ground in relation to the interests of all stakeholders (Kumar 2000, p. 591). It will be a bad thing for the entire project and its parties if a section disapproves it and publicly rejects it.
Managing change is not usually an easy task and it requires a lot of careful planning, strong commitment from all parties’ involved and consistent communication. The changes that are so desired by one of the parties have to be looked at into following specified guidelines; not necessarily stated by an individual. According to Turner (2008, p.523) there has to be willingness from all sides and the parties wanting change and those opposed to it should come to a neutral ground. This is enhanced by airing their views on a constant basis until a consensus is arrived at. What comes out clearly is the need to put in consideration the sponsor who gives in the chunk of the financing. He/She goes a long way to ensure the specified targets at every level are met and justified in terms of costs, benefits and other performance criteria.
Reasons for change
Changes occur due to a number of varied reasons such as technical issues related to the project details, outside interferences from other interested parties and also changes in business i.e. the way it is structured. Scope change may also come about as a result of some reviews in the legal processes and laws that may turn certain aspects of the project illegal. At certain instances the scope may be forced to change due to the customer’s new demands. One has to prepare for the unexpected turn of events. For example the project managers have to take into account the smaller and minute changes as opposed to only the large, clearly visible ones (Egger & Kleiner 1992, p.23). This may also involve measuring and assessment of system development stages on a regular basis.
Considerations for change
According to Filicetti (2008), one must also consider two things in scope change management which are: understand the customer and scope creep.
During the on-going implementation of the project, a customer may butt in with the idea that certain aspects be reviewed. It may prove a challenge but since the customer is always right, the implementers must be ready to listen to their views and put it into consideration. The other thing being scope creep, which is the not so pleasing gradual growth of project requirements, can be a reason for this change. Additional fixtures may be required way after the project’s basics have been put in place leaving the door opened for a change in scope. It is with this regard that time constraints need to be looked into since it also determines the realism of the project goals. Even though one expects to achieve the goals of the project, they have to be planned and arrived at in the real world (Longman & Mullins 2004, p.56). One must not have high expectations for something which is not actualized in the short-term.
The provision of intervals in the manner in which projects are released matters much in managing scope change. The managers must ensure that the phases of the project are not jungled up or being put in place in quick succession. Careful project managers in scope change will do everything within their reach to make certain that disasters will not result because one is rushing to reap the benefits of the project. Project phases are released in bits and checks enhanced to ensure that nothing would arise thereby forcing the change of the scope.
When managing scope change, there is no need of opting for the short-cuts after specifying the procedures. Proper documentation is the best and wise way to go and not including any other opinion after the basic procedures are laid down which were agreed by all parties before implementation. The managers have no reason to deviate from what is put down as this could prove risky in the long run. They should oversee the entire project at all times in order to be alert to monitor any scope deviations. This is in order to notice any anomalies as early enough to prevent changes in the scope of the project that has its associated costs.
In the process of the management and it is sensed that the scope of the project may be changed, it’s advisable to get heads rolling as early as possible to prevent a lot of time being wasted in the process. What is managing scope change when other stakeholders are not involved? As a way of minimizing any rift among those involved, the managers must exchange views and share opinion since the process is not an easy task but a manageable one.
Conclusion
In conclusion, emphasis is needed when managing scope change as the life of the project is put to the test. Only what is proved necessary after careful scrutiny is allowed to carry the day as this will prevent and avoid risks that are associated with changing of projects midway and the outside budget costs.
Recommendations
There are a number of ways through which the change could be avoided. This will go a long way to save the drivers of the project the stress associated with the disruption of planned schedule.
It is important that the users are trained and informed to familiarize themselves with the project and its perceived benefits. This is aimed at reducing conflicts of interests from either parties and ensuring efficiency in operations even as the project is being undertaken.
William (1976, p.25) asserts that to avoid the change, those driving the project must get the approval from its top and main sponsors.
Preparation of the scope change will entail liaising with the sponsor concerning additional funding. The issues raised by the players concerned may hold water but it has to get a nodding from the sponsor.
The other thing when it comes to preparing for this activity is organizing a forum where the emerging issues can be discussed. It’s better to tackle with these issues at an earlier time rather than wait till they have become full-blown.
References
Calabrese, AF & Orlando, CY 2006, Deriving a 12-step process to create and implement a comprehensive knowledge management system, VINE Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Vol. 36, Issue: 3, pp. 238-254.
Cavaleri, S & Reed, F 2008, Leading dynamically complex projects, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Vol. 1, Issue: 1, pp 71-87.
Dooley, L., Lupton, G & O’Sullivan, D 2005, Multiple project management: a modern competitive necessity, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Vol. 16, Issue: 5, pp 466-482.
Egger, FP & Kleiner, BH 1992, New Developments in Project Scheduling, Logistics Information Management Journal, MCB UP Ltd, Vol. 5, Issue: 1, pp 22-24.
Großler, A 2007, A dynamic view on strategic resources and capabilities applied to an example from the manufacturing strategy literature, Case study, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management; Vol. 18 Issue: 3.
Kumar, DP 2000, Managing projects in fast track – A case of public sector organization in India, International Journal of Public Sector Management, MCB UP Ltd, Vol. 13, Issue: 7 pp 588-609.
Loo, R 1996, Training in project management: a powerful tool for improving individual and team performance, Team Performance Management Journal, MCB UP Ltd, Vol. 2, Issue: 3, pp 6-14.
Longman, A. & Mullins, J 2004, Project management: key tool for implementing strategy, Journal of Business Strategy, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Vol. 25, Issue: 5, pp 54-60.
Maguire, S & Udechukwu, O 2008, Market-led systems development: when customers become users, Industrial Management & Data Systems Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Vol. 108 Issue: 2.
Pekar, P 1989, How battle-tested managers assess strategic alliances, Strategy and Leadership Journal, MCB UP Ltd, Vol. 17, Issue: 4, pp. 34-37.
Smith, B & Dodds, B 1993, THE POWER OF PROJECTS IN MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT, Industrial and Commercial Training Journal, MCB UP Ltd, Vol. 25, Issue: 10.
Taskinen, T & Smeds, R 1999, Measuring change project management in manufacturing, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, MCB UP Ltd, Vol. 19, Issue: 11, pp 1168-1187
Turner, R & Lloyd-Walker, B 2008, Emotional Intelligence (EI) capabilities training: can it develop EI in project teams? International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Vol. 1, Issue: 4, pp 512-534.
Ofer, Z & Amnon, G 2007, Project execution game (PEG): training towards managing unexpected events, Journal of European Industrial Training, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Vol. 31, Issue: 6.
William, KH 1976, Rationality, irrationality, and the policy formulation process in large organizations, Strategy & Leadership Journal, MCB UP Ltd, Vol. 4, Issue: 3, pp. 22 – 26.