WK 5.1_Tony_Causes & Control of Scope Creep

Problem Definition

Scope creep is a process where additional work is added to the project after the scope has been established [1]. Scope creep can be an aggregation of small changes or a fundamental change from earlier established scope.
Most projects I have been involved in do not end with the scope they started with. This is commonly seen in construction projects and it is one of the many problems that make a project to fail. According to Alev David, Scope Creep has been recognised for a long time as one of the top cause of project failure [2]. A failed project is one that did not meet the project objectives in terms of cost, schedule and quality.

Root Causes of Scope Creep

Many reasons account for scope creep and some of these are;
• Poor project scope definition
• Changes in customer requirements over time
• Wrong people defining scope
• Lack of change control process

Feasible Alternatives/Solutions

The alternative solutions revolve around the root causes of the problem and these alternatives are;

1. Better scope definition at the pre-project planning phase using a WBS and other scope definition tools. Get the stakeholders to verify and sign off on the scope as defined.
2. Put a change control process in place which will show the project owner the impact of the change on cost and schedule before a final decision is made on implementation of the change request
3. Handle the project in phases so that omitted items can be moved to the next phase.

Qualitative analysis of alternatives

Alternative 1: Better Scope Definition

Project owner should clearly state his expected deliverables. Preproject planning team should translate the deliverables into a detailed scope using a standardized WBS or some other scope definition tool like the project definition rating index (PDRI). Review the detailed scope with the project owner and other stakeholders to ensure nothing is missing or not anticipated. This kind of engagement will throw up things that the project owner may have forgotten and not included in his scope statement. Get project owner and stakeholders sign-off on the defined scope.

Challenges in this alternative are;

· Non standardization of the WBS, thus making its’ contents and terminology dependent on whoever is developing it. This will make room for omissions, ambiguity and incompleteness.

· Limited knowledge and application of scope definition tools like the PDRI and recently BIM (Building information modeling)

· Difficulty in getting project owners and relevant stakeholders to a thorough scope review section. Most times design teams interpret project owners’ scope and also carry out reviews only within their team.

· May not have sufficient capable and experienced professionals who thoroughly understand and can clearly picture the end product from the beginning.

Alternative 2: Put in place a change control Process

Many project owners or sponsors do not realize that the little changes they make here and there on the project will increase the project cost and schedule. A change control process helps to bring this realization to them.

A change control process involves several steps, these are;

· Formal request by the initiator

· Presentation of a good business case for the intended change

· Assessment of the cost and schedule impact

· Approval by project sponsor and relevant stake holders

When a change request is granted, budget and schedule adjustment would follow. Any one considering a change would have to first consider where the additional budget will come from and if the extra time can be accommodated. Most people do not want to be seen as the ones responsible for the extra dollar spent on the project. Furthermore the fact that there is a documented process that clearly show cost and schedule implication will deter introduction of non critical changes.

Challenges to this alternative are;

· The business case may be faulty or premised on wrong assumptions. In this case you will have a change that does not bring in the expected value.

Alternative 3: Handle projects in phases

This will enable the works to move as planned while shifting all new items or changes to the next phase. Phase budgets and schedule are smaller and will thus be better managed.

The challenges here are;

· The overall project will take a longer time. We will miss the advantage of having certain items run concurrently

· The overall project will be more expensive as mobilization and demobilization will occur in each phase and because the overall duration is longer certain prices will change as a result of inflation.

· As a result of longer duration there would be delayed return on investment

Selection Criteria

1. High potential to deter or minimize scope creep

2. Timely execution

3. Cost effectiveness

Of the three criteria for selection of best alternative, high potential to deter or minimize scope creep is more important than the others.

Analysis and Comparison of Alternatives

In analyzing and comparing the alternatives, we assume that in Alternative A, more emphasis is placed on good scope definition and less on change control process and phasing of the works. While for Alternative B more emphasis is on having a good change control process that require impact of change on cost and schedule to be known before any decision on the required change. Alternative C focuses on phasing the works and pushing to the next phase any required change. To enable a comparative analysis on the alternatives we will use the Multiattributes decision making model of Dominance and lexicography. Dominance is a useful screening method for eliminating inferior alternatives [3]. Lexicography is particularly suitable for decision situations in which a single attribute is judged to be more important than all other attributes. To check for dominance you pairwise each set of alternatives and rate their attributes one against the other, as shown in Table 1 below. From the table we observe that alternative C is dominated by both alternatives A and B. Thus C is an inferior alternative and will be dropped from further consideration.

Table 1: Dominance among alternatives

Attribute	Alt.A vs Alt. B	Alt.A vs Alt.C	Alt.B vs Alt. C
Ability to deter scope creep	Worst	Better	Better
Timely execution	Better	Better	Better
Cost effectiveness	Better	Better	Better
Dominance?	No	Yes	Yes

We are now left with alternatives A and B. To enable a choice on the best alternative we would need to use the lexicology model. This will be preceded by the ranking of the attributes in table 1 above in order of importance, called the ordinal ranking.

Ability to deter scope creep > timely execution > means more important

Ability to deter scope creep > cost effectiveness

Timely execution > cost effectiveness

Ability to deter scope increase appears on the left side twice; its’ ordinal ranking is therefore: 2

Timely execution appears on the left side once; its’ ordinal ranking is therefore: 1

Cost effectiveness did not appear on the left side, its ranking is therefore : 0

When we control scope creep we are likely to finish on time and within budget.

Applying the lexicography model on alternative A and B we have the following table:

Table 2: Application of the lexicology model

Attribute	Ranking	Importance
Ability to deter scope creep	2	Alternative B > Alternative A
Timely execution	1	Alternative A > Alternative B
Cost effectiveness	0	Alternative A > Alternative B

Rank of 2 = most important, rank of 0 =least important

Selection using this model is based on the highest ranked attribute.

Selection of Best Alternative

Our goal in looking for an alternative solution is to deter or minimize scope creep to the barest minimum and that is why that attribute is adjudged the most important.

Following from our comparative analysis using different models, Alternative B “ Putting in place a change control process “ has the highest ranked attribute and is thus adjudged the best alternative to minimize scope creep in a project.

While alternative 1 is a good alternative, the problems associated with it as listed in the Qualitative Analysis of Options, makes it less effective.

Performance Monitoring and Post Evaluation of Results

1. Document every request for change and ensure it follows the change control process

2. Change control alone will not solve all the problems, ensure scope definition is up to minimal level of comfort

3. Compare volume of change orders with that of other projects without change control process and make recommendations to the organization.

References
1. Kuprenas, J., & Nasr, E., Controlling Design-Phase Scope Creep. 2003 AACE International Transactions
2. Alev, David “ The scope went through the roof” http://consultingacademy.com/a07.shtm

3. Sullivan, W., Wicks, E., Koelling, C., 14.6.1. Engineering Economy, Fourteenth Edition.

4. Sullivan, W., Wicks, E., Koelling, C., 14.6.4. Engineering Economy, Fourteenth Edition.