The Horrors of Scope Creep
I'm in the middle of a scope creep nightmare. Our clients are notoriously difficult to work with. They never wanted our company to win the contract, but the government overruled them. When we began working on the project, let's just say it was a constant battle to come to agreement.
As the lead instructional designer, I know that it is important to document every decision, especially when dealing with difficult clients. But even though I document and record our meetings, we are still constantly asked to incorporate changes to the courseware we are building that are beyond the scope of work. Our deadline is in less than a month, and there's no way we're going to make it.
Examples of Scope Creep
Issue 1: All agreed and documented that we could build the interactive courseware using our own template/skin. When given the design documents to review and approve, were told that there is a government format that the goverment needs us to use. All design documents were rejected and had to be revised.
Stakeholder Reaction: My PM and his supervisors all agreed that our company does "whatever the goverment needs." We adjusted the documents without adjusting the schedule or the budget. We took one for the team to hopefully help improve the relationship.
Issue 2: The SOW didn't call for any formal approval of storyboards. However, we knew that storyboards were an important part of the process. We told the client that we'd deliver storyboards for review, but they were not an official deliverable (because the were not listed in the SOW or budgeted for). After the design documents were approved, we began sending storyboards. The client began demanding weekly meetings to review and critique each storyboard. Storyboards were rejected and the client demanded to see a revised version of the storyboard before we proceeded any further. What began as a courtesy, became a huge scope creep.
Stakeholder Reaction: The PM constantly reminded the client that the storyboards were a luxury, not a deliverable. Therefore, they couldn't be "rejected" only commented on. By stopping production and demanding re-work, the client put the project months behind schedule. Eventually, my PM caved to their pressure and we were told to treat the storyboards like a professional deliverable.
Issue 3: After approving the lesson design strategies, the client decides that there are entire courses missing. They demand that we create three new courses that were not in the lesson design strategies or in the budget or schedule.
Stakeholder Reaction: Finally, having had enough, my PM demands for more funds and an adjusted schedule. The client begrudgingly agrees to a three month extension and a slight increase in the budget.
Reflection
The list of issues continues, but I'd rather not dwell. We only have two months left in the project and we're currently asking for yet another project extension. This project has been a nightmare and part of it is my own company's fault. Because we were so willing to cave to their inappropriate demands early on, we had little ground to stand on when we were continually asked to work beyond the agreed upon scope. The result of such poor managment has been a destroyed the already volatile relationship with the client.
If I were project manager, I would have perhaps been flexible with the first scope creep request, but I would have certainly put my dissatisfaction with the request in writing. A professionally worded memo to all stakeholders (including the client's boss, the government) could have illustrated that as a gesture of good will we are willing to redesign the courses without charging extra, but any further re-work would be met with a new budget and an adjusted schedule.
