One of the biggest problems with projects is scope-creep: Adding additional features or functions of a new product, requirements, or work that is not authorized (i.e., beyond the agreed-upon scope). The result is extra time, effort, complexity and cost. So this should be avoided.
However at the opposite extreme, it is very often the case that people de-scope items in an effort to avoid extra time, effort, complexity and cost. The “What can we do without?” approach has its merits. It is taking an MVP approach. A minimum viable product, or MVP, is a product with enough features to attract early-adopter customers and validate a product idea early in the product development cycle. The aim being get the basics done and build on this baseline.
The problem with he “What can we do without?” approach may be achieving consensus over what is suitable, feasible and acceptable.
Scenario 1
Supposing you are looking to fly to Edinburgh, but the pilot lands at Prestwick and says, I got you as close as I can wit the constraints (of time, money, resource). You’ll have to walk from here. The distance between Glasgow Prestwick Airport Station and Edinburgh is 63 miles. The road distance is 75.2 miles. Is this suitable, feasible and acceptable?
Scenario 2
Supposing you are expecting to have a car delivered. It may be suitable, feasible and acceptable that the roof rack, tow-bar and floor mats are delivered later. But what about seats, air-conditioning, or radio? I’m sure we’d draw the line at engine and wheels.
If you are de-scoping to achieve delivery you’ll need stakeholder engagement and their participation and endorsement if you want the result to be accepted as “more to follow”, than a disappointment and failure and a high degree of cynicism over the next phase what was promised and not delivered in the first.
In a lot of respects this is more about communication and stakeholder management than the late delivery of artifacts. It may demand mediation and negotiation to build the trust which is necessary over the bridging period between what has been delivered and what was promised. This is especially the case if the temporary short-fall means extra work from some people, or greater risk, or opportunity cost.
Goodwill is like money and the bank. You can be granted an overdraft to remedy a short-term problem, but you will be expected to keep your promises to make-good, and be judged by your ability to do so.
As a ICF Coach, Mediation Practitioner and APMG Change Practitioner, I can offer tools, tips and templates as well as facilitation and mediation to support communications and change.
Tim Rogers
Tim@AdaptConsultingCompany.com Mob 447797762051
We offer #consulting, #coaching, #mentoring, #facilitation and #mediating to support individuals, teams and organisations.
#jersey #timhjrogers #prince2 #agile #waterfall #pmo #projects #lean #training #programmes