Rational Scope Management

Decades ago, if the definition of a project's scope was clear enough, it helped keep the project team more or less focused on the task at hand. From time to time, when we weren't watching closely enough, or when organizational politics intervened, a project's scope might stealthily "creep" to include some activity that wasn't intended from the outset. When that happened, we adapted. To keep it from happening again, we created project governance. Governance procedures began to require project scope statements that included elements such as Goals and Objectives, Requirements, Not-Requirements, Tasks, Deliverables, Resources, and even Change Procedures.

But Changes in the environment, or markets,
or customer expectations, or even our
understanding of the problem bring
about changes in scopein today's rapidly changing environments, we rarely know enough at the outset about these elements to provide adequate control of scope. Projects are now so complicated that by the time we've defined a project's scope, we need to change the definition. Changes in the environment, or markets, or customer expectations, or even our understanding of the problem bring about changes in scope. We no longer strive to control scope; we now seek to manage it.

Augmenting project scope statements

Project governance processes are designed to deal with entire organizations. They must address projects of all kinds, in various states of development. The general problem of controlling the scope of such a heterogeneous project population requires a general solution. And that general solution has inherent difficulties in exploiting the particulars of each target project.

In part, the difficulty in managing scope traces to the attempt to deal with rapidly changing scope of every kind of project in every state of development using only general language. To address this difficulty, we must find ways to augment scope statements using specific knowledge about the projects themselves.

Ambiguity reduction by example

One approach to reducing the ambiguity of very general scope statements involves including examples of in-scope and not-in-scope.

In many cases, scope is not well-defined in the mathematical sense. That is, the definition of the term within scope for any given project might have more than one interpretation. For this reason, although devising a scope definition to control the scope of a project is necessary, it isn't sufficient. We must add to the definition explicit limiting examples of what is within scope and what is not, using what we know about the debates that led to the definition.

When we include examples, the differing interpretations of the project scope statement must take the examples into account. The examples of what is within scope — and examples of what is not within scope — then serve to limit the "ambiguity radius" of the rest of the scope statement.

Three guidelines for constructing limiting examples

Examples do serve to clarify the scope statement, but they also serve to limit political influence on scope. Some politically powerful individuals succeed in expanding scope by making out-of-scope promises on behalf of the organization. Including their likely promises in the list of out-of-scope examples can deter such promises. The deterrence effect is especially strong when the individuals involved have reviewed and approved the scope statement.

Here are three categories of examples of out-of-scope capabilities that can be included in scope statements.

Whatever people were disappointed about being excluded

Track the capabilities that were once proposed for inclusion in scope, but which were ultimately excluded. That will produce a list of items that are at greatest risk of being included in the project at some later stage.

Wherever scope has expanded in the past

A second class of high-risk capabilities includes those that were within scope of other projects, either in the past or underway, but which have been removed for one reason or another. Whatever forces were at work to have these capabilities included at first might still be active.

Past incidents of secret scope creep

Some scope expansion comes about as a result of actions taken by project team members on their own initiative. They don't consult team members or team leads in advance; they just perform the work privately. To limit this effect, include examples of "secret scope creep" that clearly illustrate the practice. If you're aware of initiatives that some have been advocating, use these as explicit examples of out-of-scope activity.

Last words

Small size is among the stronger arguments supporters of scope expansion use to advocate items for inclusion in scope. But the size of a scope expansion isn't determined by what's contemplated for inclusion in the present project. Rather, the size of a scope expansion is determined by the size of the ongoing commitment it implies, in every aspect of future support. For products or services, this can include everything from introduction to retirement. The scale of this commitment, not the scale of the current scope expansion, determines what is at stake when making scope expansion decisions.  Top    Next Issue

Projects never go quite as planned. We expect that, but we don't expect disaster. How can we get better at spotting disaster when there's still time to prevent it? How to Spot a Troubled Project Before the Trouble Starts is filled with tips for executives, senior managers, managers of project managers, and sponsors of projects in project-oriented organizations. It helps readers learn the subtle cues that indicate that a project is at risk for wreckage in time to do something about it. It's an ebook, but it's about 15% larger than "Who Moved My Cheese?" Just . Order Now! .

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Project Management:

Dispersity Adversity

Geographically and culturally dispersed project teams are increasingly common, as we become more travel-averse and more bedazzled by communication technology. But people really do work better together face-to-face. Here are some tips for managing dispersed teams.

Emergency Problem Solving

In emergencies, group problem solving is unusually challenging, especially if lives, careers, or companies depend on finding a solution immediately. Here are some tips for members of teams that are solving problems in emergencies.

Project Improvisation as Group Process

When project plans contact reality, things tend to get, um, a bit confused. We can sometimes see the trouble coming in time to replan thoughtfully — if we're nearly clairvoyant. Usually, we have to improvise. How a group improvises tells us much about the group.

Scope Creep, Hot Hands, and the Illusion of Control

Despite our awareness of scope creep's dangerous effects on projects and other efforts, we seem unable to prevent it. Two cognitive biases — the "hot hand fallacy" and "the illusion of control" — might provide explanations.

On the Risk of Undetected Issues: I

In complex projects, things might have gone wrong long before we notice them. Noticing them as early as possible — and addressing them — is almost always advantageous. How can we reduce the incidence of undetected issues?

See also Project Management and Project Management for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info