In the project context, downscoping is the process of redefining the goals of the project to a more restricted set of goals. Downscoping under pressure is downscoping that happens when there is a general sense that budget and/or schedule objectives are probably unachievable. In that situation, downscoping is proposed as a means of setting achievable goals. If those new goals remain out of reach even after downscoping, the hope is that downscoping will enable the project to miss the goals by a slimmer margin.
Things don't always work out as we hope. Downscoping can produce disappointing results for two classes of reasons. First, if the size or complexity of the effort isn't contributing to the problem, tweaking the effort's size or complexity probably won't help much, and might even exacerbate the problem. Second, assuming that size and complexity are part of the problem, the way we tweak size and complexity might miss the mark.
In this post and the next, I examine downscoping from the effectiveness perspective, beginning with the conditions that most affect its usefulness.
When downscoping is most likely
Downscoping Downscoping under pressure is
unfortunately vulnerable to
a number of anti-patternsis often used in the hope that if we try to do less, we can reduce expenditures and we can complete the project earlier. It might actually work that way if we apply downscoping very early in the project. But downscoping under pressure is different.
Downscoping rarely happens early in the project, when hopes are high and people are excited about the project's prospects. When downscoping happens later in the project, it happens because there is a general consensus that budget and/or schedule objectives are unachievable. People feel the pressure, and they see downscoping as a way to relieve that pressure. But at that point, significant chunks of work have been completed. And that affects the way the project team makes decisions about downscoping.
Downscoping under pressure is unfortunately vulnerable to a number of antipatterns. In this post, I examine the effects of politics on downscoping effectiveness. In the next post I examine the effects of some cognitive biases.
The politics of downscoping
Political actors can use the downscoping process to focus discussion of goal elimination on the parts of the project their rivals favor. They do this to gain political advantage, and that's understandable. What is less benign is how these actions can conflict with important business objectives. That is, the downscoping can lead to project objectives that meet the needs of political actors better than they meet the needs of the organization.
That's where the trouble begins. For example, some projects include preparatory work that must be completed before certain subsequent projects can begin. Sometimes this is done to reduce the cost of testing, when the preparatory work affects the same components as the "main" work of the project. This preparatory work can be highest in priority to be eliminated in downscoping, when doing so doesn't affect nearer-term objectives. When the preparatory work is eliminated in downscoping, and when future projects require it, the consequences can be severely negative as they propagate into the future.
In an ironic twist, sometimes the projects most affected in the future are those favored by the political actor who directed the downscoping at the parts of the present project most favored by the actor's rival.
Preview of next time
Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenIyeJIiAfnGdKlUXrner@ChacsxirZwZlENmHUNHioCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
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.
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.
More articles on Workplace Politics:
- Breaking the Rules
- Many outstanding advances are due to those who broke rules to get things done. And some of those who
break rules get fired or disciplined. When is rule breaking a useful tactic?
- Nasty Questions: II
- In meetings, telemeetings, and email we sometimes ask questions that aren't intended to elicit information.
Rather, they're indirect attacks intended to advance the questioner's political agenda. Here's part
two of a catalog of some favorite tactics.
- How Pet Projects Get Resources: Cleverness
- When pet projects thrive in an organization, they sometimes depend on the clever tactics of those who
nurture them to secure resources despite conflict with organizational priorities. How does this happen?
- Rational Scope Management
- In project management, rational, responsible scope management helps us focus on the task at hand. But
rational scope management lets us adapt our work to changes in external factors, and changes in our
understanding of the problem.
- Joint Leadership Teams: Risks
- Some teams, business units, or enterprises are led not by individuals, but by joint leadership teams
of two or more. They face special risks that arise from the organizations that host them, from the teams
they lead, or from within the joint leadership team itself.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming March 6: Six More Insights About Workplace Bullying
- Some of the lore about dealing with bullies at work isn't just wrong — it's harmful. It's harmful in the sense that applying it intensifies the bullying. Here are six insights that might help when devising strategies for dealing with bullies at work. Example: Letting yourself be bullied is not a thing. Available here and by RSS on March 6.
- And on March 13: On Anticipating Consequences
- Much of what goes wrong when we change systems to improve them falls into a category we call unanticipated consequences. Even when we lack models that can project these results accurately, morphological analysis that can help us avoid much misery. Available here and by RSS on March 13.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenIyeJIiAfnGdKlUXrner@ChacsxirZwZlENmHUNHioCanyon.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