Organisations can turn strategy into action by using project management. Despite the increased investment in project management capabilities, many projects fail to achieve their goals.
This sixth article in a series examines how poor change control can destroy projects. It was first outlined by Jeffrey Pinto in his paper “Lies, damned, and Project Plans”: Recurring human mistakes that can ruin project planning.
Skarbek often jumps into situations where key client projects are in crisis. Is it malpractice in project management or environmental factors that led to failure such as lack of commitment, sponsorship, engagement, and commitment?
Pinto’s seven deadly Sins offer some insight for project managers who are quick to point out that their projects were well managed, but that external factors conspired against them. These insights can make it question whether the profession really got it right.
Pinto also addresses the sixth sin, poor change control. Although agile teams are encouraged today, this does not mean that they can ignore the relationship between core project objectives such as time, cost, quality and scope.
McKinsey actually defines agility as a balance between stability and dynamism. In this context, the stability is provided by the change control process.
Change the scope whenever necessary, but don’t forget to assess the impact on cost, quality and time.
Pinto cites rework in particular as a result of poor scope control. However, he also asserts that some rework can be expected due to:
During the project’s life, there is always the possibility of changing requirements.
To improve product flight, ‘Gold plating’ is a popular trend
There are limitations to what can be done and planned.
Some project techniques, especially agile, require rework. The question is how to keep control of the project when rework is inevitable.
According to Skarbek, the main problem is human-driven. The need to perform a change control shines light on project problems that most prefer not to address. This is key to keeping the ‘death marches,’ discussed in article 3, going.
Change control can lead to a confrontation between senior sponsors and the cognitive dissonance project team. This happens when the project definition begins to diverge from reality. It can be very unpleasant!
It is important to recognize the devastating consequences that one change made in error can have on a project.
The apocryphal Apollo 13 story and the changes to the operating specifications of electrical equipment that almost caused the deaths of three astronauts is a reminder of the potential costs of poorly coordinated changes.
We have often seen that portfolios that require change control are ‘hidden’ at the portfolio level as a result of this dissonance. Are there projects that are unable to progress between stages?
One client had 35 projects on a hold-list that was never reviewed. Some projects were 14 months old.
Together, the projects that were stalled at gates and those that were on hold were still consuming significant resources. Activities were kept ‘ticking ahead’. We recommend the following to build an effective change management capability:
Two-stage change control is recommended. One for minor changes and one for major ones. Major changes can be identified using pre-set criteria regarding cost, quality, scope, and time. These criteria should always be presented as part of a Project Review Board
Use a one-page change control form that allows you to objectively assess the impact on cost, scope, quality, and resource.
Ensure that impacted functions are contri
