 |
| michael23word.typepad.com |
Rekom refers to scope creep as extra things you need to do or that people suggest during the project (Rekom, V. n. d.). Like many project scope creep is nearly unavoidable. Rekom outlines a few strategies for successfully managing scope creep:
- Build in time and money to deal with it ahead of time
- Saying “no” is on a PM’s essential tools for controlling scope creep
- Deliver what you say you will deliver based on the objects of the project
I’m currently on a project that implements Monday, August 6, 2012. Mid-way through the project an additional SME, the Quality Manager (QM), who is also the business partner of the project Sponsor, was brought on board. The Quality Manager’s role was to serve as a Reviewer of the learning content. As usual I sent the next deliverable (learning module) out for review and included the quality manager on the distribution list. The QM immediately rejected my learning module and sited the materials would not meet the needs of the learner and would require re-work.
 |
| projecteric.com |
My blood pressure was at an all time high as this was the first learning module to be rejected and this QM is very influential with the project sponsor. I immediately scheduled a meeting to discuss her findings and solution the problem. During this meeting the QM shared that there was not enough context and background provided for the learning in the content. That based on the quality errors captured on this team that they would need much more context on document content. As I listened to her explain why she rejected my module I began to think that she really was not up to speed on all of the components and deliverables for the project and truly didn’t know the objectives of the project.
I spent the next 2 hours providing the QM with the project objects, Statement of Work, the Detailed Design Plan that was approved by the sponsor. I also went into detail of the learning path the new hire would take for this training. I provided much more detail than I feel like any of my peers would have provided but felt I had to spend this time because she was such an influential stakeholder in the project to the sponsor. Additional I discussed the design strategies I proposed to the project sponsor and based on the decision the sponsor did not want the additional context and background on additional documents in preparation for this instruction. The QM had her own ideas of what the learning content should include. Though she was not the sponsor and was not the decision maker who determines what the learning content should include.
As part of the solution I also agreed to edit the current module for specific documents to include additional context where feasible for the learner, but could not commit to including this content right now. Based on my project timeline I had to continue with my current development of the next module. I agreed to revisit the module prior to the delivery of the train-the-trainer and send back to her for final review. I’ve learned that even though I have very tight deliverable timelines for my projects, being flexible goes a long way to building relationships with the stakeholders. The QM accepted the proposed solution but this made for very long days for me over the last 2 weeks.
Though I had built in time for scope creep and just in case something goes wrong, that time was allotted for the development of my web-based assessments and not for the learning modules. At the end of this project, my assessments were complete; however I’m cutting it very close to getting them into production for our learning management system next week. The training for this project starts Monday, August 6.
While this may not seem like a major issue to most, re-working modules for instruction is very time consuming and at times tedious. It can easily chip away at your project timeline and cause delays in implementation if not managed properly. I haven’t had a personal life in two weeks trying to ensure the project timeline is not in jeopardy because of this feedback from the Quality Manager. I delivered what I said I would deliver based on the project objectives and in some aspects just a little more.
As I reflect back on this experience, there were a couple of things I neglected in my role of the instructional designer. Anytime there is a new reviewer or SME brought on board there is a kick-off meeting. This meeting discusses the roles and responsibilities of both the SME and the Instructional designer which I didn’t conduct. Additional, I was not clear in my communication to the reviewer where this module fell in the learning path and provide the context need to adequately perform the review. I have this listed as one of my lessons learned for the project which we’ll conduct next week.
Rekom, P.V. (n.d.). Practitioner Voices: Barriers to Project Success. Retrieved July 5, 2012. https://class.waldenu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_1342057_1%26url%3D
