A common problem that affects projects is that of scope creep.  It’s very easy for a situation to occur where features and changes are suggested that are beyond the original view of the scope. Each change, individually, might seem small and insignificant, yet when they are added up they might result in a significant increase in cost and time. This is likely to have a knock-on impact on the benefits that are realised.

There are many causes of scope creep, and sometimes changes to scope are necessary for very good reasons. However uncontrolled or frivolous changes can be problematic. One particularly problematic issue is when different stakeholders have different perspectives on what the scope is. This can lead to different expectations over:

• Why the change is necessary in the first place
• What is being delivered
• How the delivery will take place

If there isn’t a shared understanding over the why, what and how, then it is very likely that problems will occur.  Yet, in the understandable rush to ‘kick off’ a project, it is very tempting to curtail or cut down on the initial analysis work which creates this shared understanding.

The Dangers Of “Superficial Agreement”

When insufficient initial analysis work takes place, stakeholders might fall into a trap of appearing to agree. At a surface level they might actually agree, but the agreement is based on a tacit misunderstanding of each others’ views.

This is particularly the case when the driving factors behind a project sound really simple. “Our aim is to have a fully digital customer journey” or “we need to comply with this new law” sound like relatively simple statements. Yet unpack them and we find a whole range of ambiguities. 

Let’s take the first statement “Our aim is to have a fully digital customer journey” and imagine we ask for different stakeholders’ interpretations. It’s likely they’d have very different views, some possible examples are shown below.

Continued to read…