Background
The chief
financial officer (CEO) of a community organization requested me to serve as
the co-chairperson for an anniversary celebration because the chairperson would
not be available during the actual event.
Each year a loyal following
looked forwarded to the celebration. The
organization planned for a budget of $1,500 as seed money to fund speakers,
entertainment, food, printed materials, and miscellaneous items. Monies collected through fundraising would
provide additional support. More than a
celebration, this event helped to sustain the organization’s annual operations
budget.
After
accepting the role, I learned of budget problems. To sustain the troubled operating budget, we
no longer had the $1,500 allocated for the project. Disillusioned by the organization’s financial
shortfalls, the committee decided against requesting sponsorship from the
base. The devoted committee members noted
that they represented more than 50% of the base and felt taxed financially. When I learned of their decision, I informed
the CEO. The CEO immediately called a
meeting and explained that he expected all members to proceed as planned.
We planned
the program and secured a commitment from presenters prior to the chairperson’s
departure. The chairperson noticed
groups practicing, but did not know the purpose. The chairperson then submitted the plan to the
CEO’s office. The chairperson left me to
compile the program information. Excited
about the program material, I wanted to prove my worth.
Problem
Scope creep
occurred the next day. The CEO contacted
me with many concerns about the program.
He didn’t realize we were still working on the project. He requested cancellation of presenters,
which included members of his base. I
learned that because his superior would be in the program, the base was not
priority. In addition, the CEO scheduled
his own program involving other members of the organization. The rework interfered with my task. The organization’s base blamed me for making
changes to the original program.
Recommendations
Specifically,
changes in time and resources, greatly affected the scope. To better manage these issues and control the
scope of the project, I could have reconfirmed the plan, informed through
reports, and assessed the risks. Portny,
Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, and Sutton (2008) advise project managers to confirm “the
project responsibilities and commitments (p. 320).” In this case, the stakeholder sensed a lack
of commitment in one area, so he assumed the team would not live up to
expectations. Routine reports would have
provided a status, progress, and forecast.
Also, it would give the CEO opportunity to alert the team if they veered
off course. Since the ostrich approach,
prayer approach, and denial will not ward off risks (Portny et al., 2008), minimizing
the risk and impact is essential. Ranking
the likelihood of risks and impact by high, medium, and low would prioritize the order of the project's focus.
Reference
Portny, S., Mantel, S.,
Meredith, J., Shafer, S., & Sutton, M. (2008). Project management planning,
scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
