Scope Creep

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.