Managing Scope Creep in a Project I'd Like to Forget!

Scope Creep crept into one of my projects when I was in the Army.  I was assigned as a Platoon Leader in a Signal Corps battalion.   It was my first field exercise in a new platoon.  The platoon’s mission was to lay cable or telephone wire from one field site, in this case for an Armored division (i. e., tanks), to another.  The previous platoon sergeant had managed the platoon very well, but he had returned to “The States.”  The replacement platoon sergeant was excellent, a good administrator, very conscientious.  Unfortunately, he had spent his career as a company clerk.  This was his first time in “the field” since Basic Training.  I successfully read the map and led the platoon to the correct hill, safely negotiating the German Autobahn (we went 35 miles an hour, in convoy, and weren’t too popular with those people who drove without speed limits, but that’s another story).  Both of us understood the basics, deliver cable and wire to the units that needed it, set up communications, and then return to pick up the equipment when they’d gone somewhere else, find that unit again, and repeat the process.

Of course, the mission ballooned and we were told we also had to connect wires to junction boxes in telephone switchboard vans, as well as deliver cable to the vans.  I am sure our troops knew we were “newbies,” but no one said a word to us to let us know that this was Standard Operating Procedure. 

We were unaware that the platoon’s mission included connecting these cables and telephone wires.  This certainly expanded our jobs!  Not only did we have to have tents, our own trucks, vans, signal equipment, food, lights, etc., but we also had to figure out how to make these connections.  We were fortunate in that our own site was the first we had to “wire up.”  Wire up, we did!  We ran telephone wire all over the place connecting individual phones in tents, to everyone else’s tents and into the vans.

What a mess!  It looked like a spider’s web.  The battalion Executive Officer visited us the next day, took pictures, and we never heard the end of it.  I had to see those miserable pictures frequently during my three years in that unit.  I am sure that one of our troops would have stopped us if it had been a more important situation.  Scope Crept up and bit us on the ankles.

How could we have avoided the situation, first, as Dr. Budrovich mentioned in the Laureate Universities Video Program, “Practitioner Voices, You Can’t Win Them All,” (Laureate Universities Video Program, “Practitioner Voices, You Can’t Win Them All,” 2010) be wary when stakeholders are slippery.  It was pretty slippery of our troops to slip quietly into their tents and let us make fools of ourselves!  Second, as Dr. Stolovich would have suggested, we needed both a good planning meeting and we needed to get things in writing (Or in this case, read the manuals!), and third, referring to Dr. Stolovich, again, remembering that not only is a project’s measure of success refer to budget and time line, but if the Project Manager doesn’t lose his or her mind.  (Laureate Universities Video Program, “Managing Projects, 2010)  Well, we went over budget (used up all that wire when we cut and strung), completely blew the time line (we could have slowed down the progress of the whole division field exercise if the situation hadn’t occurred at the outset of the field exercise, and we lost our minds!  (I know that our seasoned troops, squad sergeants, etc., thought it was hilarious.  I hope I never treat new Instructional Designers this way!  I guess it’s normal, however, when my grandfather was in France in World War I, he’d send new soldiers looking for “left handed monkey wrenches.”)

References: 

Portny, S. E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., Sutton, M. M., & Kramer, B. E. (2008). Project management: Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Laureate Universities Video Programs: “Monitoring Projects” and “Practitioner Voices: You Can’t Win Them All"

Communicating Effectively with Stakeholders - Blog Assignment

I felt that the e-mail was precise and succinct.  It was also non-threatening and I could add any inflection I wanted to.  It addressed the problem that the meeting went on and gave less time to contribute the data, but still led me to understand that my input was necessary.  For me it was the most formal means of communication.  I also appreciated being able to reread it and refer back to it if necessary.  Factors – I am a visual person and like to reread messages.  I also appreciate the fact that the message gave me an option to help the sender by giving her just the data she needed with the implication that I could write a more complete report, later.

The disembodied voice on the voice-mail was also formal and non-threatening.  There was a bit of sympathy for my plight, and there was generosity in the tone when the caller suggested just sending the data in an e-mail.  However, this form of communication was also the one that could be misinterpreted as complaining and whiny if the caller had not had a well-modulated voice.  This would be the means of communication most open to being misconstrued.  Factors – I like the fact that I heard a message that was respectful and concise.  I also like the fact that I can play the message over again if I need to.  I am also an auditory learner and sometimes a spoken message will help me visualize the process I need to do something better than a written message.

The face-to-face message, with the individual draped over “my” cubicle wall was certainly informal.  It made me uncomfortable, like she was “lying in wait” for me to get out of the meeting, and I felt trapped.  I know that she’s an excellent designer, friend and colleague but I was worried that she was going to stand there for the rest of the afternoon watching me collect the data and send it to her.  However, this means of communication also gave her a chance to show me respect and add body language and facial expression to her vocal quality, conveying respectful urgency.  Factors – I am aware of my own tendency to engage someone in conversation in a face-to-face situation.  The very informality of the communication dispelled a sense of urgency.  

I appreciated the anonymity of the e-mail.  It gave me the feeling that the sender expected me to do what I needed to do without feeling guilty.  In the verbal messages there was no way for her to hide the faintly accusatory “I know you were in that meeting, but…”  I could focus on doing what she needed.  Additionally, as record keeping is very important, we both could refer back to the date and time of her message.

The implication is that, as a sender, I need to be an expert in all three forms, for the sake of diplomacy and the process of the project.  By focusing on experiencing and evaluating my own reactions I can then put myself in the position of other members of the team and be more aware of the manner in which they best receive communication.  It is my responsibility to get the message across most efficiently.

However, with this caveat I would also say, as a PM, I would prefer to deliver a message in person and address any questions that might arise, at that time, and then get out of the way to let the project member get the work done!

Reference:

Ertmer, P., & Quinn, J. (Eds.) (2007). The ID Casebook: Case 29, Catherine Nelson: Managing Processes and People in an Instructional Design Project. Case Studies in Instructional Design (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ. Pearson Education, Inc.

A Post Mortem Review of a Recent Project:

A Post Mortem review of a recent project:

I was on the planning board for an organization’s state convention.  My assignment was to plan gifts for special honorees at a pre-convention dinner, as well as decorations and centerpieces.  The artifact that I was given was an elaborate book showing what committee members of past conventions had done, including photographs, receipts, etc.

Previous committees for this pre-convention affair had, in the past, helped create elaborate invitations, menus, RSVP cards and envelopes, and then mailed these to the participants.  The executive committee for this organization was determined to keep the costs down and instructed me that the hostess, a past state president, would email invitations to people and choose the menu herself.   

The chair of the dinner called me, as did her secretary, asking about the invitations, etc.  Fortunately for me the executive committee required everything be vetted and approved by them, including e-mails. I sent her inquiry and my response to them, they contacted the woman, and I was “off the hook.”  However, I also think that one of the committee members forgot to inform the chair of their decision, which we’d discussed several months before the event.

Prior planning contributed to the success of the dinner.  I observed the preparations for the dinner at the previous convention and from the visit learned what was expected of me at this year’s soiree.  A friend had ideas for the gifts and created them early in the planning process.  Other friends helped me create the centerpieces.  The preparations for the dinner were a success, according to the executive committee, who also attended it.  (I decorated the tables and was done an hour before the dinner began.  I didn’t have to meet the “miffed” hostess, at all.)

The affair would have gone more smoothly for me if I had checked with one of the executive committee members about whether or not she had “gotten the word” to the hostess.  I was intimidated by the process of having to have everything approved by the committee and didn’t ask that crucial question.  When the hostess contacted me I had a moment’s panic, hoping I had not misunderstood the committee’s wishes.  I forgot that these ladies are just people and that their mission was to keep 25 committees on target to insure a successful convention for everyone.  I made the mistake of assuming instead of checking.

EDUC-6145-1

EDUC-6145-1 Students.  Please leave your comments here.  Thank you.  Lisa