Plan for Problems
Many organizations have difficulty introducing new technology because of the culture of the company. Many are “familiar” with current processes and makes it difficult to encourage change. There can be many reasons for a failed project. One might have planned this project from top to bottom. May have followed all the phases properly; having the correct employees in the meetings during the development stage; from training to launching. However, if the project was miscommunicated or a significant piece of the project was not included in the initial discussion, “scope creep” is the number one cause for a failed project. (Stewart, 2012, para. 2).
Scope creep can happen so quickly that it all becomes a big blur. This happens so often that many projects include ,scope creep, as an including percent toward the initial cost of the project. In a nutshell, “scope creep is the process by which a project grows beyond its originally anticipated size” (Ewer, N.d., Para. 6).
The goal would be to “clearly define the scope of work” (Ewer, N.d.). If one had a “solid understanding of what the client’s needs are, one would be less likely to fall victim under scope creep” (Ewer, N.d.). So how should one determine or plan for a risk?
A “risk management planning” tool is good determining any risks. Also creating and following a critical path of the project can be helpful for risks. It was suggested to not spend a lot of time on this list but to create it, prepare for them and follow the critical path to distinguish where the project may fall behind (Rawi, 2014).
One must always follow closely on a project to ensure that everyone is on track and not falling behind. It was suggested to “look for warning signs – A small variance in schedule; activities that should be complete are still being worked on. Don't cut back on the activities that ensure the work is done correctly” (Mochal, 2009).
There are multiple ways to fix scope creep within a project and to be fair, the scope creep in discussion was completely out of the norm. It was founded that many different routes could occur and by adding this new task or scope there are many other issues that could transpire from this new addition. It was left out intentionally; put in a work-around; and called it “let’s add it to the next phase”. In this case it did not matter how close the project was followed this would have not been found initially until a different occurrence was initiated