Project Scope Creep Management

1. Zahid Khan, PE, PMP
Managing Engineer
Solid Waste Division
Department of Natural Resource

2. ProjectScope Management
Scope Creep vs. Progressive
Elaboration
Common Causes
How to Prevent Scope Creep
A Case Study
Lessons Learned

3. Project Scope Management includes the
processes required to ensure that the
project includes all the work required,
and only the work required, to complete
the project successfully.
This definition is taken from the Glossary of the Project Management Institute, A Guide to the
Project Management Body of Knowledge, (PMBOK® Guide) – Fourth Edition, Project Management
Institute, Inc., 2008, Page 444.

4. Adding features and functionality
(project scope) without addressing
the effects on time, costs, and
resources, or without customer
approval.
These definitions are taken from the Glossary of the Project Management Institute, A Guide to the
Project Management Body of Knowledge, (PMBOK® Guide) – Fourth Edition, Project Management
Institute, Inc., 2008, Page 448.

5. Continuously improving and detailing a
plan as more detailed and specific
information and more accurate
estimates become available as the
project progresses, and thereby
producing more accurate and complete
plans that result from the successive
iterations of the planning process.
These definitions are taken from the Glossary of the Project Management Institute, A Guide to the
Project Management Body of Knowledge, (PMBOK® Guide) – Fourth Edition, Project Management
Institute, Inc., 2008, Page 442.

7.  Initial Scope: 1996
Complete a seismic evaluation of five transfer stations.
7 Tasks - Budget: $50K
 Amendments 1-6:1997-2004
Perform several roof replacements.
Added 15 tasks – Budget: $687K
 Amendments 7 – 11: 2004- 2011
Extended time to perform design services and
construction management to improve roof strength.
Final Budget: $1.67M

8. 25
20
15
Original Scope
10 Amendments 1-6
Amendments 7-11
5
0
Tasks Budget Total Years
(in 100K $)

9.  Inadequate Project Planning
• Communications Management
• Risk Management
• Quality Management
 Ineffective Project Management
• Stakeholder Management
• Poorly Written Scope
• Poorly Managed Scope
• Undocumented Assumptions
• Ineffective Monitoring & Controlling

10.  Clearly Defined Project Objectives
 Collect Requirements
• Requirements Documentation
• Requirements Management Plan
 ScopeManagement Plan
 Alignment of Project Scope
• Project Objectives
• Requirements
• Quality Standards
• Organization’s Strategic Objective

11.  PeriodicReview of the Scope Baseline
 Monitoring & Controlling
• Project Performance Monitoring
 Variance Analysis
• Earned Value Management Technique
 Integrated Change Control Process
• Review, and approve or reject
• Document and implement changes to scope
project management plan

12.  Verify Scope
• Formal Acceptance of Completed
Deliverables
• Reasons for Non-acceptance
• Change Requests
 Punch list
 Close Project or Phase
• Project Scope Review
• Closure Documents
• Lessons Learned

13. A formally constituted group of
stakeholders responsible for reviewing,
evaluating, approving, delaying, or
rejecting changes to a project, with all
decisions and recommendations being
recorded.
This definition is taken from the Glossary of the Project Management Institute, A Guide to the
Project Management Body of Knowledge, (PMBOK® Guide) – Fourth Edition, Project Management
Institute, Inc., 2008, Page 428.

14. What is the Difference
Between:
Scope Verification and
Quality Control?

15.  “Scope Verification is primarily
concerned with acceptance of
deliverables”
 “Quality Control is primarily
concerned with the correctness...”
 “Quality Control is generally done
before scope verification”
Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge,
(PMBOK® Guide) – Fourth Edition, Project Management Institute, Inc., 2008, Page 123.

16. ORIGINAL SCOPE

17.  Original Scope:
Provide engineering services for
construction of a new South Flare Station,
relocate North Flare Station, and gas
delivery connections to Landfill Gas-to-
Energy (LFGTE) Plant.
 Start
Date: September 1, 2004
 Completion Date: December 31, 2007
 Design Value: $350,272

18.  Scope Change # 1:
After completion of 90% construction
documents, the proposed location of
LFGTE plant was changed which
required new facility planning and
redesign of flare locations.
 Schedule Delay: 1 year
 Cost Increase: $439,371

19. ORIGINAL SCOPE SCOPE CHANGE 1

20.  Scope Change # 2:
After completion of 90% construction
documents, it was realized that a building
permit was not obtained which added
several new tasks.
 Schedule Delay: 1 year
 Cost Increase: $406,481
 Major Conflict: New LFGTE Plant
commissioning date was earlier than the
finalized schedule for the flare station.

21.  Scope Change # 3:
Implementation of the flare station
relocation was abandoned and an
alternative gas delivery system was
implemented to comply with the LFGTE
Plant commissioning date.
 Total Schedule Delay: 36 months
 Final Design Cost: $1,500,000

22. Final Scope
 NoFlare
Relocation

23. Initiating Process
• Stakeholders should have been
properly identified to fully understand
requirements
• Project alternatives should have been
evaluated closely to determine “go” or
“no-go” decisions
• Selection of an appropriate project
manager

24. Planning Process
• Detailed alternatives analysis
• A formal risk assessment and risk
response planning
• Integrated master schedule
• Defining and documenting
stakeholder’s needs
• Baseline scope, schedule, and budget

25. • Phased approach to gain better control
Executing Process
• Actively manage stakeholder
expectations
• Proactively manage the project
Monitoring & Controlling Process
• Monitoring project risks
• Progress measurement and reporting
• Change control process

26. Questions?