Perform integrated change control

Submitted by Prakash999 on Sun, 12/23/2012 - 19:19

 Rita's book covered this process for changes requested , wherein it goes through assessment, options etc.. does anyone have suggestions on how the sequence of the process changes in the case  like where changes happen without following the proper process, but project manager gets to know about them as an after fact  how does the sequence change?

the first thing would be to notify stakeholders ? because there's an unevaluated impact on project constraints? 
is that the only change in the sequence ? notify stakeholders first and proceed with rest of the sequence?
 
is there a good reference or a book that i can get hold of to understand the sequence for uncontrolled changes that project manager realizes later?
Forums: 
General Discussion
  • Log in to post comments
  • 1282 reads

miners

Sun, 12/23/2012 - 21:35

Think you may be right in case of an improper change  management. The stakeholders need to know immediately however, I have one comment that may precede informing stakeholders which is ...evaluate the impact of the change that has been implemented. Based on the tests I have taken, I undertood that if a change has been implemented without proper change management first step will be to see - what got implemented and how does this impact, basically evaluate. That would tell you the current after the fact situation then you would tell the stakeholders that this is what happened with bla bla impact and discuss corrective actions.... Let me know if this doesn't make sense. 

Also, I have read this change sequence so many times that often I got confused so, in a proper world, here's my understanding of the process. Feel free to comment!

1. Evaluate if the situation warrants a change, say scope change or schedule change

2. Evaluate its impact on scope itself and other knowledge areas

3. Create options to reduce the impact of the change

4. Create a CR ( approved internally or from a requesting grp)

5. Follow integrated change control....get it reviewed approved  or rejected

6. If approved, plan the new work ...change project documents or baselines or project management plan

7. Communicate the status of the cr to stakeholders

8. Implement the CR

 

Prakash999

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 05:15

@miners

the part of evaluating impact , before notifying stakeholders makes sense., in fact thats what i think is better because we will have something concrete to give stakeholders. however, i was beaten while taking questions related to ethics from Scordo sets, which also seems to comply with the Code of Conduct document from PMI.

it says notify stakeholders "as soon as you detect an error". So, getting ethics into the mix , what do you think?

On the sequence of changes,

i would evaluate impact on "other knowledge areas" & create options to reduce the impact of the change AFTER creating a CR., becuse integrated impact analysis and creation of options take effort, which i may not want to expend without a CR at hand. 

what Rita does say is see what is being asked (scope change ?) and create a CR , and THEN 2 and 3 of your list above.

rest of your flow makes perfect sense as well.

do let me know if you think it doesnt really fit well, and feel free to discuss.

sspawar

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 04:42

how the sequence of the process changes in the case like where changes happen without following the proper process, but project manager gets to know about them as an after fact how does the sequence change?


PMBOK, specify uncontrolled (or in your word without following proper process) scope change in two way,  one is Scope Creep and other is Gold Plating.


In first instance any of above actions shall be stopped first.


And your second quesion is : the first thing would be to notify stakeholders ? because there's an unevaluated impact on project constraints?


Here stackholders - means what,


-- if it is your internal --- like sponsor, / or any concerns - in this case performance reports will automatically convey the reports, unless if specific issues. In case of specific issues, it may be informed separately, it is all depends on your own project/ organozation mathodologies.


--- if it is costomer /external --not necessary to inform immediate.


Sequence , in my view


will be started by



  1. Stopping the unauthorized changes, if the case really you expect a scope creep or gold plating and it may be virtually , if the case is sensetive, and does not expected to include in above two criteria.(like workarounds or any risk involvement)

  2. Documentation of that verbal or improper process initiation

  3. Follow the later steps, as mentioned by MR. MINERS

 

Prakash999

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 05:20

@sspawar

these two steps..

1. stopping unauthorized change

2. documentation of such an error  

makes sense, but i think notification of stakeholders is required , internal as you stated - much before a performance report shows such an error., it may be too late for stakeholders to know and advise if any.

Also bringing ethics into the mix - we need to notify as soon as possible.

however, i may have a gap there., 

can you point me to a source url or doc if you can? just to help this discussion?

Prakash999

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 05:20

@sspawar

these two steps..

1. stopping unauthorized change

2. documentation of such an error  

makes sense, but i think notification of stakeholders is required , internal as you stated - much before a performance report shows such an error., it may be too late for stakeholders to know and advise if any.

Also bringing ethics into the mix - we need to notify as soon as possible.

however, i may have a gap there., 

can you point me to a source url or doc if you can? just to help this discussion?

sspawar

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 05:30

Yes concerned stakeholders will be informed , during/after documentation,