The Exec Said "Do More"—Here’s How to Push Back

For once the timelines, budget and scope feel like they're in sync. It all makes sense and you're prepared to deliver to Spec.

Then something changes.

The Sponsor, or some other exec that you can't say no to, let's you know that you're expected to deliver something different now. It's nearly always additional. But that isn't even the problem. You're not in sync any more. You need to spend more time planning, scoping, understanding what the edges of the new scope are. And they're fuzzy. They always are. So you're diverted from delivering and back into planning. Again.

But this was an exec that you couldn't say no to. Sound like a familiar situation? This is a situation that you shouldn't let happen. So how do you protect your scope?

When challenged with scope, go back to outcomes

The target of the project is the achievement of certain outcomes. The scope is the sum of things that are required to deliver the outcomes. Ergo, any change in scope must be caused by a change in outcomes.

If the request is for a change in scope and not a change in outcomes, this should be an easy “no” for an experienced Project Manager.

Outcomes trump scope. If you've planned your outcomes, defined solutions to deliver your outcomes and done necessity and sufficiency tests, there's no way the new scope can align to existing outcomes. This is your go-to strategy.

If the scope doesn't affect outcomes, and your job is to deliver the outcomes, make this point and reject the new scope. This is powerful. Not only does it keep your project on track, and keep the organisation focused on delivering the outcomes, but it gives you the tools to protect scope. You'd be surprised how effective this argument is if you're outcomes-focused.

Of course, all the persistent executive is going to do at this point is change the outcomes.

What if the scope changes outcomes?

If the scope changes removes or adds to the outcomes, get that expressed in terms of what it means to the outcomes.

When the outcomes are redefined, go through the same process you would if this was a new project. Build the solutions, then the work, test for necessity and sufficiency. This will direct you to the additional work needed to meet the new outcome.

Now you can have the right conversation with the requestor. The new outcome is going to cost an additional $3m and add 6 months on and make delivery of your most important outcome 3 months later, Is that OK?

It either will be, or it won't be. At least now we are not the tail wagging the dog. At least now we are disciplined, focused and letting outcomes drive our scope - the way it should be.