Analyzing Scope Creep
As a student in Instructional Design and Technology, I consider my instructional design projects as personal experiences. Though those projects were successful, they were not without problems. Among all my projects, “Online Orientation Program” recorded scope creep. The project consisted of designing online orientation program for distance learners and should present strategies for succeeding in a distance learning environment and should provide an overview of what to expect when taking a distance learning course compared to a traditional instructor-led course (Laureate Education, 2011).
I designed an online, fully asynchronous 3-credit Geometry course for high school students. Trainees were expected to view interactive media presentations and complete online assessments. Students were expected to regularly participate in an asynchronous question and answer forum. Asynchronous discussions were to be delivered through Edu2.0, a course management system (CMS) tool that featured social networking media for threaded discussions forum.
Though the project was successful, Dr. Harold Stolovitch’s project post-mortem template pointed out some deficiencies. Instead of developing activities to engage the learners in the orientation and mechanisms for learner-learner and learner-instructor interaction, I offered rather activities for the geometry course, due to my misinterpretation. My immediate stakeholder (Professor Dawson) called my attention to the fact, the same mistake Simon Wilcowsky and his team made in the case study 23 (Ertmer and Quinn, 2007, p.178). That mistake generated scope creep that set me back for a week due to other project tasks, nevertheless I met the dead line. Dr. Dawson’s constructive feedback helped me handle the project scope creep. Now other stakeholders could benefit from a successful project design.
Looking back and using the tools of Project Management, I would use work breakdown structure (WBS) and would have to develop and monitor a mechanism to enable team members to objectively identify and manage project risks. Consistent risk management and monitoring should surface in all stages of a design project to avoid a poor design project outcome (Yee, Lievesley, and Taylor, 2009). I would have to communicate clearly with my client on agree upon project details for a successful project desired outcomes.
Geer (2011) advised project managers (PMs), instructional designers (IDs) and team members to take stock at the end of a project and develop a list of lessons learned to avoid repeating their mistakes in the next project. Though I did not develop an elaborate detailed document, I took note of what my professor revealed in her feedback. That is why today I could easily point out when an ID or a PM makes similar mistake. Revisiting the past helps shape personal skills. PMs and IDs should take lessons from the past to avoid the same mistakes. The digital age requires of us to remain on the learning curve for adoption and implementation of new and emerging technology (Johnson, Levine, Smith, and Stone, 2010) and technology communication tools.
Scope creep is a fundamental issue in a project management. Any PM could easily avoid scope creep through a clear and effective communication between all participants. The PM has the responsibility to have a sign off document listing agreed upon details for measures to avoid scope creep and have successful project outcomes.
References
Geer, M. (2011). The project management minimalist: Just enough PM to rock your projects! Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/courses/56611/CRS-CW-4894953/educ_6145_readings/pm-minimalist-ver-3-laureate.pdf.
Ertmer, P., & Quinn, J. (2007). The ID casebook: Case studies in instructional design. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R., & Stone, S. (2010). The 2010 Horizon Report.
Laureate Education. (2011). Foundations of distance learning. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=4744647&Survey=&47=6623504&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1.
Yee, J., Lievesley, M., & Taylor, L. (2009). Recognizing risk-of-failure in communication design projects. Visible Language, (43)2, 227-251.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Selga,
ReplyDeleteThe PM must be able to minimize the chance of miscommunication by understanding what the Project Owners are requesting of him or he may pass on this miscommunication to the project team and the will indeed create a backlog in completing the project. One way to do this is to improve understanding and communication by giving and receiving feedback among the stake holders. The type of scope creep I can see emerging from your scenario was due to a miscommunication between the stakeholder (Professor Dawnson) and the Project Manager (you)- it was not discovered until after the project had begun.
Like any PM who has just discovered that they project has taken a wrong turn unexpectedly, it must have been frustrating to realize that you had given up many hours to complete your course only to find out that you now had to discard what you had completed. This now meant additional hours to spend correcting the mistake and getting the project back on the right course - in a form of an Orientation. Having an understanding and cooperative Project Owner in Professor Dawson was indeed an advantage for you but imagine these same circumstances in a real life situation and a less understanding Project Owner. It could have meant the end of the project for you and a somewhat unsuccessful one.
Greer (2010) speaks about the importance of having a clearly defined scope and in this case, it appears as if the scope was not clearly and completely defined. Not having a clear project scope can lead to scope creep in terms of negatively affecting the timelines and in most cases, the budget. I recall from our last blog post, Dr. Stolovitch’s rule to keep in mind when communicating, namely to void ambiguity by presenting information in a clear and precise manner and to be sure that everyone’s understand what was communicated to prevent any confusion.
Portny et al (2008) stated: “the best approach is to set up a well-controlled, formal process whereby changes can be introduced and accomplished with as little distressed as possible” (p. 346). A Communication Management Plan would have eliminated some of these issues in a real life situation.
References
Greer, M. (2010). The project management minimalist: Just enough PM to rock your projects! (Laureate custom Ed.). Baltimore: Laureate Education, Inc.
Portny, S., Mantel, S., Meredith, J., Shafer, S., Sutton, M., & Kramer, B. (2008). Project management: Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, NJ: John E. Wiley & Sons, Inc.