The Stakeholder Who Wasn't in the Room
You are facilitating requirements for a new scheduling tool at a 200-bed hospital. Twelve workshops have produced 85 agreed requirements. Two weeks before sign-off, the nursing union representative learns that the tool will let charge nurses adjust shifts without union consultation. The union has a collective agreement clause requiring consultation on scheduling changes. The project sponsor says the clause is "an HR matter" and wants to proceed. The nursing director, who attended every workshop, did not raise this. The vendor's contract has a change fee after sign-off, and the go-live is 10 weeks away.
1. What should you do in the next 48 hours, and why?
Read the worked answer
Stop the sign-off clock and surface the issue formally. This is a stakeholder-identification and ethics problem before it is a schedule problem.
Next 48 hours:
- Inform the sponsor in writing that the union's collective agreement clause is a project constraint, not an HR side issue, and that proceeding risks an invalid sign-off and possible industrial action.
- Request a joint meeting with the sponsor, nursing director, and union representative. Bring the specific requirements affected (shift adjustment permissions, notification rules, audit trail).
- Ask the union what consultation would satisfy the clause and what the tool must do or not do. Capture this as requirements, not as negotiation.
- Do not commit to the vendor or to a go-live date until the consultation path is agreed.
The 85 requirements are not wasted; they are incomplete because a legitimate stakeholder was missed. The professional obligation is to represent that gap accurately, even when the sponsor disagrees.
2. The sponsor insists on signing off on time. Draft the argument you would make, and state what you would do if overruled.
Read the worked answer
Argument to the sponsor: Sign-off certifies that requirements are complete and agreed by affected parties. The union holds a contractual right to consultation on scheduling changes, and the tool changes scheduling. Signing now creates three risks: the sign-off is contestable, the change fee may be incurred twice (once now, once after consultation), and the go-live may be disrupted by a dispute. Ten weeks is enough to run a focused consultation if we start now; it is not enough to recover from a stoppage at go-live.
Proposed path: a two-week consultation window on the scheduling-related requirements only, with a documented decision log, then sign-off. Ask the vendor for a short extension of the change-fee window, citing scope clarification.
If overruled: record the decision, your advice, and the residual risk in the project log and escalate to the project board or PMO in writing. Continue to facilitate the consultation in parallel so the risk is reduced even if the schedule is not. You do not sabotage the decision, but you do not let it pass undocumented.