Scope Creep in a Wireless Survey Deliverable
You are managing an ICT project that includes a predictive wireless survey for a 220,000 sq ft warehouse, priced at $18,000 with a 10-day turnaround. The statement of work specifies a predictive survey using the client's floor plans and AP placement recommendations. Two days in, the client's IT director asks you to also perform an on-site validation survey, saying 'it's part of a survey, isn't it?' An on-site validation survey for this footprint requires 3 days of a certified wireless engineer at $1,450/day plus $2,200 in travel. The client also wants the AP count reduced by 15% to save budget, which conflicts with coverage requirements.
1. Is the on-site validation survey in scope? How do you respond?
Read the worked answer
Scope analysis. The SOW names a predictive survey - a desktop modeling exercise using floor plans. An on-site validation survey is a distinct deliverable requiring physical walk-testing, a certified engineer, and travel. The phrase 'survey' is a category, not a scope definition; the SOW's specific language controls. The validation survey is out of scope.
Response. Acknowledge the request without conceding scope. Explain the difference in plain terms: predictive modeling estimates coverage; validation proves it with measured signal data. Offer a formal change order: 3 days × $1,450 = $4,350 plus $2,200 travel = $6,550, plus appropriate markup and schedule impact of 3 days. Present it as a value-add option, not a refusal.
Judgment point. Do not perform the work 'to be helpful' and bill later - that converts a clear change into a disputed invoice. Get written authorization before mobilizing the engineer, and note that the 10-day turnaround restarts or extends by the added duration.
2. The client insists on cutting the AP count by 15%. How do you handle the technical conflict?
Read the worked answer
Technical position. A 15% AP reduction in a warehouse with high racking, metal shelving, and forklift traffic will likely create coverage gaps and roaming problems. The predictive survey exists precisely to determine the minimum AP count that meets the coverage and capacity requirements. Cutting below that threshold trades capital savings for operational failures - dropped handheld scanners, dead zones in aisles.
Handling. Model the reduced design and show the client the predicted coverage heat maps side by side with the compliant design. Quantify the gap: how many square feet fall below the required RSSI, how many aisles lose redundancy. Put the trade-off in business terms - scanner downtime cost versus AP savings.
Contractual protection. If the client still directs the reduction, document it as an owner-directed deviation, note that you are not warranting coverage in the affected areas, and confirm in writing. Do not silently absorb the risk. The professional obligation is to advise clearly; the client's right is to decide, but only with informed, documented consent.