Fictional project scope decision
A fictional organization is replacing its budget system. The initial business case specifies a controlled pilot, reconciliation with existing records and approval before wider rollout. During testing a stakeholder requests a new dashboard and a different data feed. The change may improve decisions but its reliability, cost and effect on the schedule have not been assessed. One manager says every request must be rejected because a plan exists. Another assumes an iterative method permits any request without recording an impact. The exercise supplies no actual procurement law, statutory deadline or mandatory methodology. Students must distinguish useful adaptation from uncontrolled scope expansion and explain how decision authority, dependency review and benefit measures can preserve coherence while uncertainty is investigated.
1. How should the new request be handled?
Read the worked answer
Clarify its intended benefit, dependencies, data quality and cost, then use the agreed proportionate change decision process. Neither automatic rejection nor undocumented expansion follows from a methodology label.
2. What evidence supports closure?
Read the worked answer
Confirm agreed acceptance criteria, unresolved risks, ownership, handover and lessons. Delivery sign-off and future benefit review answer different questions and both may be necessary.