Mid-Stage Scope Request on a Customer Portal
A 12-week customer portal project is in week 6. Baseline budget is €240,000; €128,000 has been spent; 9 of 20 planned features are accepted. The steering group set tolerances of ±2 weeks and ±10% budget. Marketing asks to add single sign-on (SSO) and two analytics dashboards before launch, citing a competitor. The technical lead estimates SSO at 3 weeks because it touches authentication and security testing; dashboards at 2 weeks if reporting data is clean. The business analyst warns that two existing features are already late and one acceptance test is disputed. The sponsor says 'just make it happen' in a corridor conversation. The marketing director has already told the sales team the features will be live. The project manager has a change board meeting in two days. No impact assessment has been done yet.
1. What analysis should the project manager complete before responding to the marketing request?
Read the worked answer
First, treat the request as a change, not a favour. The analysis should cover:
- Scope: what exactly SSO and dashboards mean, including security requirements and reporting data sources.
- Schedule: 3 weeks for SSO plus 2 weeks for dashboards if both are accepted, and dependencies with the two late features.
- Cost: effort, licences, security testing, and rework; compare with the remaining €112,000 and the ±10% budget tolerance of €24,000.
- Quality and risk: whether test coverage can still be met, data-quality risk in dashboards, and security exposure in SSO.
- Benefits: whether the competitor claim is measurable and relevant to the business case.
Second, check team capacity and the effect on the disputed acceptance test. Third, prepare at least three options: accept both with a revised baseline, accept SSO only and defer dashboards, or defer both. The corridor remark should be recorded, but it is not a formal approval. The output should be a one-page impact assessment with a recommendation and a clear decision requested from the change board.
2. The change board wants SSO but not dashboards, and asks for a revised plan. How should the project manager handle the schedule and budget impact?
Read the worked answer
Re-plan from current actuals, not from the original baseline. SSO adds about 3 weeks, which exceeds the ±2-week schedule tolerance. The cost is also likely to exceed the remaining buffer once security testing and rework are included, so the project manager cannot absorb the change at project level. The decision must go to the steering group with a revised business case.
Present options with consequences:
- Extend the timeline by 3 weeks and approve additional budget.
- Phase SSO after launch, with a firm date and acceptance criteria.
- Remove equivalent scope to protect the launch date.
The revised plan should show the critical path, the impact on the two late features, and the risk of squeezing security testing. The project manager should not 'make it happen' by reducing test time. Dynamic control means making the new reality visible and letting the accountable body choose the trade-off.
3. What should the project manager do about the sponsor's informal approval?
Read the worked answer
Document it and test it; do not ignore it and do not act on it. Send the sponsor a short note: 'You said make it happen. To proceed I need a formal decision because the change exceeds schedule tolerance and affects security testing. Here are the options and the decision date.' This protects the project manager, respects the sponsor's authority, and keeps the relationship constructive.
The change board and steering group remain the decision forum unless the sponsor explicitly uses delegated authority and records that decision. If the sponsor insists, ask for the decision in writing and make sure the consequences are accepted by the accountable owner. Starting work before that creates commitment without capacity and undermines the dynamic control cycle.