Sponsor adds a fourth laboratory
A health research programme is consolidating three laboratory sites into one shared facility to cut operating costs by £2.1m a year and reduce sample turnaround from 48 to 24 hours. The blueprint was signed off eight months ago. At a steering group, the sponsor announces that a fourth lab, currently outside scope, must be included because a key clinician refuses to move. The fourth lab uses a different quality accreditation and adds £3.4m capital cost. Programme funding is capped at £18m, with £1.2m unallocated. The projects delivering the building fit-out are already on site; the accreditation workstream has not started. The programme manager has a change control process, but the sponsor says this is a vision-level decision, not a change request. Stakeholders in the three original labs are worried about delays.
1. How should the programme manager respond to the sponsor's claim that adding the fourth lab is a vision-level decision, not a change request?
Read the worked answer
The claim confuses vision with scope. The vision describes the future state - one shared facility with faster turnaround and lower cost. The blueprint and business case define what is in scope to achieve it. Adding a fourth lab changes the blueprint (accreditation, fit-out, operating model), the cost base of £3.4m, the benefits assumptions and the stakeholder map. Those are precisely the triggers for change control. The programme manager should acknowledge the sponsor's authority to propose a vision-level ambition, but explain that the governance to test it is change control. Record the sponsor's request as a change request, not as an instruction, and agree a short timescale for impact assessment. If the sponsor persists, escalate to the steering group chair or the sponsoring group, because bypassing change control undermines the business case and the audit trail. The tone should be collaborative: help me test whether the vision still holds with four labs. Do not start accreditation work or commit capital before the decision.
2. What impact assessment should the programme manager produce?
Read the worked answer
Assess options, not just the requested change. Option A: include the fourth lab in the current programme. Option B: deliver it as a separate project after closure. Option C: phase it into a later tranche. For each, assess capital and operating cost against the £1.2m unallocated and £18m cap; schedule effect on fit-out and accreditation; benefit impact - does the fourth lab add sample volume, or merely avoid a confrontation; blueprint changes; risk, especially accreditation failure and clinician resistance; and stakeholder impact on the three original labs. Check the funder's constraints: a capped budget may make inclusion impossible without de-scoping something else. Also test the clinician's refusal: is it a requirement or a preference? The assessment should state a recommendation with conditions. The programme manager should not produce a single cost-of-change figure, because the real question is whether the programme remains viable and beneficial.
3. What should the programme manager recommend to the steering group?
Read the worked answer
Recommend a decision, not a delay. On the evidence, the fourth lab is unlikely to fit within the £18m cap without de-scoping benefits or delaying the original three labs. The programme manager should recommend that the fourth lab is not added to the current blueprint, and that the sponsor's concern is handled through a separate feasibility study or a post-programme project. If the steering group wants to keep it, the recommendation should be conditional: a formal change request, a revised business case showing the £3.4m and accreditation risk, funder approval, and an explicit trade-off against the £2.1m annual saving. The programme manager should also flag the governance risk of a sponsor announcing scope in a steering group without papers. The steering group should minute the decision, the rationale and the owner of the clinician engagement. This protects the programme's audit trail and the sponsor's reputation.