Three unlogged changes on an ERP baseline
An ERP rollout is at month 6 of a 12-month schedule. The approved baseline covers eight workstreams, a budget of USD 3.1 million and a go-live before fiscal year end. The steering committee meets monthly, and the project management plan says any change above USD 25,000 or 10 working days must go to that committee. In the last four weeks the sponsor verbally requested two additional reports, the finance director added a tax module, and the operations lead moved a user-acceptance milestone forward by three weeks. No change requests have been logged. Earned value shows SPI 0.82 and CPI 1.07; 14 risks are open and three are rated high. The project coordinator says the team can absorb the work by working weekends. The next steering committee is in six days. What is your course of action?
1. Explain how the integrated practices of planning and control should be applied to the three unlogged changes.
Read the worked answer
Integrated planning and control. The plan is the single reference for scope, schedule, cost, risk, quality and benefits. Three verbal or informal changes are already affecting that reference, so the first step is to convert them into recorded change requests, not to absorb them. For each request I would assess impact on workstreams, critical path, cost, risk, quality, benefits and operational readiness. The tax module clearly exceeds the USD 25,000 threshold; the UAT shift affects a milestone and dependencies; the reports may be small but still consume capacity.
Control action. Log all three, update the change register, and take them to the steering committee with options: accept, defer, reject or descope something else. Until approved, the baseline remains unchanged. Weekend working is not a control strategy; it hides capacity problems and raises quality and attrition risk. I would also check whether the SPI and CPI divergence reflects rework or unapproved scope. Integrated control means one forecast, one change route and one decision log.
2. How should you handle the sponsor's and finance director's requests without damaging relationships?
Read the worked answer
Handling relationships. I would acknowledge each request as legitimate and respond quickly, but separate the relationship from the process. To the sponsor: 'I can support the reports; here is the impact and the decision needed.' To the finance director: 'The tax module needs a change request because it crosses the threshold and affects testing.' To the operations lead: 'Moving UAT forward by three weeks conflicts with two dependent workstreams; here are the options.'
Reasoning. Ignoring verbal requests damages trust; accepting them silently damages control. Converting them into visible options lets senior stakeholders own the trade-off. If anyone insists on bypassing the threshold, I would escalate to the steering committee and record the instruction. I would also agree a simple rule for future requests: any request goes into the change log within one working day, with a named requester and needed-by date.
3. What should the next steering committee pack contain, and what decision do you seek?
Read the worked answer
Steering pack. Current approved baseline versus latest forecast for scope, schedule, cost and benefits; a change register showing the three requests with impact and recommendation; an earned-value summary explaining SPI 0.82 and CPI 1.07, including whether the cost index is flattered by work not yet done; top five risks with owners and triggers; and a clear decision list.
Decisions sought. Approve, defer or reject each change; decide whether to re-baseline the UAT milestone and go-live; confirm the change threshold will be enforced; and authorise any contingency use. I would present a recommended option, not just data, and state the consequence of no decision. This gives the committee a genuine choice and protects the project from informal scope accumulation.