Case Scenario
LSS is engaged in flood relief support nationally and has been asked to do several international Camp Noah projects. Last year the French government asked for resources for children in Southeastern France who had been affected by floods; LSS responded within 15 weeks with a French Camp Noah curriculum that met many of the project objectives. The Board of Directors of LSS commended the effort; international expansion was added to this year’s strategic objectives for the LSS organization.
The French Camp Noah project was not completed on time, the scope had to be reduced to meet even the delayed time frame, the cost was 30% higher than expected, and quality control measurements indicated that there were many small disappointments within the project. During the French Camp Noah project, the project manager had been unable to keep the team focused on the planning process. Initiation took longer than expected, and executing work on the project was well under-way before detailed planning even began. Many team members skipped planning meetings in favor of just using the time to do the project work. The gap between the plans and the execution became so large that the project manager finally just started having ad hoc meetings and documenting the notes from the meetings, and stopped looking at the plans.
At a post-project review meeting, the team agreed that, although they felt they had done everything possible given the short time-frame, they would not want to repeat the experience without improving the project management process. Many of them had missed family and other commitments while responding heroically to this challenge; they were stressed-out, burned-out, and feeling overwhelmed from the French Camp Noah project.
LSS announced that it was funding a six-month-long project to proactively create a Latino Camp Noah that can be deployed in any Spanish-speaking country. To avoid tight deadlines and scrambling, the Latino product will not be available until the end of the project, whether or not a flood occurs in a Spanish speaking area. The project called "Campamento de Noé" was chartered, and by the end of the first month, detailed planning was completed. Two months ago, the team started executing the project plan and they expect to complete the project on time by completing the remaining tasks to be executed within two months.
In general, the great planning paid off. Many things are working smoothly and the work is getting done. There are, however, a few problems that Amina, the project manager, would like your help within the Execution, Monitoring and Control, and Closure stages of the project. Changes to the project scope, cost and schedule on the "Campamento de Noé" project have become troublesome and Amina is worried about the potential for scope creep. Amina is uneasy about the level of team performance and team communications - at some level, everyone just isn’t working together smoothly.
Question:
There is no clearly defined process at LSS to deal with changes to the project baselines, and Amina is determined to prevent scope creep. When someone approaches her about an idea for a change, Amina listens carefully to the person. Then, Amina tells the person that, although it sounds like a great idea, it is not consistent with the project plan. Recently, Jenna, one of the functional leads, told Amina she wanted to purchase a new graphics software package. Amina told Jenna that she agreed that a new graphics software would be beneficial to the "Campamento de Noé" project; but, unfortunately, it was not in the project plan. Jenna purchased the graphics software and had it charged to the project. Jenna says this is an approved change because she talked to Amina about it but Amina says it is a variance. Who is correct? What caused this problem and how should Amina change the project management processes to prevent future problems?