CHANGE CONTROL 1

CHANGE CONTROL 1

Change Control

Change control is a term that describes the necessary procedure for submitting requests to change the scope of operation of a project and how the change applications are assessed before being approved, deferred or rejected (Larson & Gray, 2015).

Process Involved in Submitting Project Changes

The project change process is a mechanism utilized to analyze, record, formulate, initiate and complete changes in a project (Bonner, Ruekert & Walker, 2002). Changes in a plan are required when it is appropriate to change the cost, time and scope of previous projects deliverables. According to Heldman (2013), the necessary steps that can be followed to ensure proper change management include evaluating the change request, submitting and reviewing the demand for change, analyzing the different available options and creating a response document and making a final verdict and approval.

The request for change submitted includes requirements, corrections, new features and improvements to enhance the project (Wysocki, 2014). The change request form is duly filled and provided by the concerned staff. When the change request enters the management’s configuration system, it is placed in the baseline of the change request management procedure.

Project change is necessary because of every project despite being highly detailed and accurate changes. Project change control is very vital because the costs of conducting the changes have to be considered as well, hence; when changes are required it is important to implement them promptly (Atkinson, Crawford & Ward, 2006). Any stakeholder in the company may request for project changes. In the case study involving Corwin Corporation, Pat Ray advocated for project changes. He commented that Corwin’s staff was unprofessional and their approach was wrong when carrying out lab tests. However, rather than striving to change the project forcefully, Ray would have submitted a project change request to Corwin’s management. There was great strife and misunderstanding between Corwin Corporation and the Peters Company for instance, Dan West the project manager of Corwin Corporation stated that the project was moving towards the right direction and that the recommended path indicated more potential than Ray’s test matrix. Ray of The Peters Company however, reported to his manager that previous tests did not yield positive results and hence they needed to change the direction of the project. The two companies experienced budget conflicts among other issues which derailed the plan. Instead of making reports indicating failure of a specific strategy, Ray would have drafted a formal change request that clearly stated the techniques that needed to be reviewed.

After a change request is submitted, an impact evaluation is carried out which evaluates the direct and indirect effects of changing the project on other procedures and outcomes of not implementing the changes (Pollack, 2007). Snyder (2013) indicates that the impact analysis is usually conducted by the project manager or the Change Control Board (CCB). If Ray had submitted a change request, upon its approval by the CCB or Dan West, old factors would have been revised and new ones formulated indicating the required resources, the sequence of activities, risk analysis of alternative responses, cost estimates and dates for schedule (Cookie-Davies, 2002).

Changes required and their Impacts of Scope, Time, Cost and Quality of the Project and the Techniques to manage them

The need for project changes arises from both internal and external factors which include organizational, technical, and environmental and end-user influences.

Environmental factors result from changes in institution policies, business strategies or legislation changes (Wang, Ju, Jiang & Klein, 2008). Corwin Corporation and Peters Company were unable to agree on common change strategies because of their different approaches and business strategies. Their institution policies also seemed to differ for example Dan West commented that Corwin had allocated $ 30,000 for the purchase of raw materials that did not incorporate the additional expenses of $ 12,000 which was necessary according to Peters Company’s matrix. Additionally, from West’s perspective, the project was going in the right direction however Ray contradicted by stating the direction of the project needed to be changed.

Organizational factors require an organization to restructure its overall project scope (Kerzner & Kerzner, 2017). In the case study, Ray wanted to restructure the scope of the project which was of great concern to West because it would have led to extremely high-cost expenditures. Ray began to alter lab operations because he wanted to change the test conditions to fit into the updated test matrix. He also forced for the elimination of incompetent employees from the project and the removal of Dan West from his position as project manager. Eventually West sought help from Reddy to design new policies and procedures for a new test matrix for the project to get back on track.

Client demand prompt end-user factors; however, in this case, study the end-user influence is hardly felt. Finally, technical factors lead to the development of new technology which can assist in the formulation of quick, efficient solutions as opposed to those projected initially (Project Management Institute, 2013). During project change, it is essential for a company to exercise collective decision-making whereby the project manager meets with his team and other stakeholders to derive conclusions on estimated costs and definitions of activities and roles (Harrison & Lock, 2017). If such meetings are properly conducted, it will lead to smooth running of the project. During the meeting involving West, Reddy and some R&D individuals on the implementation of an updated test matrix, Ray was excluded on the basis that he had become a nuisance to the project and was harassing Corwin’s staff members. As a result, Peters Company canceled their contract with Corwin Corporation. Alternatively, Ray excluded Dan West from major decision-making aspects because West was an incompetent project manager. Ray would have filed his project change request to West instead of implementing his change strategies. He openly told West that the latter was not well equipped to efficiently handle the project. He also added that he would be making close supervisions on the lab personnel.

In accordance with Turner (2014), the role of the project manager in impact analysis is to evaluate the aspects of project change and their influence on personnel, cost, timescales, risk and benefit and make a decision on whether to proceed with the change. According to Dan West, the project was going well and did not need replacement. His main concern regarding project change was dealing with a cost overrun. He told Ray that 20 tests had already been conducted and the project budget incorporated only 30 tests. Ray wanted to schedule for 15 more tests which would have been too costly from West’s perspective.

Options to Satisfy Each Change Request and Risks Associated with Them

Upon receiving the change request, it is the responsibility of the project manager to assess the risks associated with the different options available and implement a risk mitigation strategy (Wysocki, 2014). The risks are classified into several categories depending on their nature for instance flexibility risk is whereby the project is unable to adapt to different circumstances, funding risk is whereby the project’s capital is not properly allocated and objectives risks come about as a result of unclear, immeasurable and unreasonable goals (Cookie-Davies, 2002). In the case study, the main risks were flexibility, funding, objectives, supportability and organizational culture. The project became too difficult to support and required major updating, which forced West to seek help from Reddy, his manager. West also identified the funding risks of the project, which would have led to cost overruns. Due to funding risks, the project faced the risk of flexibility because it was hard for it to adapt to changing circumstances. The scope of the project’s objectives as well as the organizational culture was perceived differently by West and Ray that led to great conflicts of operation.

References

Atkinson, R., Crawford, L., & Ward, S. (2006). Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the

scope of project management. International journal of project management, 24(8), 687-698.

Bonner, J. M., Ruekert, R. W., & Walker Jr, O. C. (2002). Upper management control of new

product development projects and project performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management: AN INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATION OF THE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT & MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, 19(3), 233-245.

Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The “real” success factors on projects. International journal of project

management, 20(3), 185-190.

Harrison, F., & Lock, D. (2017). Advanced project management: a structured approach.

Routledge.

Heldman, K. (2013). PMP Project Management Professional Exam Study Guide (7th ed.).

Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.

Kerzner, H., & Kerzner, H. R. (2017). Project management: a systems approach to planning,

scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons.

Larson, E. W., & Gray, C. F. (2015). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge:

PMBOK (®) Guide. Project Management Institute.

Pollack, J. (2007). The changing paradigms of project management. International journal of

project management, 25(3), 266-274.

Project Management Institute. (2013). A guide to the project management body of knowledge

(PMBOK Guide®) (5th ed.). Newtown Square, Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute.

Snyder, C. S. (2013). A project manager’s book of forms: A companion to the PMBOK guide

(2nd ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.

Turner, J. R. (2014). Handbook of project-based management(Vol. 92). New York, NY:

McGraw-hill.

Wang, E. T., Ju, P. H., Jiang, J. J., & Klein, G. (2008). The effects of change control and

management review on software flexibility and project performance. Information & Management, 45(7), 438-443.

Wysocki, R. K. (2014). Effective Project Management: Traditional, Agile, Extreme (7th ed.).

Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.