|
Often, a proposal or situation is not so simple and cannot be addressed with one or two questions. Examining the priority of what is currently in scope, or is being addressed in an organization’s project portfolio can be an effective tool to inject some perspective into a proposal or situation. In the current business climate where skills are short and we can’t find the people or the capabilities we need, prioritization of work is paramount. Review the current priority of the work you are doing, or come up with a list that reflects your organization’s current activities. Ask where the new initiative (or work to support it) would fit in that priority. The premise here is to instigate a review of the work that is currently in process, and see what would need to change to facilitate this new initiative or idea. If we are to add 12 hours of work a day to the plate of our project team, 12 hours a day of what is going on now will have to be put on hold (assuming we don’t impose overtime or add staff). Given that fact, what change would the proposer support?
An alternative to this occurs when priorities for the organization are well known and followed consistently. In that case, it is a matter of surfacing that list and asking who will propose changes to that priority, and at what cost to the organization will those changes take place.
Often changes to the triple constraints of a project aren’t significant; however a proposed change will alter the risk profile of the project. Therefore an effective way to ‘no” should be alerting the customer that a new risk profile would result from acceptance of the change. If that statement alone does not deter the inappropriate change, then producing the new risk profile with appropriate response strategies and other implications documented will often lead to a more rational thought process over the change, maintaining the integrity of the project.
continue>>
<<back
|
