Anyway, the project finally got underway in 2004 and had a
two year timeframe for all necessary repairs to be completed. The
plan was to start with the worst units first, and a map and schedule were
provided to all owners so we would know when their unit was slated and when our
neighbors units would be repaired. The
first couple units had basements dug out and lines redone and we all started
feeling a little better about the whole situation as we started to see
progress. And then the third unit was getting repaired
and it was identified during those repairs that the problem was much deeper
than anyone expected. Several basements
(including mine) had to be completely removed one brick at a time and rebuilt
while supporting frame beams were installed under the condominium. “New requirements and needs become apparent
during a project.” (Portney et al 2008) however scope creep also set in a bit,
because basements that were completely rebuilt also had to have new drywall,
new ceilings and new electrical fixtures etc.
Things got a little tricky
because typically unit owners have responsibility for repairs and maintenance
of the inside of their units, however, since those repairs were necessary and
caused by the external repairs, they were in fact covered by the project. So,
homeowners whose basements needed minimal repairs wanted to feel like they were
getting their monies worth and pressured the association to have a second set
of engineers review the properties. They
also felt entitled to get new drywall and new ceilings even though they may
have just had one small section of a wall repaired. The toughest part of all of this was the lack
of communication about the changes and new schedules and new game plans. As homeowners, we would get some information
at the monthly meetings and via a monthly newsletter, but given the amount of
information, more frequent updates would have been appreciated. Most information came very informally as
homeowners walked their pets and talked to neighbors. We even would get information from the
construction crew at times. The
association had advised us at a meeting that the crew was going to work
Saturday and Sundays, however that did not happen. In
talking with the construction crew, they indicated they had a contract which
prohibited them from working on Saturdays and Sundays.
In looking back, had I been managing the project, I would have
made the change control process very transparent to all of the homeowners and
communicated changes to all concerned parties.
I would have stepped up the number of communications “including reports
summarizing changes to date and their impacts.” (Portney et al 2008) The association had a good initial plan but
when the unforeseen changes started to occur they did a lot of reacting without
any input from the homeowners and very little communication. Because
their change control system was not transparent, I am not sure how much
analyzing occurred for requested changes or what requirements (if any) existed to
determine if they would make a change. I
think for this type of project, having a change control process that is very
transparent – perhaps posted to a website and updated every week would be an improvement. As change orders are approved, project plans
and schedules could be updated to reflect the impact of the change. That way, questions fielded at the monthly
meeting could be more productive. In
short, scope creep can and will happen.
It is information that needs to be communicated to stakeholders and how
it is being managed should be in the limelight, not hidden away in the
basement.
References
Portny, S. E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S.
M., Sutton, M. M., & Kramer, B. E. (2008). Project management: Planning,
scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Dear Karen,
ReplyDeleteYour have related a classic example of a scope creep related to the complexity of a project. The project you describe is not only complex in terms of the work to be done but also in terms of the audiences involved:
“Even small projects can be very complex. In some cases, a project may have multiple stakeholders, each with a differing view of the project result. Managing multiple stakeholders complicates a project” (John, 2006).
Thus, the project seems to have been double complex, with each kind of complexity being a potential risk factor.
I do not think that many unit owners realized that some scope creep was inevitable; it is highly likely that most expected the initial project figures to be intact throughout the project, any change to the initial plan was not acceptable to them, was viewed as a sign of incompetence, and bound to breed a lot of resistance. A lot more informative communication and a lot more persuasion were needed to win more support among the unit owners, to make them more cooperative,
The issue of insufficient communication brings me back to EDUC-6105-2 Organizations, Innovation and Change: “Management is naïve if it thinks anything can be kept a secret, because the organizational grapevine will provide people with speculation and answers. Sometimes they get it right; other times they make it up… . Informed is better than uninformed or misinformed” (McAllaster, 2004, p.322-323).
Thankn you, Karen, for sharing the experience,
Marina
References
John, C.L., Jr. (2006). Making sense of your project cost estimate. Chermical Engineering, 113(8), 54-58. Retrieved from the ProQuest Database.
McAllaster, C. M. (2004). The 5 P’s of change: Leading change by effectively utilizing leverage points within an organization. Organizational Dynamics. 33(3), 318-328.
Karen,
ReplyDeleteI am thinking about buying a Condo in the near future and your story is making me think twice – or that I should do my homework to find out all of the risks. I like how you wrapped up your post by saying that scope creep can and will happen. And that the information needs to be communicated to stakeholders. Portney et al, (2008) mentioned that “avoiding scope creep is not possible. However, monitoring it, controlling it and thereby reducing some of the pain is possible” (p. 347)
Reference:
Portny, S. E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., Sutton, M. M., & Kramer, B. E. (2008). Project management: Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hello Karen,
ReplyDeleteGood example of scope creep and I enjoyed your play on words with your title :-)
I cringed as I began reading paragraph one, knowing that things would get tricky with the project. I feel for you having to go through this situation. I am sure it wasn't easy. A good project manager would have certainly made sure all people were on the same page and things were going smoothly between each person getting their basements dug. It is important to communicate with all people involved, especially in a situation like yours, where all members are in close proximity. As a project manager would you have held a meeting with all those involved to assure everyone was on the same page?
Jenny
Karen,
ReplyDeleteI am seeing a theme in this weeks blogs. With construction or re-construction projects you never really know the scope of the project until you start pulling back the layers. I think that the lack of information provided by the association is unacceptable. For an investment such as property there should always have been full disclosure. Maybe a good solution would have been a micro-site like in Marks example. This way each condominium member could have been updated with full disclosure.