Is scope drift always a bad thing in project management?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Drift Scope
AI Thread Summary
Scope drift can lead to unexpected successes in project management, as demonstrated by a project that evolved significantly from its original goals. Initially focused on a primary objective and low cost, the project shifted direction as new ideas emerged, ultimately overshadowing the initial aim. This change resulted in a substantial increase in costs, but the project ultimately succeeded for reasons that were not originally intended. The experience highlights that while scope drift can complicate project management, it can also yield beneficial outcomes. Embracing flexibility in project goals may lead to innovative solutions and success beyond initial expectations.
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,194
Reaction score
2,448
For the last two+ years I've been involved in a project for a large company, that began as a back-of-a-napkin idea. I can't describe the project as it is all proprietary [customer] information, but the issue of scope drift is still interesting to consider. I will do my best not to be too cryptic.

We began with two goals: The primary objective X [which can't be discussed directly], and low cost. Early on we were challenged to justify the logic of certain aspects of the project. We justified the work according to the net benefit Y, which basically came down to an operational cost reduction argument unique to our design concept. I wrote an argument for this that passed muster.

As the project progressed, we hit on a number of ideas that gained popularity in their own right. Eventually these ideas became more important than the primary objective X, which had been mofidied to such an extent that it no longer resembled the original goal. Also, as the scope of the project continued to change, the cost of the project increased dramatically. In the end, the project cost much more than originally intended, the original goal X no longer applied, my argument no long applied, and the project is a huge success for reasons never intended.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
If you want to hear God laugh, just tell her your plans for the future.
 
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...

Similar threads

Back
Top