Chapter 5
Project Scope
Management
Project
Scope Management includes the processes required to ensure that the
|
project includes all
the work required, and only the work required, to complete
|
the project
successfully (1). It is primarily concerned with defining and control-
|
ling
what is or is not included in the project.
Figure 5-1 provides an overview
|
of the major project
scope management processes:
|
5.1
|
Initiation
|
—authorizing the project or phase.
|
5.2
|
Scope Planning
|
—developing a written scope statement as
the basis for future
|
project decisions.
|
5.3
|
Scope Definition
|
—subdividing the major project deliverables
into smaller, more
|
manageable components.
|
5.4
|
Scope Verification
|
—formalizing acceptance of the project
scope.
|
5.5
|
Scope Change Control
|
—controlling changes to project scope.
|
These processes
interact with each other and with the processes in the other
|
knowledge
areas as well. Each process may involve effort from one or more indi-
|
viduals or groups of
individuals, based on the needs of the project. Each process
|
generally occurs at
least once in every project phase.
|
Although the processes
are presented here as discrete components with well-
|
defined
interfaces, in practice they may overlap and interact in ways not detailed
|
here. Process
interactions are discussed in detail in Chapter 3.
|
In the project context,
the term scope may refer to:
|
Product
scope—the features and functions that characterize a product or service.
|
Project
scope—the work that must be done to deliver a product with the spec-
|
ified features and
functions.
|
The
processes, tools, and techniques used to manage project
scope are the
|
focus
of this chapter. The processes, tools, and techniques used to manage
|
product scope vary by application area and are
usually defined as part of the
|
project life cycle (the
project life cycle is discussed in Section 2.1).
|
A
project generally results in a single product, but that product may include
|
subsidiary components,
each with its own separate but interdependent product
|
scopes. For example, a
new telephone system would generally include four sub-
|
sidiary
components—hardware, software, training, and implementation.
|
Completion
of the project scope is measured against the project plan, but com-
|
pletion
of the product scope is measured against the product requirements. Both
|
types of scope
management must be well integrated to ensure that the work of
|
the project will result
in delivery of the specified product.
|
5.1 INITIATION
Initiation is the process of formally
authorizing a new project or that an existing
project should continue into its next phase (see Section 2.1 for a
more detailed
discussion of project phases). This formal initiation links the
project to the
ongoing work of the performing organization.
In some organizations, a project is
not formally initiated until after completion of a needs
assessment, a feasibility
study, a preliminary plan, or some other
equivalent form of analysis that was itself
separately initiated. Some types of
projects, especially internal service projects and
new product development projects, are initiated informally, and
some limited
amount of work is done to secure the
approvals needed for formal initiation. Proj-
ects are typically authorized as a result of
one or more of the following:
A market demand (e.g., a car company
authorizes a project to build more fuel-
efficient cars in response to gasoline shortages).
A business need (e.g., a training company
authorizes a project to create a new
course to increase its revenues).
A customer request (e.g., an electric
utility authorizes a project to build a new
substation to serve a new industrial park).
A technological advance (e.g., an electronics firm authorizes a new
project to
develop a video game player after advances in computer memory).
A legal requirement (e.g., a paint manufacturer authorizes a
project to estab-
lish guidelines for the handling of toxic materials).
A social need (e.g., a nongovernmental organization in a
developing country
authorizes a project to provide potable
water systems, latrines, and sanitation
education to low-income communities suffering from high rates of
cholera).
These stimuli may also be called problems,
opportunities, or business require-
ments. The central theme of all these terms is that management
generally must
make a decision about how to respond.
5.1.1 Inputs to Initiation
1. Product
description
The product description documents the
characteristics of the
product or service that the project was
undertaken to create. The product
description will generally have less detail
in early phases and more detail in later
ones as the product characteristics are progressively elaborated.
The product description should also document
the relationship between the
product or service being created and the
business need or other stimulus that
gave rise to the project (see the list in
Section 5.1). While the form and substance
of the product description will vary, it should always be detailed
enough to sup-
port later project
planning.
|
Many
projects involve one organization (the seller) doing work under contract
|
to another (the buyer).
In such circumstances, the initial product description is
|
usually provided by the
buyer.
|
2. Strategic plan
|
All
projects should be supportive of the performing organization’s
|
strategic
goals—the strategic plan of the performing organization should be con-
|
sidered as a factor in
project selection decisions.
|
3. Project selection criteria
|
Project selection
criteria are typically defined in terms
|
of
the merits of the product of the project and can cover the full range of
possible
|
management concerns
(financial return, market share, public perceptions, etc.).
|
4. Historical information
|
Historical information
about both the results of previous
|
project
selection decisions and previous project performance should be considered
|
to the extent that it
is available. When initiation involves approval for the next
|
phase
of a project, information about the results of previous phases is often
critical.
|
5.1.2 Tools and Techniques for
Initiation
|
1. Project selection methods
|
Project
selection methods involve measuring value or
|
attractiveness
to the project owner. Project selection methods include considering
|
the
decision criterion (multiple criteria, if used, should be combined into a
single
|
value
function) and a means to calculate value under uncertainty. These are
|
known
as the decision model and
calculation method . Project selection also applies
|
to choosing the
alternative ways of doing the project. Optimization tools can be
|
used
to search for the optimal combination of decision variables. Project selec-
|
tion methods generally
fall into one of two broad categories (2):
|
Benefit
measurement methods—comparative approaches, scoring models,
|
benefit contribution,
or economic models.
|
Constrained optimization
methods—mathematical models using linear, non-
|
linear, dynamic,
integer, and multi-objective programming algorithms.
|
These
methods are often referred to as
decision models . Decision models
|
include
generalized techniques (Decision Trees, Forced Choice, and others), as
|
well
as specialized ones (Analytic Hierarchy Process, Logical Framework
|
Analysis,
and others). Applying complex project selection criteria in a sophisti-
|
cated model is often
treated as a separate project phase.
|
2. Expert judgment
|
Expert judgment will
often be required to assess the inputs to
|
this
process. Such expertise may be provided by any group or individual with spe-
|
cialized knowledge or
training, and is available from many sources, including:
|
Other units within the
performing organization.
|
Consultants.
|
Stakeholders, including
customers.
|
Professional and
technical associations.
|
Industry groups.
|
5.1.3 Outputs from Initiation
|
1. Project charter
|
A
project charter is a document that formally authorizes a
|
project. It should
include, either directly or by reference to other documents:
|
The business need that
the project was undertaken to address.
|
The product description
(described in Section 5.1.1.1).
|
The
project charter should be issued by a manager external to the project, and
|
at
a level appropriate to the needs of the project. It provides the project
manager
|
When a project is performed under contract,
the signed contract will generally
serve as the project charter for the seller.
2. Project
manager identified/assigned
In general, the project manager should be
identified and assigned as early in the
project as is feasible. The project manager
should always be assigned prior to the start of project plan
execution (described
in Section 4.2) and preferably before much project planning has
been done (the
project planning processes are described in Section 3.3.2).
3. Constraints
Constraints are factors that will limit the
project management team’s
options. For example, a predefined budget is a constraint that is
highly likely to
limit the team’s options regarding scope, staffing, and schedule.
When a project is performed under contract, contractual provisions
will gen-
erally be constraints. Another example is a
requirement that the product of the
project be socially, economically, and
environmentally sustainable, which will also
have an effect on the project’s scope, staffing, and schedule.
4. Assumptions
5.2 SCOPE PLANNING
Scope planning is the process of progressively elaborating and
documenting the
project work (project scope) that produces the
product of the project. Project
scope planning starts with the initial inputs of product
description, the project
charter, and the initial definition of constraints and
assumptions. Note that the
product description incorporates product requirements that reflect
agreed-upon
customer needs and the product design that
meets the product requirements. The
outputs of scope planning are the scope statement and scope
management plan,
with the supporting detail. The scope
statement forms the basis for an agreement
between the project and the project customer
by identifying both the project
objectives and the project deliverables.
Project teams develop multiple scope
statements that are appropriate for the level of project work
decomposition.
5.2.1
Inputs to Scope Planning
1. Product
description
The product description is discussed in Section 5.1.1.1.
2. Project charter
The project charter is described in Section 5.1.3.1.
3. Constraints
Constraints are described in Section 5.1.3.3.
4. Assumptions
Assumptions are
described in Section 4.1.1.5.
|
5.2.2 Tools and Techniques for
Scope Planning
|
1. Product analysis
|
Product
analysis involves developing a better understanding of
|
the
product of the project. It includes techniques such as product breakdown
|
analysis
systems engineering, value engineering, value analysis, function analysis,
|
and quality function
deployment.
|
2. Benefit/cost analysis
|
Benefit/cost
analysis involves estimating tangible and
|
intangible
costs (outlays) and benefits (returns) of various project and product
|
alternatives, and then
using financial measures, such as return on investment or
|
payback period, to
assess the relative desirability of the identified alternatives.
|
3. Alternatives identification
|
This is a general term
for any technique used to gen-
|
erate
different approaches to the project. There is a variety of general manage-
|
ment techniques often
used here, the most common of which are brainstorming
|
and lateral thinking.
|
4. Expert judgment
|
Expert judgment is
described in Section 5.1.2.2.
|
5.2.3 Outputs from Scope
Planning
|
1. Scope statement
|
The scope statement
provides a documented basis for making
|
future
project decisions and for confirming or developing common understanding
|
of
project scope among the stakeholders. As the project progresses, the scope
|
statement may need to
be revised or refined to reflect approved changes to the
|
scope
of the project. The scope statement should include, either directly or by
ref-
|
erence to other
documents:
|
Project
justification—the business need that the project was undertaken to
|
address.
The project justification provides the basis for evaluating future
|
tradeoffs.
|
Project’s
product—a brief summary of the product description (the product
|
description is
discussed in Section 5.1.1.1).
|
Project
deliverables—a list of the summary-level subproducts whose full and sat-
|
isfactory
delivery marks completion of the project. For example, the major deliv-
|
erables
for a software development project might include the working computer
|
code, a user manual,
and an interactive tutorial. When known, exclusions
|
should
be identified, but anything not explicitly included is implicitly excluded.
|
Project
objectives—the quantifiable criteria that must be met for the project
|
to
be considered successful. Project objectives must include at least cost,
|
schedule,
and quality measures. Project objectives should have an attribute
|
(e.g.,
cost), a metric (e.g., United States [U.S.] dollars), and an absolute or
|
relative
value (e.g., less than 1.5 million). Unquantified objectives (e.g., “cus-
|
tomer satisfaction”)
entail high risk to successful accomplishment.
|
2. Supporting detail
|
Supporting detail for
the scope statement should be docu-
|
mented
and organized as needed to facilitate its use by other project management
|
processes. Supporting
detail should always include documentation of all identi-
|
fied
assumptions and constraints. The amount of additional detail may vary by
|
application
area.
|
3. Scope management plan
|
This
document describes how project scope will be
|
managed
and how scope changes will be integrated into the project. It should
|
also
include an assessment of the expected stability of the project scope (i.e.,
how
|
likely
is it to change, how frequently, and by how much). The scope management
|
plan should also
include a clear description of how scope changes will be iden-
|
tified
and classified. (This is particularly difficult—and therefore absolutely
|
A scope management plan may be formal or
informal, highly detailed or
broadly framed, based on the needs of the project. It is a
subsidiary component
of the project plan (described in Section 4.1.3.1).
5.3 SCOPE
DEFINITION
Scope definition involves subdividing the major project
deliverables (as identi-
fied in the scope statement as defined in
Section 5.2.3.1) into smaller, more man-
ageable components to:
Improve the accuracy of cost, duration, and resource estimates.
Define a baseline for performance measurement and control.
Facilitate clear responsibility assignments.
Proper scope definition is critical to
project success. “When there is poor scope
definition, final project costs can be
expected to be higher because of the
inevitable changes which disrupt project rhythm, cause rework,
increase project
time, and lower the productivity and morale of the workforce” (3).
5.3.1
Inputs to Scope Definition
1. Scope statement
The scope statement is described in Section 5.2.3.1.
2. Constraints
Constraints are described in Section
5.1.3.3. When a project is done
under contract, the constraints defined by
contractual provisions are often impor-
tant considerations during scope definition.
3. Assumptions
Assumptions are described in Section 4.1.1.5.
4. Other planning
outputs
The outputs of the processes in other knowledge
areas
should be reviewed for possible impact on project scope
definition.
5. Historical
information
Historical information about previous projects should be
considered during scope definition.
Information about errors and omissions on
previous projects should be especially useful.
5.3.2
Tools and Techniques for Scope Definition
1. Work breakdown
structure templates
A WBS (described in Section 5.3.3.1) from a previous project can often be used as a
template for a new project. Although each project is unique, WBSs can often be
“reused” since most projects will
resemble another project to some extent. For
example, most projects within a
given organization will have the same or similar project life
cycles, and will thus
have the same or
similar deliverables required from each phase.
|
Many
application areas or performing organizations have standard or semi-
|
standard
WBSs that can be used as templates. For example, the U.S. Department
|
of Defense has
recommended standards WBSs for Defense Material Items (MIL-
|
HDBK-881).
|
2. Decomposition
|
Decomposition
involves subdividing the major project deliver-
|
ables
or subdeliverables into smaller, more manageable components until the
|
deliverables
are defined in sufficient detail to support development of project
|
activities
(planning, executing, controlling, and closing). Decomposition involves
|
the following major
steps:
|
(1) Identify the major
deliverables of the project, including project manage-
|
ment.
The major deliverables should always be defined in terms of how the
|
project will actually
be organized. For example:
|
The phases of the
project life cycle may be used as the first level of decompo-
|
sition with the project
deliverables repeated at the second level, as illustrated
|
in Figure 5-3.
|
The
organizing principle within each branch of the WBS may vary, as illus-
|
trated in Figure 5-4.
|
(2) Decide if adequate
cost and duration estimates can be developed at this
|
level
of detail for each deliverable. The meaning of adequate
may change over the
|
course of the
project—decomposition of a deliverable that will be produced far
|
in
the future may not be possible. For each deliverable, proceed to Step 4 if
there
|
is
adequate detail, to Step 3 if there is not—this means that different
deliverables
|
(3)
Identify constituent components of the deliverable. Constituent components
|
should
be described in terms of tangible, verifiable results to facilitate
performance
|
measurement.
As with the major components, the constituent components should
|
be
defined in terms of how the work of the project will actually be organized
and
|
the
work of the project accomplished. Tangible, verifiable results can include
ser-
|
vices
as well as products (e.g., status
reporting could be described as weekly status
|
reports ; for a
manufactured item, constituent components might include several
|
individual components
plus final assembly ). Repeat Step 2
on each constituent
|
component.
|
(4) Verify the
correctness of the decomposition:
|
Are the lower-level
items both necessary and sufficient for completion of the
|
decomposed
item? If not, the constituent components must be modified
|
(added to, deleted
from, or redefined).
|
Is each item clearly
and completely defined? If not, the descriptions must be
|
revised or expanded.
|
Can each item be
appropriately scheduled? Budgeted? Assigned to a specific
|
organizational
unit (e.g., department, team, or person) who will accept
|
responsibility
for satisfactory completion of the item? If not, revisions are
|
needed to provide
adequate management control.
|
5.3.3 Outputs from Scope
Definition
|
1. Work breakdown structure
|
A WBS is a
deliverable-oriented grouping of project
|
in the WBS is outside
the scope of the project. As with the scope statement, the
|
WBS is often used to
develop or confirm a common understanding of project
|
scope.
Each descending level represents an increasingly detailed description of
|
the
project deliverables. Section 5.3.2.2 describes the most common approach for
|
developing a WBS. A WBS
is normally presented in chart form, as illustrated in
|
Figures
5-2 , 5-3 , and 5-4 ; however, the WBS should not be
confused with the
|
method
of presentation—drawing an unstructured activity list in chart form does
|
not make it a WBS.
|
Each
item in the WBS is generally assigned a unique identifier; these identifiers
|
can
provide a structure for a hierarchical summation of costs and resources. The
|
items at the lowest
level of the WBS may be referred to as
work packages , espe-
|
cially in organizations
that follow earned value management practices. These
|
work
packages may in turn be further decomposed in a subproject work break-
|
down
structure. Generally, this type of approach is used when the project manager
|
must
plan and manage the scope of work at a more detailed level than the project
|
manager
in the main project. These work packages may be further decomposed in
|
the
project plan and schedule, as described in Sections 5.3.2.2 and 6.1.2.1.
|
Work component
descriptions are often collected in a
WBS dictionary . A WBS
|
dictionary
will typically include work package descriptions, as well as other plan-
|
ning information such
as schedule dates, cost budgets, and staff assignments.
|
The WBS should not be
confused with other kinds of “breakdown” structures
|
used
to present project information. Other structures commonly used in some
|
application areas
include:
|
Contractual WBS (CWBS),
which is used to define the level of reporting that
|
the
seller will provide the buyer. The CWBS generally includes less detail than
|
the WBS used by the
seller to manage the seller’s work.
|
Organizational
breakdown structure (OBS), which is used to show which
|
work components have
been assigned to which organizational units.
|
Resource breakdown
structure (RBS), which is a variation of the OBS and is
|
typically used when
work components are assigned to individuals.
|
Bill
of materials (BOM), which presents a hierarchical view of the physical
|
assemblies,
subassemblies, and components needed to fabricate a manufac-
|
tured product.
|
Project
breakdown structure (PBS), which is fundamentally the same as a
|
properly done WBS. The
term PBS is widely used in application areas where
|
the term WBS
is incorrectly used to refer to a BOM.
|
2. Scope statement updates
|
Include any
modification of the contents of the scope
|
statement
(described in Section 5.2.3.1). Appropriate stakeholders must be noti-
|
fied as needed.
|
5.4 SCOPE VERIFICATION
|
Scope
verification is the process of obtaining formal acceptance of the project
|
scope by the
stakeholders (sponsor, client, customer, etc.). It requires reviewing
|
deliverables
and work results to ensure that all were completed correctly and sat-
|
isfactorily.
If the project is terminated early, the scope verification process should
|
establish
and document the level and extent of completion. Scope verification dif-
|
fers
from quality control (described in Section 8.3) in that it is primarily con-
|
cerned
with acceptance of the work results while quality control
is primarily
|
concerned
with the correctness of the work results. These processes are
generally
|
5.4.1 Inputs to Scope
Verification
|
1. Work results
|
Work
results—which deliverables have been fully or partially com-
|
pleted—are an output of
project plan execution (discussed in Section 4.2).
|
2. Product documentation
|
Documents produced to
describe the project’s products
|
must
be available for review. The terms used to describe this documentation
|
(plans, specifications,
technical documentation, drawings, etc.) vary by applica-
|
tion area.
|
3. Work breakdown structure
|
The WBS aids in
definition of the scope, and should
|
be used to verify the
work of the project (see Section 5.3.3.1).
|
4. Scope statement
|
The
scope statement defines the scope in some detail and
|
should be verified (see
Section 5.2.3.1).
|
5. Project plan
|
The project plan is
described in Section 4.1.3.1.
|
5.4.2 Tools and Techniques for
Scope Verification
|
1. Inspection
|
Inspection
includes activities such as measuring, examining, and
|
testing
undertaken to determine whether results conform to requirements.
|
Inspections
are variously called reviews, product reviews, audits, and walk-
|
throughs; in some
application areas, these different terms have narrow and spe-
|
cific meanings.
|
5.4.3 Outputs from Scope
Verification
|
1. Formal acceptance
|
Documentation
that the client or sponsor has accepted the
|
product of the project
phase or major deliverable(s) must be prepared and dis-
|
tributed. Such acceptance
may be conditional, especially at the end of a phase.
|
5.5
SCOPE CHANGE CONTROL
|
Scope
change control is concerned with a) influencing the factors that create
|
scope
changes to ensure that changes are agreed upon, b) determining that a
|
scope
change has occurred, and c) managing the actual changes when and if they
|
occur. Scope change
control must be thoroughly integrated with the other control processes.
appropriate.
|
2. Corrective action
|
Corrective
action is anything done to bring expected future
|
project performance in
line with the project plan.
|
3. Lessons learned
|
The
causes of variances, the reasoning behind the corrective
|
action
chosen, and other types of lessons learned from scope change control
|
should
be documented, so that this information becomes part of the historical
|
database for both this
project and other projects of the performing organization.
|
4. Adjusted baseline
|
Depending
upon the nature of the change, the corresponding
|
baseline document may
be revised and reissued to reflect the approved change
and
form the new baseline for future changes.
Amelia Maryam N S - 20112703
Novita Ristyana - 22112423
2KB05 - Sistem Komputer
Universitas Gunadarma
2013-2014
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar