Keeping the project whole

As a consultant, whether you're acting as a PM or otherwise part of the project team, it's your job to assure scope and effort are monitored. It's not always the responsibility of the project lead, or PM, to assure that tasks' hours are kept in check. Everyone contributes, and must participate in the regular evaluation of the spent budget and work remaining. The PM is absolutely accountable for the spend, but the project team is responsible for the spend.

In a public sector, the PM has to use extra caution because typically these funds are closely monitored and controlled by governing bodies. It's not always easy to generate a change order and there must be thoughtful audit trails applied to assure that these forks in the road can be addressed. It's not the fault of the consultant that change occurs, nor is it the fault of the customer. These things happen, and must be jointly observed, evaluated, and defined before such a path is selected.

In my experiences, the safest and cleanest way to assure minimal ambiguity around such scope changes is by way of a very complete and well constructed statement of work (SOW). You cannot assume that scope will work itself out in the project charter or by way of evaluation of each and every change instance; there must be clear boundaries applied at the contractual level to assure you have the means to keep a project's spend minimal, or at best "whole".

As I've preached for years, a good PM is also a very good legal writer. Whether he/she writes the SOW or works with account management to write the SOW, the PM cannot be absent of involvement here. After all, who's going to use this document? You are, the PM!! If I am going to asked to manage a project, I sure better be working closely with Sales/Acct Mgt to assure that it gets crafted in such a manner that I can definitively work within it to manage the project...

For instance, if we say that there will be requirements gathered from the user population by visiting several sites and that these requirements will define the design, and thereby implementation of such a solution to support all of those requirements inside the body of one SOW and around one cost structure, we're opening ourselves up for unplanned work, and most likely effort that exceeds estimates when dealing with a fixed price gig.

Working the customer to help them understand the project's structure, selecting a path to enlightenment, and assuring that there is sound evidence of this path, expectations, and boundaries living within the SOW, sounds like extra work. But, it will only make both parties satisfied because it will be clear that there is a vast unknown of requirements to gather. Out of these requirements, the customer can prioritize and select those requirements to go after and produce a design to support them. With a solid design and architecture, then the team can go about building it and the project spend has a far better probability of staying whole.