Of the three components of a project's baseline, scope has to be the weakest. Why? Cost baselines are captured in amounts of currency or resources that can be quantified with a high level of exactitude. Ditto with the schedule baseline, since the units we use to measure time haven't changed for centuries--the sole exception being the French Revolution, a period of time not exactly known for the advancement of managerial concepts.
But scope is different: it is captured using words, and words are difficult, magical things. Yes, they have their precise side, their denotations, but they also have their uncontrollable side, their connotations.
For example, "pathetic," denotatively, simply refers to an emotionally based argument. But its connotation has become so powerfully associated with "pitiful" that it's impossible to use the word and assume your listeners will only take in its denotative meaning. If you also note that the words "pompous" and "awful" were considered high praise just one century ago, it becomes easy to see why any inclusion of "quality," "seamless," "integrated," or "effective" can quickly lead any declaration of scope into the hinterland of near meaninglessness.
If your organization has a mission statement, take it off your bookshelf, blow the dust off and read it with this question in mind: How many ways could those words be interpreted to a successful end? I'd bet, with the mushiness intrinsic to so many such statements, the number would be near infinite. Small wonder why so many projects are utterly undone by scope creep. If you don't know precisely where you're going, they it's easy to take a slightly more difficult path, a little more difficult, a little more ... and then you find yourself in the land of impossibility.
What's the solution? Hire more English majors in your project office. Not the wimpy, overly opinionated snobs from obscure private colleges. No, I'm talking about state university-graduated, massive American-car driving, engineering-as-a-dual-major writers. Now, that's the type of person who can nail down a scope statement, with only the willfully opaque being unable to clearly understand it.
But scope is different: it is captured using words, and words are difficult, magical things. Yes, they have their precise side, their denotations, but they also have their uncontrollable side, their connotations.
For example, "pathetic," denotatively, simply refers to an emotionally based argument. But its connotation has become so powerfully associated with "pitiful" that it's impossible to use the word and assume your listeners will only take in its denotative meaning. If you also note that the words "pompous" and "awful" were considered high praise just one century ago, it becomes easy to see why any inclusion of "quality," "seamless," "integrated," or "effective" can quickly lead any declaration of scope into the hinterland of near meaninglessness.
If your organization has a mission statement, take it off your bookshelf, blow the dust off and read it with this question in mind: How many ways could those words be interpreted to a successful end? I'd bet, with the mushiness intrinsic to so many such statements, the number would be near infinite. Small wonder why so many projects are utterly undone by scope creep. If you don't know precisely where you're going, they it's easy to take a slightly more difficult path, a little more difficult, a little more ... and then you find yourself in the land of impossibility.
What's the solution? Hire more English majors in your project office. Not the wimpy, overly opinionated snobs from obscure private colleges. No, I'm talking about state university-graduated, massive American-car driving, engineering-as-a-dual-major writers. Now, that's the type of person who can nail down a scope statement, with only the willfully opaque being unable to clearly understand it.
Like the outlook on scope. I never thought of it that way, but that is 100% true.
Michael... well said. Your article pre-supposes that your organization has a requirements process from the beginning. Ahahahaha. Clearly this is a complex issue!!!
A questions... Have you seen or do you feel there would be improvements with scope definition if each scope element was required to be accompanied by a stated benefit (or value), traceability number, and metrics. Would this help mitigate some of well stated short comings identified in your post?
For example.
#1.1.1.1.
Scope = Weekly customer satisfaction poll on home page configurable in the following.....
Benefit = Capture voice of the customer and respond to feedback to continually improve our ability to meet customer's needs.
Metrics = #polls, #response/poll, #X, Y and Z.