Currently, our school is a selected school for the Race to the Top initiative set up by the Obama administration. Through this funding there are many requirements, many meetings, and much paperwork to complete. The scope of this project is quite large. During this process, our state is changing to the national common core standards. This process started last year with a Race to the Top team at our school. Then, I was brought on board as part of the sub-team this year. My role in the process is to evaluate the English standards throughout the district. Then, we just brought all teachers on board for curriculum alignment to the old and new standards. After the curriculum alignment is complete, we will begin to implement the new standards. The state initially set the scope and timeline for this project. However, the state did not have all of the information for the project when the timeline and scope was set. Therefore, all of the deadlines throughout the project have been subject to change. In fact, the original completion time for the project was 2014. Now, the state is saying that we should start implementing the new standards K-8 right now. This case is a perfect example of scope creep.
Scope creep is the uncontrolled changes to a project (Lynch, & Roecker, 2007). These changes come in various forms. For instance, the project may receive extra funding and, therefore, may need more attention given to it. On the other hand, the project may change because the stakeholders change their minds about what they desire (Lynch, & Roecker, 2007). In the case of our Race to the Top Initiative, there are several factors affecting the success of this project. The scope creep here is that the stakeholders (the state) didn’t realize the complete process of the project and had their timeline off. Since the original timeline is off, the teams can’t get to project completion successfully and with quality work. Since the state at first said there was plenty of time, our school district planned our work accordingly. Now, the state is saying implement now. Therefore, the team members here have to rush through the process. Rushing in this manner can cause mistakes and inconsistencies that will can cause problems in the end.
Since I am not in the managing role in this case, I can see what the poor planning has done. Now, I am not trying to accuse the state. They may be dealing with a faulty timeline from the federal government. I also want to try to stay away from any political talk here. However, I do believe that this is the problem in many grant funded school initiatives. As soon as it sounds like a good idea, someone jumps on it to get the project moving. Then, it starts to become a “we’ll figure it out as we go” project. As we know from our project management class, any good project cannot be managed in this manner. The project managers need to take plenty of time to analyze the situation, address all concerns, prepare a feasible timeline, and then prepare to design, implement and assess (Portny, et. al, 2008). Therefore, if I was project manager, I would wait until I knew exactly with what we were dealing. Then, I would start to plan for implementation.
Lynch, M. M., & Roecker, J. (2007). Project managing e-learning: A handbook for successful design, delivery, and management. London: Routledge. Copyright by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. Reprinted by permission of Taylor & Francis Group, LLC via the Copyright Clearance Center.
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.
