Skip to main content
Workforce LibreTexts

4.5.23: Scenario 24 – Scope Reconciliation and Stakeholder Conflict

  1. Last updated
  2. Save as PDF
  • Page ID
    54830

    • \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\dsum}{\displaystyle\sum\limits} \)

    \( \newcommand{\dint}{\displaystyle\int\limits} \)

    \( \newcommand{\dlim}{\displaystyle\lim\limits} \)

    \( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    ( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

    \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

    \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \(\newcommand{\longvect}{\overrightarrow}\)

    \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

    \(\newcommand{\ket}[1]{\left| #1 \right>}\)
    \(\newcommand{\bra}[1]{\left< #1 \right|}\)
    \(\newcommand{\braket}[2]{\left< #1 \vphantom{#2} \right| \left. #2 \vphantom{#1} \right>}\)
    \(\newcommand{\braopket}[3]{\left< #1 \vphantom{#2}\vphantom{#3} \right| #2 \vphantom{#1}\vphantom{#3} \left| #3 \vphantom{#1}\vphantom{#2} \right>}\)
    \(\newcommand{\qmvec}[1]{\mathbf{\vec{#1}}}\)
    \(\newcommand{\op}[1]{\hat{\mathbf{#1}}}\)
    \(\newcommand{\expect}[1]{\langle #1 \rangle}\)
    \(\newcommand{\dfn}[1]{\emph{\textbf{#1}}}\)

    \(\newcommand{\avec}{\mathbf a}\) \(\newcommand{\bvec}{\mathbf b}\) \(\newcommand{\cvec}{\mathbf c}\) \(\newcommand{\dvec}{\mathbf d}\) \(\newcommand{\dtil}{\widetilde{\mathbf d}}\) \(\newcommand{\evec}{\mathbf e}\) \(\newcommand{\fvec}{\mathbf f}\) \(\newcommand{\nvec}{\mathbf n}\) \(\newcommand{\pvec}{\mathbf p}\) \(\newcommand{\qvec}{\mathbf q}\) \(\newcommand{\svec}{\mathbf s}\) \(\newcommand{\tvec}{\mathbf t}\) \(\newcommand{\uvec}{\mathbf u}\) \(\newcommand{\vvec}{\mathbf v}\) \(\newcommand{\wvec}{\mathbf w}\) \(\newcommand{\xvec}{\mathbf x}\) \(\newcommand{\yvec}{\mathbf y}\) \(\newcommand{\zvec}{\mathbf z}\) \(\newcommand{\rvec}{\mathbf r}\) \(\newcommand{\mvec}{\mathbf m}\) \(\newcommand{\zerovec}{\mathbf 0}\) \(\newcommand{\onevec}{\mathbf 1}\) \(\newcommand{\real}{\mathbb R}\) \(\newcommand{\twovec}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\ctwovec}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\threevec}[3]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cthreevec}[3]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\fourvec}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cfourvec}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\fivevec}[5]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \\ #5 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cfivevec}[5]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \\ #5 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\mattwo}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{rr}#1 \amp #2 \\ #3 \amp #4 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\laspan}[1]{\text{Span}\{#1\}}\) \(\newcommand{\bcal}{\cal B}\) \(\newcommand{\ccal}{\cal C}\) \(\newcommand{\scal}{\cal S}\) \(\newcommand{\wcal}{\cal W}\) \(\newcommand{\ecal}{\cal E}\) \(\newcommand{\coords}[2]{\left\{#1\right\}_{#2}}\) \(\newcommand{\gray}[1]{\color{gray}{#1}}\) \(\newcommand{\lgray}[1]{\color{lightgray}{#1}}\) \(\newcommand{\rank}{\operatorname{rank}}\) \(\newcommand{\row}{\text{Row}}\) \(\newcommand{\col}{\text{Col}}\) \(\renewcommand{\row}{\text{Row}}\) \(\newcommand{\nul}{\text{Nul}}\) \(\newcommand{\var}{\text{Var}}\) \(\newcommand{\corr}{\text{corr}}\) \(\newcommand{\len}[1]{\left|#1\right|}\) \(\newcommand{\bbar}{\overline{\bvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\bhat}{\widehat{\bvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\bperp}{\bvec^\perp}\) \(\newcommand{\xhat}{\widehat{\xvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\vhat}{\widehat{\vvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\uhat}{\widehat{\uvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\what}{\widehat{\wvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\Sighat}{\widehat{\Sigma}}\) \(\newcommand{\lt}{<}\) \(\newcommand{\gt}{>}\) \(\newcommand{\amp}{&}\) \(\definecolor{fillinmathshade}{gray}{0.9}\)

    Scenario Context

    Following identification of scope drift in Scenario 23, a formal review of project scope has been initiated.

    The review revealed:

    • Several features implemented that were not formally approved
    • Some features partially implemented based on informal discussions
    • Differences between documented scope and delivered functionality

    As part of restoring control, a scope reconciliation effort has been conducted.

    However, this process has surfaced conflicting stakeholder expectations.

    Email from Julie Rama

    Subject: Scope Reconciliation – Alignment Required

    Hi,

    Following your direction, we conducted a reconciliation of current delivered functionality against the original project scope and approved backlog.

    Reconciliation Findings

    We identified three categories:

    Category A – In Scope (Aligned)

    • Core project features
    • Approved backlog items

    Category B – Informally Added Enhancements

    • Reporting flexibility features
    • Minor UI customization
    • Additional filtering capabilities

    Category C – Partially Implemented Requests

    • Features discussed but not formally defined
    • Some incomplete functionality

    Stakeholder Feedback

    We have received feedback from stakeholders indicating that:

    • Enhancements currently in the system are now considered expected functionality
    • Removal or deferral of these features would be viewed negatively
    • Some partially implemented features are now assumed to be part of the product

    Impact

    If we attempt to:

    • Roll back enhancements → Stakeholder dissatisfaction likely
    • Formalize all enhancements → Budget and schedule impact
    • Leave as-is → Scope and baseline remain unclear

    Vendor Position

    We can proceed with any direction, but we need clarity on:

    • What constitutes final scope
    • How to handle partially implemented features
    • Whether additional effort will be approved

    Request

    Please advise how you would like to resolve:

    • Scope alignment
    • Stakeholder expectations
    • Baseline definition moving forward

    Best,
    Julie

    Attachment A – Scope Categories

    Scope Categories
    Category Description Status
    A Approved Scope Complete
    B Informal Enhancements Delivered
    C Partial Features Incomplete

    Attachment B – Stakeholder Input

    • “These reporting features are already in the system — they should remain.”
    • “We expected these capabilities as part of the release.”
    • “Removing features now would reduce confidence.”

    Student Assignment

    You are the Project Manager at C-Bay.

    You are now facing:

    • Formal scope reconciliation
    • Stakeholders resisting rollback
    • Partially implemented features creating ambiguity
    • Budget and schedule implications

    You must determine:

    • What the final scope should be
    • How to resolve stakeholder conflict
    • Whether to formalize, defer, or remove features
    • How to restore control without damaging confidence

    Prepare a formal written response to Julie Rama.

    Required Submission Structure

    Your memorandum must include:

    Executive Position

    • Is scope alignment achievable?
    • How should conflict be resolved?
    • What is your position on current scope state?

    Scope Resolution Strategy

    Choose and justify:

    • Accept all enhancements and reset baseline
    • Retain only selected enhancements
    • Remove or defer certain features
    • Formalize partial features through change control

    Stakeholder Management Strategy

    • How will you handle stakeholder resistance?
    • How will you communicate scope decisions?
    • How will you maintain confidence?

    Budget & Schedule Impact

    • What is the cost of formalizing enhancements?
    • What is the impact of retaining all features?
    • What trade-offs are required?

    Risk Assessment

    Identify and evaluate:

    • Scope ambiguity risk
    • Stakeholder dissatisfaction risk
    • Budget escalation risk
    • Delivery instability risk

    Assign likelihood and impact.

    Control Restoration Plan

    • How will you re-establish scope control?
    • What processes will be enforced going forward?
    • How will you prevent future drift?

    Directive to ZynoxDev

    Provide a clear directive, such as:

    • Formalize selected enhancements through change control
    • Complete partially implemented features under approved scope
    • Defer non-critical enhancements
    • Reset baseline and update documentation
    • Freeze further informal changes

    Learning Focus

    Scenario 24 introduces:

    • Conflict between delivery reality and expectations
    • Stakeholder resistance to scope correction
    • Managing partially completed work
    • Formalizing informal decisions
    • Re-establishing control under pressure

    Students must demonstrate:

    • Conflict resolution
    • Structured negotiation
    • Scope clarity
    • Leadership under tension

    Key Insight

    Once features exist, they become expectations.

    Even if they were never approved.

    This scenario reinforces:

    Controlling scope early is easier than correcting it later.

    This page titled 4.5.23: Scenario 24 – Scope Reconciliation and Stakeholder Conflict was last modified on Wed, 02 Sep 2026 04:37:47 GMT and is shared under a CC BY 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Sukhjit "Bob" Singh.