¿Cómo se puede minimizar el impacto financiero de los cambios de alcance en un programa?

Scope changes are unavoidable however to handle it better one can do following 1. Clear scope defined and accepted by stakeholders 2. An efficient review involving stakeholders and important stages to ensure no to minimal deviation from accepted scope to avoid any adverse financial impact. 3. Assess the change in detail as some changes can be market norm/practice thereby leading to an enhanced product / practice.

Defining and aligning the scope is of utmost importance as it is the reference point to avoid any scope creep in the lifecycle of the program components. However, deviation to the aligned scope is very common and one must setup a robust change management process in place to tackle this.

I want to remind you that addressing requirements early in the project is ideal because of the minimal financial impact. As the project progresses, the financial implications of changes escalate. Even the most skilled program managers may need to pay more attention to specific requirements. Therefore, when modifications are necessary, they must be managed carefully considering various factors, not only financials but also technical processes and people.

Stakeholder identification and categorization is an important aspect in managing projects, programs and portfolios effectively. The next step is to setup a communication methodology and frequency to ensure every stakeholder is involved at the right interval of time. The goal must be to involve stakeholders rather than just informing them. This ensures timely inputs which can help in gauging potential financial impacts beforehand.

One of the most critical aspects is change management process. This process must be so strong within the Portfolio/Program/Project such that every decision, action, risk, issue that causes or has a potential to cause a change should be listed, assessed for potential impact (financial/ non-financial). The change management process should involve all stakeholders, inputs from different governance checkpoints etc. This helps to prepare for contingency in case of negative or positive financial impact due to changes. As a final step, every change request has to be aligned and approved by the final sponsor/client irrespective of the type and extent of impact.

Focusing on the process to analyze any impact on the overall program can immensely assist the program team in handling multiple scope changes coming from various stakeholders/touchpoints. Once you set the process and advocate it across, you are in a good state since the stakeholders will know that your team follows a structured approach to tackle changes. On the financial impact, lay out all your touch and impact points in the process itself as you will have a HeadStart to set an expectation on the impact of the timelines that will help you to calculate the financial impact. If allowed, keep a contingency budget if allowed else factor in 10-20% as a buffer in timelines depending on the program scale.

Changes often have an impact on different Program components. These could be financial and non-financial. Financial impact could both be positive or negative. A robust change management process ensures timely listing, assessing addressing and aligning these changes to the different components so as to ensure the scope, time, quality and cost do not get derailed. I have managed programs where, a thorough financial impact analysis caused by changes have had a positive impact to the overall Program health from at risk to on track.

It is essential for the program manager, sponsor, change control board, and key stakeholders to exercise rational decision-making. In the execution phase, a multitude of change requests will surface. However, upon analysis, it is often found that while these requests significantly impact the project but are romanticized as the solution to many issues, they offer minimal benefits to the organization. Conducting a balanced and thorough assessment of each request is critical to ensure that any changes align with the project's objectives and contribute effectively to value delivery; this process should include considerations for leveraging pre-existing organizational assets and further optimizing resource utilization and project outcomes.

This is an ongoing process. Monitoring and controlling the health of the program is linked to efficient governance framework. The importance of an initial baseline is often overlooked which eventually leads to a negative financial impact. After an initial baseline, inputs coming from different program components help to assess and monitor the performance and to steer towards a tighter financial control.

Monitoring and controlling represent pivotal phases within a program, providing the means to identify, monitor, mitigate, and escalate issues that could potentially affect the program's budget or committed benefits. It is imperative for the program team to establish mechanisms for raising both issues and opportunities. These concerns should be communicated promptly and comprehensively to stakeholders to facilitate informed decision-making. This process ensures that appropriate actions are taken, potential impacts are thoroughly assessed, and key decision-makers are consulted before proceeding with a particular course of action. This approach allows for the mapping of adjustments to financials and the realization of value.

Programs and projects need higher success rates, primarily due to poor leadership, lack of a defined methodology, insufficient resources, and essential management skills from the program or project manager. Effective project management is not just about holding meetings; it's about actively measuring program or project performance, early identification of problematic situations, implementing workarounds, and still monitoring the impact of the workaround to increase performance. The ultimate goal is to deliver value to the user as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Even with proper planning, scope creep can impact the program financials. Even though it is an understood rule, I can’t emphasize the value of having 20-30% buffer while budgeting for the program. When the scope changes come in or there are cost overruns, atleast the small and necessary changes could be catered to, without going through the entire approval process. This saves a lot of time too.