Scope Creep

Online learning opportunities have significantly expanded the course offerings for small school districts and my school wanted to capitalize on these possibilities. At the time, our school district was experiencing instability in some key leadership roles including the superintendent of schools and the high school principal so I inherited the bulk of the online learning project.
The board of education, several teachers, and I decided to conduct a pilot program with well-defined constraints that included a limit of twenty students in their junior or senior year with a 3.0 or better GPA. The project team consisted of me, the library aide, the counselor, and the yet to be hired high school principal. The pilot program was officially acknowledged at a public board meeting but no formal project plan or documentation was developed. My responsibility was to identify content providers, develop a budget, establish a course catalog, and address technical issues.  The counselor would screen students and assist them selecting an online course. The library aide was responsible for registering students in the online courses and supervising the students while taking the courses in the library. The future high school principal would provide mentoring and academic support. When I left for the summer, everything was in motion and ready for the start of school.

Lynch & Roecker (2007) define scope creep as uncontrolled deviations of the projects requirements. Greer defines scope change “as any addition, reduction, or modification to the deliverables or work process as outlined in your original project plan” (2010, p. 35). Russell (2000), Stolovitch (Laureate Education, 2010), and Portny et al (2008) all recommend managing and controlling scope change with detailed scope of work documentation but concede sometimes scope change is inevitable. When I returned to work several weeks prior to the start of school, I discovered the interim superintendent capriciously removed all of the student enrollment constraints in an effort to reduce class sizes. Instead of twenty students, fifty-five from ninth through twelfth grade with no GPA or other screening signed up for online courses. To further complicate matters, the high school principal was not hired until October, the permanent superintendent was hired the following March, and we were operating under severe budget restrictions.  This was a situation we were completely unprepared for, causing many difficulties throughout the school year.

Portny et al (2008) advises risk analysis and contingency planning to prepare for unexpected changes to project parameters. There was no contingency plan for this debacle; only through long days and hard work were we able to get all of the students enrolled in their online classes, some as late as three weeks after the start of school. Because of the increased number of students, there were not enough computers in the library for all class periods causing the library to close when the aide was supervising in a computer lab. Over twenty-five percent of the students failed their class due to a lack of screening and insufficient academic support, over twice the classroom failure rate. In addition, I had to explain to the new superintendent why the online learning budget was well over two times the budgeted amount.

“What does not destroy me, makes me stronger” ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

While the pilot program was a disaster by most accounts, I did learn enough to advocate for sufficient resources for a full-scale online learning roll-out the following year. In retrospect, I still see my options as limited. Insisting adherence to the original constraints was not my decision and requesting additional resources was flatly rejected. Better documentation of the process and candid status reports at board meetings may have illuminated the problems or may have further estranged me from the project.

References

Friedrich Nietzsche. (1888), Twilight of the Idols

Greer, M. (2010). The project management minimalist: Just enough PM to rock your projects! (Laureate custom ed.). Baltimore: Laureate Education, Inc.

Laureate Education, Inc. (2010). [Video]. " Monitoring Projects."

Lynch, M. M., & Roecker, J. (2007). Project managing e-learning: A handbook for successful design, delivery, and management. London: Routledge. 

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.

Russell, L. (2000). Project management for trainers. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.