Today i will discuss the scope change regardless on how clearly stated at the outset, the scope of most

projects is subject to considerable uncertainty. There are three main causes for project reorganization.
Some revisions are made as a result of planners making a mistake in their initial assessment of how to
achieve a certain goal or in their choice of the project's appropriate goal. Technological uncertainty is
the root of both inaccuracies. The foundation for the project must be adjusted because a preliminary
geological examination identified no defects in the construction of the ground on which the structure
will stand. The project team learns about a recent discovery that enables a new computer to be adapted
faster and for less money.

Other adjustments occur as the user or project team gains a better understanding of the project
deliverable's nature or the environment in which it will be used. The key factor driving change is an
improvement in user or team knowledge or complexity. Because the user thinks of new uses for the
software, a computer program must be extended or modified.

The mandate is the third source of change. This is a shift in the context in which the project is being
carried out. As a result, the PM has no influence over it. A new law has been enacted. A new policy is
articulated by a government regulatory unit. A trade group establishes a new norm. For its purchases,
the user's parent organization uses a new criterion. In other words, the project's norms of conduct have
been changed. Each chemical refinery project must use a pollution control system that has been
approved by the state. The state government has mandated that all new insurance policies follow a
revised statute requiring certain information to be provided to potential buyers.

Risk management strategies can be applied to scope change to some extent. uncertainty can be reduced
through a thorough examination of the technologies involved and the application of technological
forecasting. Only by strengthening up-front contact with the customer and implementing a structured
change management procedure can the risk of scope change caused by higher us edge be handled.

Change brought about by a mandate creates a new issue. The project's deliverables aren't the only thing
to consider. Budgets and schedules are frequently revised, and the priorities of other projects are
frequently altered, if only momentarily, while the mandate receives full attention from the system. A
PM's access to critical resources is suddenly revoked because they are urgently needed elsewhere. Key
project contributors miss meetings or fail to meet specified task delivery deadlines. The PM's reaction to
this condition of affairs is all too often anger and/or despondency. Neither is acceptable

Question:

How negotiation works?