What started out as an $1824$ month project lasted nearly four years; however, the requirements for the last phase were mutually agreed upon. While the prime contractor, systems integrator, and product developer had prepared for legal action, all parties ultimately agreed on a settlement. The buyers and the sellers were able to move forward through the problems, ultimately resolving them together. Not only are the users trained and the document imaging system operational, the client is satisfied and the sellers are asked to continue providing their services.

There were many lessons learned, not the least of which is to manage the project as the contract would dictate. In other words, what began as a $$T&M managed$$ contract ultimately was managed as a FFP contract with a serious emphasis on managing requirements $$ as it should have been from the beginning. Project managers and company contracts organizations must collaborate and be keenly aware of what is in the contract, what is legally binding. Key company and project team members must know whether referenced system requirements are merely guidelines or hard fast requirements.

There is no substitute for following sound system engineering principles and practices. Systems engineering processes support scope management by managing requirements, system design, and changes. Not only would formal requirements and design reviews have provided a baseline or reference point from which to move forward, they would have enabled communications between the project stakeholders. Once a baseline was established, an institutionalized change management system would have enabled the monitoring and tracking of defects and enhancements and prevented $($or at least minimized$)$ gold plating. Risk management could have provided insight into the project as well as a forum for communicating issues and risks amongst all the stakeholders $$ without the ramifications of any one person being the bearer of bad news. The project circumstances may have been significantly different if the rejection of the CONOP had been identified as a potential risk.

Lastly, all stakeholders must accept their roles and responsibilities. The prime contractor could have been held accountable for their lead role rather than allowing others to step in and fill a void. Management is often responsible for making the tough calls and had the buyer's management done that, rather than continuing to defer to the users, the government may have made more substantial gains from an efficiency and technological point of view. It is often harder to stop, reassess the situation, and change direction as necessary than to continue along the path of least resistance. But often that is exactly what needs to be done, from an organizational and project point of view.Prepare your report as an essay, summarizing the responses to the questions below.

Discuss the importance of scope management as stated in the case in your own words.

What would have the case organization done better to ensure proper scope management?

Have the stakeholders been engaged $($yes$/$No$)?$ Support your argument from the case.

Re$-$write the scope statement where you can avoid the risks the case discussed.