Build a scope baseline, work breakdown and change register, then decide a proposed addition using explicit time, cost and acceptance effects.
The fictional Cedar Library needs an event-registration page. The agreed scope is a form, confirmation message and attendance export, with a 40-hour effort allowance and Friday acceptance. A sponsor later requests a reminder feature estimated at 6 additional hours. The exercise is about making the decision visible, not automatically refusing change.
| Item | Effort hours | Baseline status |
|---|---|---|
| Form | 18 | included |
| Confirmation | 8 | included |
| Export | 10 | included |
| Acceptance checks | 4 | included |
| Reminder request | 6 | proposed |
A scope statement needs an intended result, included deliverables, exclusions and acceptance conditions. An exclusion is not a refusal to discuss future work; it prevents an assumption from becoming an invisible obligation. Record who may accept the result. A deadline alone says nothing about what must work on that date.
Write a one-page baseline for the registration page. State three included outputs, two exclusions and who accepts each output.
Scope baseline v 1
Record your result and evidence here or in a separate file.
The reminder is clearly proposed, and every included output has an observable acceptance condition.
Replace vague words such as complete with a behavior a reviewer can check.
A work breakdown connects the promised result to manageable outputs. Keep a consistent level of detail and check that the parts cover the whole scope without double counting. The supplied effort values are planning assumptions, not measured productivity. Track acceptance work explicitly so it does not disappear inside an optimistic delivery estimate.
Create a two-level work breakdown and reconcile the included hours. Add an owner and evidence of completion to every leaf.
Work breakdown and 40-hour reconciliation
Record your result and evidence here or in a separate file.
Included effort totals 40 hours and the reminder is outside the approved total.
Separate the deliverable structure from a chronological task list before reconciling totals.
A useful change request names the reason, proposed result, affected baseline and consequences of both doing and deferring it. Do not reduce the conversation to an extra-hour number: a reminder also raises content, timing and error-handling questions. Keep estimates separate from commitments and identify unanswered dependencies before recommending a decision.
Prepare change CR-01 with 6 extra hours, acceptance questions, schedule implications and a defer option.
Change impact brief
Record your result and evidence here or in a separate file.
The brief compares approve, defer and reduce another agreed output; none is presented as already authorized.
Add the consequences of doing nothing and the owner of any missing estimate.
A change log records a decision trail rather than a list of wishes. Record request date, decision owner, status, rationale and affected version. A pending request should not quietly appear in the delivery promise. If the sponsor approves a revised baseline, communicate the revision to the people who plan and accept the work.
Role-play the sponsor decision. Record either approval with a 46-hour baseline or deferral with the 40-hour baseline, including rationale.
Decision log and baseline v 2 or unchanged v 1
Record your result and evidence here or in a separate file.
The log, work breakdown and stated effort all reflect the same decision.
Find contradictory versions and label the superseded one instead of erasing its history.
A repeatable process must also handle an urgent or poorly specified request. Use the same evidence requirements when someone says could you just. Urgency can alter review speed, but it does not supply missing acceptance criteria or authority. A short clarification can protect both the requester and the delivery team.
Add a second request for an unspecified dashboard. Return it for clarification and list three questions that would permit an impact assessment.
Two-request control demonstration
Record your result and evidence here or in a separate file.
No unestimated dashboard work is included in the approved total.
Replace a guessed estimate with an explicit information request and review date.
Deliver the baseline, work breakdown, CR-01 impact brief, decision log and second-request response. Ask a reviewer to reconstruct which version is approved without verbal explanation. Then show the alternative decision and its effect on the documents.
No proposed change is represented as approved and every displayed total matches the selected baseline.
| Criterion | Points | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence and correctness | 30 | Calculations, source use and results match the supplied case; limitations are honest. |
| Required artifacts | 30 | All five stage outputs and the capstone handoff are present and inspectable. |
| Reasoning and decisions | 20 | Choices, assumptions, alternatives and the case-specific critical condition are explained. |
| Reproducibility | 10 | A reviewer can follow the stated steps and distinguish expected from observed results. |
| Clear communication | 10 | Labels, units, structure and evidence references make the work easy to review. |
Score at least 80/100, supply every required artifact, and satisfy the path-specific critical condition. Rework missing evidence before marking complete.
The original included effort is 18+8+10+4=40 hours. Accepting the reminder without removing work changes effort to 46 hours, a 15% increase. These numbers do not establish a new finish date: the team must inspect available capacity and dependencies before committing to one.
This is a small scope-control exercise, not a contractual change procedure or certification course.