"James O'Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Michael Stevens wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 08:47:35AM +0000, Roger Burton West wrote:
> > > Contracts _should_ say that the client pays for changes to what he
> > > originally said he wanted. Sometimes they do. It's quite rare, in my
> > > experience, for this payment actually to be demanded. (Usually some
> > > excuse along the lines of "it's a big customer and we don't want to
> > > annoy them".) This XP approach seems to require a lot more firmness
> > >
> > I've also found a lot of customers are absolute *geniuses* at fudging the
> > issue of what they did and didn't agree to, no matter how specific
> > you attempt to be.
> >
>
> All changes no matter how small should be passed through a change control
> process, normally put in place by the project manager assigned to that
> specific job.
>
> A change control document will normally be produced which will detail what
> the client wants, how much it will cost and what the effects are on the
> project timeline. This will need to be read and physically signed off by
> the client before any work is undertaken.
>
> This, in theory, should make the client think whether they really need
> this "small change" or if it can wait until a later date. It also gives
> you some ammo if the client changes their mind as there should be no
> ambiguity.
The XP approach to this goes something like:
Client: We want this.
Team: Write it on a card.
Client: <Writes> There you go.
Team: This will take 'm' days to implement. We have n > m days available
in this iteration, do you want this in this iteration.
or
Team: This will take m days to implement. We have n < m days in this
iteration. If this goes in, which ones to we take out?
And the client makes the decision.
--
Piers
