BSB51407 - Diploma of
Project Management
Project Scope Management
Questions & Answers
Plus Exercises
Page |2
Table of Contents
Table of Contents........................................................................................................................ 2
Questions for Scope Management .................................................................................................... 3
Answers for Scope Management ....................................................................................................... 7
Exercises - Manage Project Scope ................................................................................................ 8
Responsibilities for project scope activities ................................................................................... 8
Stakeholder involvement in project scoping ..................................................................................... 8
Reflection: Scoping a project......................................................................................................... 8
Conduct project authorisation ........................................................................................................... 9
Defining the scope of a project ........................................................................................................ 12
Reflection: Breaking deliverables into manageable chunks ....................................................... 12
Reflection: Conducting a Works Breakdown exercise ................................................................ 13
Clarifying outcomes and establishing performance measures ........................................................ 14
Reflection: Developing a performance review plan .................................................................... 14
Reflection: Improving scope management - Sydney Opera House project ................................ 15
Reflection: Assessing scope effectiveness and recommending changes .................................... 17
Page |3
Questions for Scope Management
1. Of the following, which is not part of project scope management?
a. Scope planning
b. Scope verification
c. Quality assurance
d. Create WBS
2. You are the project manager for the HGD Project and will need as many inputs to the scope
planning as possible. Of the following, which one is not an organizational process asset?
a. Organisational procedures
b. Organisational policies
c. WBS
d. Historical information
3. You are a project manager for your organisation. Sarah, a project manager in training, wants
to know which project documents can stem from templates. Your answer should be?
a. Risk policies
b. Organisational policies
c. Scope management plans
d. Historical information.
4. You are the project manager for a technical project. The project product is the complete
installation of a new operating system on 4500 workstations. You have, in your project cost
and time estimates, told the customer that the estimates provided will be accurate if the
workstations meet the hardware requirements of the new operating system. This is an
example of which of the following?
Page |4
a. Risk
b. Assumption
c. Constraint
d. Order of magnitude
5. You are the project manager for the NBG Project. This project must be completed within six
months. This is an example of which of the following?
a. Schedule
b. Assumption
c. Constraint
d. Planning process
6. Which of the following best describes the project scope statement?
a. The description of the project deliverables.
b. The authorising document that allows the project manager to move forward with
the project and to assign resources to the tasks.
c. A project scope statement focuses on completing all of the required work, and only
the required work, to create the project’s deliverables.
d. The process of planning and executing all of the required work in order to deliver
the project to the customer.
7. During the planning phase of your project, your project team has discovered another
method to complete a portion of the project scope. This method is safer for the project
team, but may cost more for the customer. This is an example of:
a. Risk assessment
b. Alternative identification
Page |5
c. Alternative selection
d. Product analysis
8. Of the following, which does the scope statement not provide?
a. Project justification
b. Project product
c. Project manager authority
d. Project objective
9. You are the project manager for the JKL Project. This project has over 45 key stakeholders
and will span the globe when implemented. Management has deemed that the project’s
completion should not cost more than $34 million. Because of the global concerns, the final
budget must be in U.S. dollars. This is an example of which of the following?
a. Internationalisation
b. Budget constraint
c. Management constraint
d. Hard logic
10. You are the project manager for your organisation. You need to ensure the customer
formally accepts the deliverables of each project phase. This process is known as
______________________?
a. Earned value management
b. Scope verification
c. Quality control
d. Quality assurance

Page |6
Page |7
Answers for Scope Management
1. c) Quality Assurance is not part of project scope management. It is the quality assurance program
of the entire organisation.
2. c) The WBS is not an organisational process asset.
3. c) Scope management plans can be based on templates. For the record, so can the WBS, and
project scope change control forms.
4. b) This is an example of an assumption since the workstations must meet the hardware
requirements.
5. c) A project that must be completed by a deadline is dealing with time constraints.
6. c) A project scope statement focuses on completing all of the required work, and only the
required work, to create the project’s deliverables.
7. b) Alternative identification is a planning process to find alternatives to completing the project
scope.
8. c) It is the project charter that provides the project manager with authority.
9. b) This is an example of a budget constraint. The budget must not exceed $34 million. In addition,
the metric for the values to be in U.S. dollars can affect the budget if most of the product is to be
purchased in a foreign country.
10. b) Scope verification is the process of formally accepting the deliverable of a project or phase.
Page |8
Exercises - Manage Project Scope
Responsibilities for project scope activities
Personnel
Responsibility
Project manager
Leads the project team in defining and managing the scope of the
project, including refining the scope progressively throughout the
project, monitoring scope, identifying ‘scope creep’ and monitoring
and reporting to higher authorities on changes
Authorising agent/agency
Selects and briefs the project manager, authorising the project and
endorsing the scope management plan, receiving and analysing review
reports and meeting with the project manager at agreed critical points
during the project. The authorising agent may also be required to step
in, in the case of a crisis in the project, or in a dispute resolution role.
Project team member(s)
Contribute to the scope definition process including the development
of the scope management plan; work as a team under the leadership
of the project manager to apply the project scope controls; participate
in project review and evaluation activities
Stakeholder involvement in project scoping
Reflection: Scoping a project
Case Study 2: Training Program Development provides details of a Request for Tender (RFT) to
produce a program and resources for the Training of Customer Service Officers in a local police
force. Reflect on the scenario below, considering whether to respond to the request for tender.
The unit you manage is quite small – just yourself as manager, three full time content development
specialists/writers and one administrator. The unit designs and publishes learning materials and
draws on the services of consultant instructional designers, editors and graphic artists as required.
In reviewing the RFT you note that the timelines are very tight (only three months to write and
produce 400 hours of teaching material). You know that you have the expertise to develop the
curriculum and assume that because the Training Program is similar to one that the unit already
delivers that you will be able to customise some existing materials. You note also that the materials
produced by the project will be owned by the contracting organisation and that you will need to
carefully document your existing intellectual property so that the materials already produced by the
Page |9
unit for use in teaching will remain the property of the college. You realise that you will need to
source two teachers for a month each to help prepare the materials and that you will need the head
of school to agree in principle to the temporary transfers of two teachers to you.
As you only have one week to write the proposal and will need to put aside some other work for this
time, you decide that you need to talk over the options with the head of school.
As a basis for that meeting you need to prepare a briefing note including details on the following:
1. The outcomes of the project – for the Unit and the School.
2. The project deliverables.
3. The resources you will need from the school to complete the project.
4. The risks associated with proceeding or not proceeding.
Conduct project authorisation
Before proceeding, find out about the project authorisation procedures in your own workplace, and
answer the questions in the tables below.
Project authorisation in your organisation
Name of organisation
Name and position of my project authorising officer
Is there a document that outlines the authorisation
procedure?
At what stage(s) does authorisation need to be secured?
Is there a proforma/template to use?
The checklist in the following Authorisation Checklist table identifies standard items that may be
addressed in a project authorisation process. Use the checklist to compare your own organisation’s
authorisation procedures with these standards.
How does your organisation compare? Are there items that are not addressed? If so find out why.
Are there additional items included in your own authorisation processes? If so add these items.
P a g e | 10
Authorisation checklist table
Standard item
Explanation/definition
Project name and number
Used to identify and classify the project
Project sponsor
Person/company who has contracted the project
Project manager
The person leading the project team who is
responsible for project outcomes
Project director
The person to whom the project manager reports
Priority ranking
Urgency in relation to other projects
Problem/opportunity
What led to the project being commissioned
Deliverable
Specific outcome(s)
Key objectives
Major commitments/ work to be achieved
Critical success factors
Indicators that the outcome has been achieved
Stakeholders
People who have a stake/ interest in the project and
can influence its success
Performance reporting
A statement of how progress will be measured and
communicated
Specification
Describes the deliverables in detail
Budget & resources
The funding and other resources (including people,
space, equipment) required to achieve project
outcomes on time
Time
Start and finish dates; critical milestones
Risks, obstacles,
assumptions
What might go wrong or get in the way; assumptions
on which the specification, budget and timelines are
based on
Escalation management
Strategies for managing issues, conflict and disputes
Contingency
Backup strategies – part of risk management
Used in my
workplace
()
P a g e | 11
Standard item
Explanation/definition
Contractual arrangements
Between project sponsor and project organisation;
between project organisation and sub-contractors
Business value
Rationale for taking on the project
Approvals
Sign-off required for project to commence and
proceed
Attachments
Any document accompanying the authorisation
proforma
Prepared by/ Date
Person submitting the authorisation
Approved by/Date
Person(s) authorising the project/approving the
scope
Used in my
workplace
()
P a g e | 12
Defining the scope of a project
Reflection: Breaking deliverables into manageable chunks
First read Case Study 1 about Perfect Pergolas and list all of the project tasks that are mentioned in
the story. Then take the 5 subtasks listed below and break each down into smaller components.
Once you have divided the sub-tasks into sub-sub-tasks, ask yourself whether these components are
small enough to be manageable. If so, list the sub-sub-tasks in the order in which they will need to
be completed.
Use the table below to format the tasks and sub-tasks. The first set of sub-tasks have been
completed as a guide
Perfect Pergolas: JOB NO: 129: MR ARCHIBALD COMMENCEMENT DATE: 4 APRIL 2009
WORK PLAN
Planning and permits
Finalise building design and specifications and get client sign-off
Apply for permits to clear and build
Develop 1st draft master schedule
Source and price materials
Finding and contracting suitable subcontractors
Email/phone three sets of sub-contractors with offer; 24 hour turn-around on acceptance
Develop sub-contracting schedule and contract; organising signing
Lock construction team into schedule
Revise and distribute master schedule to sub-contractors and team
Preparing the site for construction
Undertaking the construction in compliance with building regulations
Making good – including rubbish removal and handover
P a g e | 13
Reflection: Conducting a Works Breakdown exercise
In the Case Study of Training Program Development breaking down all the tasks to be done to the
level of detail required will ensure that adherence to timelines and budgets can be monitored. This
breakdown will become an attachment to the contract.
To develop the breakdown, first list all of the project management activities, for example:
Get content of each component agreed;
Source lists of probable attendees, find out leave schedules, develop training schedule etc.
Once you have listed all work activities, put them in order and plot them against the timeline for the
project, and also identify the cost items for each stage. (For the purposes of this activity the budget
should include all cost items but actual costs are not necessary).
Once you have allocated each activity to a time line and budget item, ask yourself if the breakdown
of tasks is sufficient to be able to accurately cost the activity and identify time and budget blow-outs
P a g e | 14
Clarifying outcomes and establishing performance measures
Reflection: Developing a performance review plan
To develop a plan to review progress on the pergola construction, you should include details of what
is being reviewed, when the review will take place and how it will be conducted.
You may decide to present the plan in tabular form, using the sample layout below.
Work Plan
Work task
Progress Review Plan
Scheduled
Completion
Scheduled
review
Conducted
by:
Method
Actual
completion
P a g e | 15
Reflection: Improving scope management - Sydney Opera House project
Read the extract below on the design and construction of the Sydney Opera House and develop an
initial scope statement that would cover objectives and deliverables. Identify and classify all of the
changes that took place and map these against the original scope of the project.
The construction of Sydney House- an example of scope creep
The Bennelong Point Tram Depot, present on the site at the time, was demolished in 1958, and
formal construction of the Opera House began in March, 1959. The project was built in three stages.
Stage I (1959-1963) consisted of building the upper podium. Stage II (1963-1967) was the
construction of the outer shells. Stage III consisted of the interior design and construction (1967-73).
Stage I was called for tender on December 5, 1958, and worked commenced on the podium on May
5, 1959 by the firm of Civil & Civic. The government had pushed for work to begin so early because
they were afraid funding, or public opinion, might turn against them. However major structural
issues still plagued the design (most notably the sails, which were still parabolic at the time).
By January 23, 1961, work was running 47 weeks behind, mainly due to unexpected difficulties (wet
weather, unexpected difficulty diverting stormwater, construction beginning before proper
engineering drawings had been prepared, changes of original contract documents). Work on the
podium was finally completed on August 31, 1962.
Stage II, the shells were originally designed as a series of parabolas, however engineers Ove Arup
and partners had not been able to find an acceptable solution to constructing them. In mid 1961
Utzon handed the engineers his solution to the problem, the shells all being created as ribs from a
sphere of the same radius. This not only satisfied the engineers, and cut down the project time
drastically from what it could have been (it also allowed the roof tiles to be prefabricated in sheets
on the ground, instead of being stuck on individually in mid-air), but also created the wonderful
shapes so instantly recognisable today. Ove Arup and partners supervised the construction of the
shells, estimating on April 6, 1962 that it would be completed between August 1964, and March
1965. By the end of 1965, the estimated finish for stage II was July 1967.
Stage III, the interiors, started with Utzon moving his entire office to Sydney in February 1963.
However, there was a change of government in 1965, and the new Askin government declared that
the project was now under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Public Works. In October 1965, Utzon
gave the Minister for Public Works, Davis Hughes, a schedule setting out the completion dates of
parts of his work for stage III. Significantly, Hughes withheld permission for the construction of
plywood prototypes for the interiors (Utzon was at this time working closely with Ralph Symonds, an
inventive and progressive manufacturer of plywood, based in Sydney). This eventually forced Utzon
to leave the project on February 28th, 1966. He said that Hughes’s refusal to pay Utzon any fees and
the lack of collaboration caused his resignation, and later famously described the situation as
"Malice in Blunderland". In March 1966, Hughes offered him a reduced role as 'design architect',
under a panel of executive architects, without any supervisory powers over the House's
P a g e | 16
construction but Utzon rejected this. The cost of the project, even in October of that year, was still
only $22.9 million, less than a quarter of the final cost.
The second stage of construction was still in process when Utzon was forced to resign. His position
was largely taken over by Peter Hall, who became largely responsible for the interior design. Other
persons appointed that same year to replace Utzon were E. H. Farmer as government architect, D. S.
Littlemore and Lionel Todd.
The four significant changes to the design since Utzon left were:
 The cladding to the podium and the paving (the podium was originally not to be clad down
to the water, but left open. Also the paving chosen was different from what Utzon would
have chosen)
 The construction of the glass walls (Utzon was planning to use a system of prefabricated
plywood mullions, and although eventually a quite inventive system was created to deal
with the glass, it is different from Utzon's design)
 Use of the halls (The major hall which was originally to be a multipurpose opera/concert
hall, became solely a concert hall. The minor hall, originally for stage productions only, had
the added function of opera to deal with. Two more theatres were also added. This
completely changed the layout of the interiors, where the stage machinery, already
designed and fitted inside the major hall, was pulled out and largely thrown away)
 The interior designs (Utzon's plywood corridor designs, and his acoustic and seating designs
for the interior of both halls, were scrapped completely.)
The opera house was formally completed in 1973, to a bill of $102 million. The original cost estimate
in 1957 was £3,500,000 ($7 million). The original completion date set by the government was
January 26, 1963.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Opera_House#Utzon_and_the_constructio
n_of_the_Opera_House
P a g e | 17
Reflection: Assessing scope effectiveness and recommending changes
Read Case study 1: Perfect Pergolas and then read the story below about what happened when he
secured the contract.
1
How effective was Kevin’s scope change management early in the project when Mr
Archibald asked for a larger pergola?
2
What might you have done differently? Make recommendations regarding his scope change
management strategy
Perfect Pergolas: Plans and Realities
Mr. Archibald was very impressed with Kevin’s tender to build the pergola. Kevin had managed to
offer superior quality building materials and construction to heavy-weather construction standards,
for just $5,000 above Mr Archibald’s optimum price. Further, Kevin had guaranteed completion
three weeks after Council approvals were through. The contract was signed and Kevin immediately
set to work on finalising the design to Mr Archibald’s specification.
When the design was submitted for approval, Mr Archibald asked if the size of the pergola could be
increased to facilitate some storage. Kevin agreed on the spot, subject to a small adjustment to
costs. Having already checked with his suppliers he was confident that he could get the larger size
pergola frame. While he was waiting for the permits to come back Kevin organised for the surveyor
to check the local rules and also checked for underground cables in the excavation area.
All went well with the initial planning: the permits arrived; the larger pergola was available, and the
excavation was completed on time. When the formwork was in place, Kevin organised for a Council
inspection, and also booked the concrete truck and organised the pergola delivery date, confident
that the council inspection was a formality.
The inspector contacted Kevin from the site to check the dimensions of the pergola, and on hearing
Kevin’s response, queried the specifications for the concrete pour. He said that he did not think
there was a problem, but as the pergola was way above the norm in the area, he would have to
double-check the regulations.
Shouldn’t take more than 48 hours to clear and he’d get back to Kevin by Friday. But that was the
day for the concrete pour! Kevin cursed that he hadn’t double-checked the regulations himself: he
was sure that the additional size was still in the same tolerance zone, but he didn’t have any
paperwork to prove it. He’d just have to fit in with the inspector’s timetable, as he didn’t want to get
the inspector off-side, or the site would never pass the inspection!