A Change Can Alter the Answer, Not Just the Workload
A scope change is a decision about the assignment's promise. Adding interviews may improve a weak evidence base. Removing a site may make a cross-site conclusion impossible. A new report format may be minor, or may require a different analysis. Classify the effect before discussing only the price.
This tutorial uses a fictional comparison of purchasing processes in two NGO offices. The agreed assignment has 16 consultant days, eight interviews, six purchase traces, a three-option comparison and one consolidated draft review. Its decision question is whether to combine the processes without weakening independent checks. See the complete technical offer.
Record the Request Against the Current Baseline
Keep the approved brief, offer, agreement and current schedule identifiable. Ask what changed, why, when a decision is needed, who requested it and who has authority to decide. A message asking for extra work is evidence of a request, not evidence of approval.
Separate four types of change:
| Type | Example | Consequence to Examine |
|---|---|---|
| Deliverable | Add a training workshop | Preparation, facilitation, accessible materials and client attendance |
| Method | Replace interviews with a survey | What the evidence can answer, selection and privacy requirements |
| Access | One office cannot provide logs | Whether the cross-office comparison remains defensible |
| Timetable | Final note needed a week earlier | Actual sequencing, review time and quality, not just an earlier label |
Several can happen together. A shorter calendar and less access may require a narrower decision, even if the consultant has unused days.
Work Through a Consequential Request
In the fictional case, the second office loses access to its historical log. The client asks the consultant to keep the original recommendation and deadline. Four interviews there remain possible, but the six-trace design can no longer be delivered as planned. There is no substitute record yet.
The consultant records three options:
- Wait for the log and retain the comparison. Confirm a realistic access date and revise the calendar. The evidence may remain stronger, but delay could miss the client's decision meeting.
- Use interviews and current observation for a provisional comparison. Ask about permissions and feasibility. Describe the second office's historical performance as unverified. This can identify process risks but cannot establish that one office was historically faster.
- Narrow the assignment to the documented office and cross-office questions to resolve. The original organization-wide recommendation is no longer promised. This may fit the deadline, but it leaves the merger decision requiring further evidence.
None preserves a fully evidenced historical comparison by wording alone. Do not replace the missing log with invented averages or quietly treat interview recall as equivalent.
A Filled Change Record
| Field | Fictional Entry |
|---|---|
| Request | Scope change 1, second-office log unavailable; client asks to keep date and original conclusion scope |
| Baseline affected | Two-office historical process comparison and six purchase traces |
| Proposed response | Option 2: provisional comparison, with second-office historical performance explicitly unverified |
| Effort and cost | Consultant to confirm observation effort; no extra fee or saving agreed from this request alone |
| Schedule | Existing draft date proposed, conditional on permissions and observation access by the agreed decision point |
| Evidence limitation | No quantified historical comparison or saving estimate for the second office |
| Decision route | Named contract signatories under the fictional agreement; grant implications checked separately by the NGO grant owner |
| Status | Requested; pending written decision. No revised commitment recorded as approved. |
In a real record, replace conditional gaps with actual decisions or keep them visibly unresolved. Do not use a change number to imply that permission was granted.
Carry the Decision Into Every Affected Place
After authorized agreement, update the controlled scope, schedule, effort, acceptance criteria and evidence plan together. Keep the original baseline and the change reference traceable without circulating multiple competing current versions. Tell the people supplying data or comments what changed. Record whether work already completed can still be used.
If the client decides to retain the original scope, explain the remaining access dependency and feasible timing. If no decision arrives, follow the real contract's escalation and instruction rules. This page does not supply a universal power to suspend, charge extra or deem a change accepted.
Check a Smaller Change Too
An additional review round may leave the analytical question intact while increasing effort. In the effort case, a second comment round plus reconciliation adds 1.5 days to 16, giving 17.5. Agree whether to fund it, consolidate comments or alter another explicitly named commitment. A day-count change and an evidence-limit change need different explanations.
Source and Scope
The Consultancy Playbook, September 2022, printed pages 34-35, addresses clear responsibilities and scope control. The decision record and alternatives here are original teaching adaptations. They do not import UK government procurement rules into an NGO agreement. Authorized contract, finance and technical owners must resolve consequential real changes.