GM593 Unit 5 Change Request Evaluation Example

Where the Scanner Stands: A Unit 5 Change Request Evaluation for Barcoding Chemicals During a Lab Move

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

GM593: Project Execution With Monitoring and Control

Unit 5 Change Request Evaluation

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The university, its relocation project, its staff and every figure are composite and illustrative; the methods cited are real.

How the Request Arrived

The chair mentioned the idea to the facilities coordinator in a hallway after a steering group meeting, as a natural improvement: the move was touching every container, so why not fix the paper inventory at the same time? The coordinator thanked the chair, said the idea would be evaluated, and logged it the same afternoon. No one started barcoding. That step matters, because informal changes from a sponsor are the ones most likely to be carried out without evaluation, simply because no one wants to tell the sponsor to wait. Logging the request turned a hallway remark into a decision the steering group would make with the costs in front of it.

The Logged Request

Change request 7. Requested by the chair of the Department of Biology, the project sponsor, in week 23. Description: apply a barcode label to every chemical container being moved and enter it into the university's new chemical inventory system, so that each lab arrives in the Life Sciences Building with a complete electronic inventory. Classification: a scope addition, not a correction, because the approved scope moves containers and their paper manifests but does not create an electronic inventory.

The Project Management Institute treats a change request as a formal proposal that must be evaluated for its effects on scope, schedule, cost and risk before a decision is made (Project Management Institute, 2021). This evaluation does that.

Scope Impact

About 9,500 chemical containers in the remaining labs have no barcode. The change adds a label and an inventory record for each, linked to the lab's room in the new building. The university's chemical inventory system already exists; the change adds data to it rather than new software.

Schedule Impact

The schedule effect depends on who does the work and where. Every container already passes through two steps: EHS sign-off of its manifest in Hollis Hall, and receipt and verification in the new building. The variance memo found that EHS sign-off is the constraint, with capacity of about 670 equivalent units a week against a plan of 1,050.

If barcoding happens in line at sign-off, EHS officers would spend about a minute and a half per container checking the label and confirming the record, about 240 hours across 9,500 containers. That time would come straight out of sign-off capacity. At the officers' current combined hours, it equals about eleven working days of sign-off, all on the flow that governs the demolition date.

If barcoding happens at the receiving dock in the new building, after containers have left Hollis Hall, it adds no time to EHS sign-off. Receiving has spare capacity, because it waits on the same queue upstream.

The same barcoding job costs eleven days of the deadline if it happens at the bottleneck and costs none if it happens downstream.

Eliyahu Goldratt's point that time lost at a constraint is lost for the whole system, while time saved elsewhere is a mirage, applies directly (Goldratt & Cox, 2004).

Cost Impact

Option A: in-line barcode station at EHS sign-off, $69,400. Two label printers and scanners, labels, and EHS overtime to recover part of the lost capacity. Even with the overtime, the forecast loses about six working days of sign-off on the deadline flow.

Option B: contract team at the receiving dock, $58,000. Two contract inventory technicians for twelve weeks, labels and scanners. EHS reviews the new records in batches after the move, outside the deadline flow. No effect on the schedule.

Option C: reject now and barcode later, about $85,500. Barcoding after the move would mean reopening every chemical cabinet in 38 labs, pulling containers, labeling and returning them, which a facilities estimate prices at about $85,500, plus disruption to research. Rejecting the change avoids cost now but costs more later.

Variations Considered and Dropped

Two narrower versions were considered. Barcoding only the hazardous containers, about 3,100 of the 9,500, would cut the in-line cost at EHS to about 80 hours, but it would still take nearly four working days from the constraint, and it would leave the inventory incomplete. Asking each lab's own staff to barcode its containers before packing would cost the project nothing directly, but the labs are still running experiments until their move dates, and principal investigators have already objected to losing staff time to the move. Neither version beat Option B on schedule or completeness.

Effect on Other Requirements

Option B touches two existing requirements. Receiving and verification must now confirm a barcode as well as a location, which adds about a minute per container at the dock, inside receiving's spare capacity. And the move's closeout report must include the inventory's completeness, which EHS will check in batches during the month after the move.

Risk Impact

Option A adds risk to the deadline. Option B adds a small risk that containers are shelved before they are labeled; the receiving procedure will require labeling before a container is placed in its cabinet. Option C adds no project risk but leaves the university without a complete chemical inventory for a year or more, which EHS considers a compliance weakness.

Recommendation

Approve Option B, a contract team at the receiving dock, at $58,000, funded from project contingency. It gives the chair what was asked for, a complete electronic inventory in the new building, without touching the constraint, and it costs less than barcoding later.

Harold Kerzner observes that sponsors often propose valuable changes informally, and that the project's job is to evaluate them with the same rigor as any other change rather than accept or dismiss them on the spot (Kerzner, 2022).

Conditions That Would Reverse the Advice

The advice would flip under either of two developments. If EHS sign-off capacity returns to its planned 1,050 units a week, the in-line station would cost far less schedule, and Option A's advantage of checking each record at sign-off might outweigh its higher price. And if the contract technicians cannot start within three weeks, the receiving dock would fill with unlabeled containers, and the change should be deferred until after the move rather than started late.

Steering Group Decision

At its meeting in week 24, the steering group approved Option B, with the condition that labeling must happen before any container is shelved. The change log records the decision, the contingency drawdown and the date the contract team starts.

References

Goldratt, E. M., & Cox, J. (2004). The goal: A process of ongoing improvement (3rd rev. ed.). North River Press.

Kerzner, H. (2022). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (13th ed.). Wiley.

Project Management Institute. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (7th ed.).