22.3 Assessing Options and the Impact of a Change
Key Takeaways
- A decision maker offered a single option is ratifying rather than deciding — assessments should present genuine alternatives.
- Always include the do-nothing option, because the consequence of rejecting the change is part of the decision.
- A typical option set is do nothing, implement in full, implement a reduced version, or defer with the interim risk stated.
- Impact assessment must span scope, schedule, cost, quality, resources, risk, benefits, stakeholders, and contracts — not cost alone.
- Assessment effort must be proportionate, and the cumulative effect of many small changes on float and contingency must be assessed alongside each individual request.
Outcome 24c requires you to know ways to assess options related to a proposed change and the high-level impact of the proposed change. Two things are being tested: generating genuine options rather than a single proposal, and assessing impact across every dimension rather than only cost.
Assessing options and high-level impact
Detailed evaluation turns a request into decision-ready evidence. Two complementary activities matter: impact assessment and options analysis.
Impact assessment dimensions
Assess the proposed change (and each serious option) across the integrated project:
| Dimension | Questions to ask |
|---|---|
| Scope / requirements | What is added, removed, or altered? Which requirements or exclusions change? |
| Time / schedule | Effect on critical path, milestones, float, release dates? |
| Cost / budget | Direct cost, contingency draw, whole-life cost, contract variations? |
| Quality | Effect on acceptance criteria, performance, rework, test burden? |
| Risk | New threats/opportunities, residual exposure, secondary risks from the change itself? |
| Benefits / business case | Does value rise, fall, or shift timing? Still aligned to strategy? |
| Resources | Skills, availability, overtime, supplier capacity? |
| Stakeholders | Who gains/loses; communication and training needs; resistance? |
| Compliance / safety / sustainability | Legal, regulatory, H&S, environmental obligations? |
| Configuration / interfaces | Which CIs, documents, interfaces, and data sets are affected? |
High-level impact is not a 200-page report for every CR. It is proportionate: small changes get light assessment within PM authority; material changes get deeper multi-discipline analysis and higher approval.
Options analysis
Rarely is the only choice "do exactly what was asked" versus "do nothing." Useful options often include:
| Option type | Intent | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Approve as requested | Full acceptance of the proposal | Add the mandated regulatory field to the next release |
| Approve modified / partial | Capture most value with less impact | Deliver a simplified report now; full analytics later |
| Alternative solution | Meet the need differently | Process change or training instead of a system build |
| Defer | Delay decision or delivery to a better window | Park until after a critical milestone or funding review |
| Reject | Do not proceed | Request conflicts with strategy, exceeds value, or duplicates existing capability |
| Combine with other changes | Package for efficient implementation | Bundle related CRs into one release to cut retest cost |
Compare options using impact, value, risk, urgency, and strategic fit — not the loudest stakeholder alone. Document trade-offs so the recommendation is transparent.
Scenario B — multi-dimensional impact
A change request could improve customer satisfaction dashboards but adds cost and delays a contractual milestone. Impact assessment must include scope (new reports and data feeds), time (milestone slip), cost (build and licence), quality (extra UAT), risk (penalty clauses, residual data-quality risk), benefits (satisfaction and retention), stakeholders (operations training), and configuration (report pack versions). Options might be: full approve with re-baseline; slim MVP now and phase 2 later; defer until the milestone is met; reject if benefits do not cover delay risk. Decision makers need that balanced picture — not only "the customer likes it."
Always include the do-nothing option
The most common assessment failure is presenting a single course of action and asking for approval. A decision maker offered one option is not deciding; they are ratifying. A defensible assessment offers a small set of genuine alternatives, always including do nothing — because the consequences of rejecting the change are part of the decision.
A workable option set for most change requests:
- Do nothing — reject the change and state the consequence: the risk that remains, the benefit forgone, or the obligation unmet.
- Implement in full — the requested change with its full cost, schedule, and risk impact.
- Implement a reduced version — the part of the change that captures most of the value for materially less impact.
- Defer — implement later, in a subsequent phase, release, or project, with the interim risk stated.
Assessing impact across every dimension
High-level impact assessment must cover more than cost. A change that looks cheap can be expensive once its resource and risk consequences are traced.
| Dimension | Question to answer |
|---|---|
| Scope | Which requirements and configuration items change, and what is displaced? |
| Schedule | Does it touch the critical path, consume float, or move a milestone? |
| Cost | Capital, operating, and whole-life cost — including the cost of the change process itself |
| Quality | Does it alter acceptance criteria, testing effort, or the standard achieved? |
| Resources | Are the skills available when needed, and what is displaced to free them? |
| Risk | What new risks are introduced, and which existing risks change? |
| Benefits | Does the expected benefit rise, fall, or shift in time? |
| Stakeholders | Who is affected, and whose expectations must be re-set? |
| Contracts | Does it require a variation, and what will the supplier charge for it? |
Proportionate assessment
Assessment costs money, so the effort must match the change. That is exactly what the initial evaluation stage is for: it screens requests so that only those worth full analysis proceed to detailed evaluation. Running a full multi-dimensional impact assessment on a trivial change wastes the capacity needed for the significant ones — and slow change control is one of the main reasons teams start bypassing it.
The cumulative view matters too. Several individually small changes can together consume all the float or contingency, so assess the aggregate position, not just the request in front of you.
A change request could improve customer satisfaction but adds cost and delays a milestone. What should the impact assessment include?
A project has approved eleven individually minor changes this quarter, each assessed as having negligible schedule impact. The project has now lost all its float on the critical path. What assessment discipline was missing?