Thank you for your comment - though I think we might be talking about slightly different things.
The risks associated with scope changes are well known - no disagreement there. But if the purpose of every discussion were simply to repeat what's already "well established," we probably wouldn't need forums like this, would we?
My post wasn't intended to restate textbook theory. I wanted to explore how financial flexibility can influence project behavior, even within disciplined teams. When the budget is generous, priorities can shift more freely - and that kind of behavior isn't always captured in models or planning frameworks, even when initial planning is solid.
I believe that discussing how a sponsor's financial strength impacts scope and risk management brings a fresh and practical perspective - one that's often missing from traditional models. These are the kinds of conversations that help us better understand real-world project challenges and evolve our professional thinking beyond the standard talking points.
I chose to post this in the Risk Management section specifically because scope changes, delays, and sponsor influence are all real-world risk factors that we as project professionals face regularly. Understanding the root causes - including financial dynamics - is critical for better risk anticipation and mitigation.
To me, this is exactly where practice starts to diverge from theory - and where real complexity emerges. That's what I was hoping to surface: not just that scope changes are risky (we already know that), but why they happen more often in different financial contexts, and what we, as professionals, can actually do about it.
So while the "Professional and Career" forum may also be a fine place, I'd still say this conversation belongs right here - for those interested in the real, lived side of project delivery.
What I was aiming to highlight was not just the well-known risks of scope changes in general, but a specific pattern Iβve observed in real projects:
πΉ In financially constrained projects, any scope changes usually go through rigid technical or steering board reviews, and often take the form of cost-neutral substitutions β removing one item and adding another of equal value. As a result, such changes tend to stay within budget and within the original timeline.
πΉ In contrast, well-funded projects β often backed by strong sponsors β may invite broader ambitions mid-project. With fewer financial constraints, additions accumulate instead of being traded, which can extend timelines and introduce complexity.
So my point was not about weak planning, but about how budget flexibility can enable a behavioral dynamic that increases scope and delays β even in well-managed teams.
This is the interdependence I hoped to explore:
π Do constrained budgets βforce discipline,β while abundant funding opens the door to ongoing expansions?
And if so β how can we as project professionals balance agility with discipline across these very different financial contexts?
Would love to hear your take β do you see similar patterns, or do you think the link isnβt so strong?
------------------------------
Darya Stanskova Aff.M.ASCE
Cost Estimator, Construction Engineer, Power Engineer, Project Manager
Clearwater FL
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 06-23-2025 03:54 PM
From: Mitchell Winkler
Subject: Does the Financial Status of the Stakeholder (Sponsor) Affect Scope Changes and Project Timelines?
I wonder if this post might be better suited for the Professional and Career Forum. Regardless...
I think it's well proven that scope changes are a recipe for disaster. I am unsure of the feasibility of obtaining data to support or refute your experience linking the depth of financial resources to outcomes.
Regarding tradeoffs between expectations, I believe the answer lies in project framing and front-end loading. It also requires discipline and commitment from all involved.
------------------------------
Mitch Winkler P.E.(inactive), M.ASCE
Houston, TX
Original Message:
Sent: 06-20-2025 09:00 PM
From: Darya Stanskova
Subject: Does the Financial Status of the Stakeholder (Sponsor) Affect Scope Changes and Project Timelines?
In project management, the issue of missed deadlines and budget overruns is often attributed to poor planning or unforeseen risks. However, I would like to start a discussion on the possible impact of the financial status of a key stakeholder - the project sponsor - on the frequency of scope changes and delays.
From experience and observations:
Projects with well-funded sponsors often have greater budget flexibility, which can sometimes lead to more frequent scope changes-driven by shifting ambitions or changing priorities.
In projects with limited budgets, the situation is different. Going over budget is almost impossible, so teams rely on technical boards or steering committees that approve interchangeable adjustments-removing some work and adding others within the same overall budget. This kind of "magic" helps keep the project within budget but can introduce complexity and delays.
Questions arise:
Are frequent scope changes a consequence of wealthier sponsors and their ability to influence the project, or are they a sign of weak initial planning?
Does financial constraint help discipline the project, albeit at the cost of ongoing negotiations and adjustments?
How can project managers strike a balance between stakeholder expectations, scope management, and realistic budgeting in both scenarios?
I would appreciate hearing your thoughts and experiences. How does the financial strength of the sponsor affect scope stability and timely project delivery? Is this primarily a matter of planning quality, or are such dynamics inevitable depending on funding?
Let's discuss!
------------------------------
Darya Stanskova Aff.M.ASCE
Cost Estimator, Construction Engineer, Power Engineer, Project Manager
Clearwater FL
------------------------------