Graded Discussion 1
by – Wednesday, 4 February 2026, 11:04 PM
Number of replies: 0
Discussion Task 1
The scope of a project is typically determined before the initiation of the project. Project managers will determine the overall scope of a project through a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and then develop a baseline against which to measure the progress of the project. The Channel Tunnel project represents a classic example of a traditional scope management process. In this case, the scope of the project was controlled by a rigid baseline and by multiple large-scale government contracts between the U.K. and France (Anbari et al., 2009). In traditional scope management, any type of change to the original scope of the project would be considered an exception to the project plan and would need to be approved by a formal Change Control Board (CCB) before implementation. The CCB would assess the potential impact of the proposed change to all three elements of the triple constraint (time, cost, and quality) prior to approving the requested change (Kerzner, 2017). Traditional scope management provides a predictable and accountable method for controlling change and is well-suited to the procurement and security aspects of your digital transformation initiative. As noted by Wysocki (2019), the traditional model works best when there is a good understanding of what is being delivered. It provides a solid foundation upon which vendors and regulators can rely to ensure stability and compliance with contractual and regulatory obligations by treating the scope of a project as a firm commitment.
Agile project management, on the other hand, views the scope of a project as flexible and evolving. Scope is established by a prioritised product backlog and not by a static baseline. Since the scope of a project is continuously evolving, control is decentralised in Agile projects. The Product Owner and the development team collaborate to continually evolve the scope of the project during sprint planning based on continual feedback from stakeholders and customer value (Highsmith, 2010). Highsmith (2010) further states that Agile governance is designed to provide adaptive capacity to allow the front-end team to respond quickly to changing conditions without the administration of a CCB for each and every minor change. By providing the ability to deliver functionality in an iterative manner, Agile reduces the risk of delivering unnecessary features; however, it may also create friction with traditional governance structures that demand predictability for budgeting and higher-level milestones (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2020). Spotify is a prime example of pure Agile scope management using the concepts of “Squads” and “Tribes.” When creating new front-end features, such as the “Discover Weekly” playlist, Spotify does not have a rigid scope definition at the beginning of the development effort. Instead, Spotify uses a prioritised product backlog where requirements are developed through user feedback and A/B testing (Trzaskowska-Dmoch et al., 2025).
Hybrid project management combines elements of traditional and Agile project management. Hybrid project management seeks to address the challenges associated with managing both the governance requirements of traditional project management and the flexibility required by Agile project management. For example, Deloittes Digital Transformations utilise hybrid project management approaches (Archer & Kaufman, 2013). In this scenario, hybrid project management establishes a traditional governance wrapper around Agile delivery cycles. While the traditional controls are used to manage the overall objectives and mandatory requirements (such as your companys new compliance requirement) of the project, the tactical execution of the features is left to the discretion of the Agile team. Gemino et al. (2021) note that the difficulty with hybrid project management is establishing boundaries between the traditional and Agile aspects of the project. Informal pressure from stakeholders can often circumvent formal controls. Therefore, hybrid project governance must include clear threshold levels that define which changes should be submitted to the CCB for approval and which can be addressed by the Agile team. By doing so, hybrid project governance enables both the speed desired by the sponsor and the control required by the organisation (Project Management Institute, 2021).
Discussion Task 2
Traditional project governance is typically hierarchical and control-based with defined decision authority and a centralised Change Control Board (CCB), which reviews scope changes for approval of cost, schedule and risk (Kerzner, 2017; Turner & Mller, 2017). The primary focus of this approach is accountability and audibility through the use of formalised change management (Crawford & Pollack, 2004).
Agile governance is the opposite. It is light-weight and value-based and has decentralised decision authority, whereby the Product Owner makes decisions regarding changes to the product based on business value (Highsmith, 2010; Schwaber & Sutherland, 2020). Formal CCB’s do not exist in agile as they could significantly hinder an organisation’s ability to deliver products quickly and efficiently, and limit its ability to adapt to changing customer needs (White, 2009; Cohn, 2010).
To govern hybrid projects, intentional design is required to create governance that combines the two approaches. Decision rights need to be allocated on purpose to strike a balance between control and agility (Wang et al., 2025). As such, a CCB should remain necessary for changes that affect regulatory compliance, contracts, budgets, or enterprise-wide risk, however Agile teams should have the autonomy to make changes to their own backlogs as long as it does not exceed pre-agreed upon limits (pundak, 2014). Hybrid governance is successful when there are clear thresholds established that distinguish between “changes made at the team level” and “changes that impact the entire organisation”, allowing for speed without losing control (Project Management Institute, 2021; Kuhrmann et al., 2017).
Discussion Task 3
The change request concerning a new compliance requirement that must be added immediately will be approved. This is especially important in Hybrid Environments because the legal obligation to comply with these regulations affects an organisations legal status and its reputation. Compliance changes are mandatory and therefore have to be addressed before any other development. According to Too & Weaver (2014), implementing good governance and risk management into project decisions indicates a high level of project leadership. In this way, addressing this change will protect the Digital Transformation Initiative from serious Legal/Regulatory Risks.
Although Mandatory, the CCB must complete a formal impact assessment on this change request to ensure the project maintains a Hybrid Approach and balances the Predictability of Traditional Approaches with the delivery of Agile. Harrin (2022) states that ignoring the structured process of change control may lead to an increase in Scope Creep and Resource Strain. If managed poorly, these compliance requirements may create risks such as delayed schedules, decreased team productivity and Technical Debt. As emphasised by Highsmith (2010), External Disruptions, such as the need for a compliance change, necessitate Collaborative Replanning to maintain Quality. The Project Manager must allow for open communication between Governance Teams and Delivery Teams using Sprint Planning and possibly Vendor Timeline Renegotiation to meet the compliance requirements without impacting the long-term success of the project.
Discussion Task 4
The main concern regarding risks in the hybrid environment is that there will be governance misalignment, where Agile teams may make informal changes that are outside of the scope of traditional controls and therefore create shadow scope creep (Day & Holznienkemper, 2025). The conflict between the need for flexibility when using Agile and the need for stability when working within traditional boundaries creates unnecessary undocumented resource depletion and unanticipated schedule delays (pundak, 2014; Salum et al., 2014). One way to mitigate this is for project managers to develop decision thresholds and use them in conjunction with a RACI matrix. By clearly defining what are team level decisions (i.e., those managed by Agile teams) vs. enterprise impacting decisions (those requiring CCB approval), the project can ensure that enterprise impacting items (e.g., compliance requirements, vendor contracts) are subject to ongoing formal review and oversight while allowing Agile teams to continue delivering at a reasonable pace (Project Management Institute, 2021b; Kerzner, 2017).
The second significant risk in the hybrid environment is the potential for volatile interdependencies among different components of the project team (Too & Weaver, 2014). When an Agile team rapidly pivots away from its original plan, it can cause instability in other areas of the project that have traditionally relied upon a set of well-defined and fixed specifications for their ability to obtain regulatory approvals and build the necessary infrastructure (Boehm & Turner, 2004; Highsmith, 2010; Kuhrmann et al., 2017). One approach to mitigating this risk is to establish synchronised change windows along with established interface specifications. Establishing predictable and scheduled time frames during which no changes occur in the infrastructure area of the project and providing a similar window for integrating across multiple teams can provide the agility required to allow for iterative learning, while also ensuring that the traditional milestones of the project remain intact (Boehm & Turner, 2004).
Discussion 2
Scope Creep in Disguise: The Hybrid Project Crisis
Introduction
Scope management varies depending on the delivery model. With early requirement definition and formal baseline management, traditional projects strive for scope stability. Strong scope specification up front frequently increases schedule predictability, but it may also hinder responsiveness when demands change, as Serrador and Pinto (2015) noted. On the other hand, agile projects view scope as changing and anticipating change. Sprint planning and backlog prioritization help to improve the quality of the work. Agile teams produce value more quickly, but they still need discipline to prevent backlog overload, according to Conforto et al. (2016). These ideas are combined in hybrid projects, which allow for regulated execution flexibility while maintaining high-level commitments.
Governance and Decision-Making Structures
Governance guarantees that decisions about scope are deliberate rather than reactive. Mller et al. (2017) demonstrate that initiatives with well-defined governance responsibilities have more accountability and control. Change Control Boards (CCBs) are crucial in traditional environments because they examine the effects of changes before accepting them. Product owners are given authority by agile governance, and they are always assessing value trade-offs. Both structures must work together in hybrid situations. Too and Weaver (2018) believe that governance should match uncertainty levels, which means that large-impact changes require formal monitoring while modest improvements can be implemented through agile prioritization.
Decision on a Change Request
The request to introduce a single, minor feature ought to be postponed. Despite their seemingly innocuous appearance, small features can add up to a substantial scope expansion. In hybrid projects, Gemino et al. (2021) discovered that incremental additions frequently cause covert scope creep. Analysis of the effects on effort, integration, and vendor commitments is made possible by delaying the request. Stakeholder annoyance and perceived rigidity are the primary dangers of deferral. Transparent communication and planning the request for a future backlog review instead of instant inclusion are two ways to handle this.
Scope Risks and Mitigation in Hybrid Delivery
When informal influence takes the place of formal choices, hybrid initiatives are at risk. Stakeholder pressure can progressively broaden scope without documentation, as indicated by Wahyuni and Biesenthal (2019). Misalignment between agile teams and fixed vendor contracts is another issue that can lead to disagreements or rework. Visibility is the first step in mitigation. Predetermined approval levels make it clear which modifications require CCB review, and a shared change register guarantees that every request is tracked. Joslin and Mller (2016) show that initiatives with structured governance have higher success rates, indicating that flexibility and control may coexist provided decision criteria are clear.