When we start a new project at Scioto Analysis, one of the first things we do with a client is agree on a scope: what questions the study will answer, which impacts will be measured, what methods will be used, and when the product will be delivered. But what if something comes up during the project timeline? Is it possible to change the scope along the way?
The short answer is yes. The scope of a policy study can change along the way, and sometimes it should. Changing the scope isn’t free, however, and how easy it is depends on the project. Today, I wanted to walk through what changing scope involves, when it makes sense to change scope, and how to plan for changes when they happen.
Changing scope has costs
When the scope of a policy study changes, some of the original plans around research questions, data collection, methods, and structure might need to change too. These changes usually show up in two places: budget and timeline. Adding a new impact to a cost-benefit analysis could mean reviewing new literature, finding new data sources, and quantifying new impacts. This requires analyst time, costs more money, and could push back the final deliverable date.
How disruptive a change is also depends on how long the project is. Short projects have little wiggle room, so there might not be space to absorb a new scope item without extending the deadline. At the same time, shorter projects are often less complicated, so adding to the scope could be relatively easy. Long projects have the opposite problem: over several months, a lot of the project is built on the original scope, and a late change could mean revisiting different parts of the project. However, longer projects might also have more time and flexibility.
There’s also a less obvious cost created by changing scope. Changes made late in a project leave less time to check and revise the new work. If a change of scope is rushed, new sections of a policy study could end up weaker than the rest of study, which is bad for decisionmakers.
Analysts should try to change scope as little as possible as a project progresses. It’s important to spend time at the start of a project clarifying research questions, deciding which impacts matter, and agreeing on deliverables. When a new question does come up, it’s worth asking whether it’s important enough to justify the added time and cost, or whether it would be better answered in a separate follow-up memo.
When is changing scope worth it?
Policy analysis doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Unexpected changes come up. For example, new data might become available halfway through a project. Or, a bill could be amended while you’re analyzing it. In these cases, sticking to the original scope could produce a study that’s less informative than it should be.
In our study of the economic and health impacts of bicycling and trails in Iowa that we published earlier this year, we originally focused on two things: the economic impact of cycling and its physical health benefits. Along the way, we decided to expand the scope to include mental health impacts and carbon emissions. This required us making changes to the scope and adding riders to the original project, but it ultimately generated insights that were helpful to advocates telling the story of the impact of cycling in Iowa.
When a scope change does happen, it's usually handled by amending the contract, increasing the budget, extending the deadline, or some combination of the three. Sometimes there's another option: trading one piece of work for another. If a client wants to add a new impact but can't increase the budget or extend the deadline, it may be possible to drop or scale back something else in the original scope. While this can curb some of the costs of the shift, it will seldom eliminate those costs because switching itself takes time, planning, and effort.
Plan for flexibility
The best way to make scope changes easier is to plan for them from the start. One way to do this is by building flexibility into the workplan. This could mean leaving some buffer time before the final deadline, adding a flex week or two, or identifying optional pieces of analysis up front that can be added if time and budget allow. That way, a change along the way doesn't have to interrupt the entire project.
Another approach, especially when changes are likely, is a more flexible retainer contract. Under a retainer, a client pays a firm on a monthly basis rather than for a single fixed deliverable. That keeps the firm continuously available to adjust scope, conduct additional analysis, or take on new questions as they come up. A retainer makes the most sense when a client expects their needs to shift, such as when they're tracking legislation that's still moving or managing a program that's still taking shape.
For years, Scioto Analysis was held on retainer by the RISE Together Innovation Institute to support poverty analysis in Franklin County, Ohio. Scioto Analysis also had a long-running retainer with Ohio University’s Voinovich School of Government working on Social Return on Investment analysis. Both of these contracts were flexible enough that we could pivot as new needs and opportunities arose, making the friction of scope change much less costly.
At its heart, public policy analysis is an iterative process. It is different from policy research: analysts learn things along the way that prompt them to revisit earlier steps in the analysis process. So public policy analysis is more robust to changes in scope than more rigid research projects. The methodology is built to change along the way, though changes of course come with costs.
So, can you change the scope of a policy study along the way? Yes. But it’s important to plan ahead as much as possible, and changes to scope should only happen if necessary.
