Working assessment performed by the PM and CCB to support a disposition decision by evaluating alternatives and implementation plans.
In this resource
The Change Request Assessment is the analytical engine behind project change control. It forces the project team to objectively evaluate multiple paths forward, rather than simply accepting or rejecting a proposal at face value.
While the Change Request form initiates the process, the Change Assessment is conducted independently by the Project Manager (PM) and the Change Control Board (CCB). The core of this document is the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), which evaluates competing alternatives (e.g., rejecting, deferring, or implementing with variations) against weighted project constraints.
A standardized structure for comparing alternatives and tracking the disposition logic prior to implementation.
This document should be completed for any non-trivial change request. The weighting assigned in the MCDA matrix should reflect the current phase priorities of the project (e.g., in late delivery stages, schedule risk might carry a 40% weight, whereas in early design, stakeholder value might carry a 50% weight).
| # | Alternative | Cost | Schedule | Pros / Cons |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | [Do nothing / Reject] | [$0] | [None] | + [Pro] - [Con] |
| A2 | [Defer to Phase X] | [Impact] | [Impact] | + [Pro] - [Con] |
| A3 | [Implement as requested] | [Impact] | [Impact] | + [Pro] - [Con] |
| A4 | [Alternative implementation] | [Impact] | [Impact] | + [Pro] - [Con] |
Weighted scoring of the alternatives. Scale: 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent). Higher score = better fit.
| Criterion | Weight | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stakeholder value | [X]% | [Score * W] | [Score * W] | [Score * W] | [Score * W] |
| Cost impact | [X]% | [Score * W] | [Score * W] | [Score * W] | [Score * W] |
| Schedule risk | [X]% | [Score * W] | [Score * W] | [Score * W] | [Score * W] |
| Quality / Scope risk | [X]% | [Score * W] | [Score * W] | [Score * W] | [Score * W] |
| Strategic fit | [X]% | [Score * W] | [Score * W] | [Score * W] | [Score * W] |
| TOTAL | 100% | [Total] | [Total] | [Total] | [Total] |
A completed example demonstrating the evaluation of four implementation alternatives for a proposed scope addition late in the project lifecycle.
This example assesses CR-008 (adding LinkedIn icons to the consultant directory). Notice how the PM explores an alternative that was not explicitly requested (A4: Broader social presence) to ensure all viable options are mathematically weighed against project constraints.
| # | Alternative | Cost | Schedule | Pros / Cons |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Do nothing (reject the change) | $0 | None |
+ No risk to baseline. - Misses a low-cost / high-perceived-value addition; Sales would have to navigate around it. |
| A2 | Defer to Phase 2 | $0 now; ~$600 later |
None now |
+ Avoids any current build disruption. - Costs more later (re-context-switching); Marketing Lead support softens. |
| A3 | Implement now (recommended) | $400 | None |
+ Inexpensive; high perceived value; fits inside existing build buffer. - Adds one tracked field to the bio intake form (50 consultants). |
| A4 | Implement broader social presence (LinkedIn + Twitter + site) | ~$1,500 | +3 days |
+ More comprehensive consultant footprint. - Out of scope; Marketing Lead did not request; consumes contingency for uncertain value. |
| Criterion | Weight | A1 (Reject) | A2 (Defer) | A3 (Implement) | A4 (Broader) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stakeholder value | 30% | 1 × 30 = 30 | 3 × 30 = 90 | 5 × 30 = 150 | 4 × 30 = 120 |
| Cost impact | 25% | 5 × 25 = 125 | 4 × 25 = 100 | 4 × 25 = 100 | 2 × 25 = 50 |
| Schedule risk | 20% | 5 × 20 = 100 | 5 × 20 = 100 | 4 × 20 = 80 | 2 × 20 = 40 |
| Quality / Scope risk | 15% | 5 × 15 = 75 | 5 × 15 = 75 | 4 × 15 = 60 | 3 × 15 = 45 |
| Strategic fit | 10% | 2 × 10 = 20 | 3 × 10 = 30 | 5 × 10 = 50 | 4 × 10 = 40 |
| TOTAL | 100% | 350 | 395 | 440 | 295 |
By forcing the CCB to score alternatives against a weighted matrix, emotional bias (e.g., rejecting an idea simply because it arrived late) is removed from the process.
The inclusion of A4 (a broader social presence) demonstrates due diligence. It proves the PM explored extending the idea, but mathematical scoring quickly revealed it wasn't worth the cost.
The implementation section prevents the common pitfall of a change being "approved" but never executed. It lists names, deliverables, and dates before the CCB even signs off.
Purpose. This expanded section turns the original page into a practical handbook. It preserves the supplied material and adds a repeatable way to apply, check and review Change Request Assessment. It does not replace a contract, legislation, a controlled standard, competent engineering judgement or specialist advice.
The operating aim is to make the blank artefact usable by explaining what belongs in each field, who supplies it and how it is reviewed. Read the original explanation first, then use the workflow and checks below to convert knowledge into evidence.
Use Change Request Assessment as a decision instrument rather than an administrative form. The subject terms—change, assessment, request, template, example—need an explicit connection to the project objective, business value and stakeholder commitments. Before completing the artefact, write one sentence stating who will use it, what decision it supports and when that decision is required.
Apply a disciplined information model. Separate facts supported by evidence, forecasts derived from a method, assumptions awaiting validation, constraints that limit choice, risks that may occur, issues that already exist and actions assigned to people. Each material entry should have an owner, date, status and next review point. Where probability or impact scores are used, define the scale so different reviewers interpret it consistently.
A baseline is useful only when changes are visible. Give the artefact an identifier, version, approval state and effective date. Define which changes require reapproval, how superseded versions are retained and where supporting evidence is stored. During reviews, focus on exceptions, decisions and trends rather than reading every field aloud. Record the decision and rationale, not merely that a meeting occurred.
Close the loop beyond delivery. Confirm acceptance criteria, unresolved items, transferred responsibilities and operational ownership. Where benefits are expected, identify the outcome measure, baseline, target, observation period and owner who remains accountable after the project team disbands. Lessons should describe the condition, consequence and reusable action; a generic statement such as “communicate better” cannot improve the next project.
Start with a short drafting workshop involving the accountable owner and the people who hold the evidence. Complete high-consequence fields first: objective, scope, owner, baseline, acceptance, dependencies and escalation. Mark unknowns as assumptions or actions rather than hiding them behind vague prose. Circulate a review draft, resolve conflicting interpretations, baseline the approved version and place the next review date in an owned schedule.
| Information type | Minimum useful content | Review test |
|---|---|---|
| Outcome | Observable change and intended recipient | Not merely a deliverable or activity |
| Measure | Definition, baseline, target, frequency and source | Two reviewers would calculate it the same way |
| Ownership | One accountable role plus contributors and approver | Authority matches responsibility |
| Uncertainty | Assumption, risk or issue with response and trigger | Status reflects current reality |
| Control | Version, approval, review date and change rule | Current baseline is identifiable |
Filling every box even when a field is not applicable instead of recording why.
Recovery: Return to the governing definition or requirement and restate the decision in one sentence.
Writing vague statements without an owner, measure, date or evidence source.
Recovery: Separate evidence from assumption, assign an owner and set a date for validation.
Copying a previous project without revalidating assumptions and stakeholders.
Recovery: Run a small counterexample, boundary test, pilot or independent check before proceeding.
Using the document as a private worksheet when it is meant to support a shared decision.
Recovery: Record the consequence, decision and rationale, then update the controlled baseline.
Creating an approved baseline but failing to define who maintains it and when.
Recovery: Escalate when the issue affects safety, compliance, acceptance, material value or an agreed tolerance.
Answer with a fact or cited source where available. Where evidence is incomplete, record the assumption, consequence, responsible owner and next validation action.
Answer with a fact or cited source where available. Where evidence is incomplete, record the assumption, consequence, responsible owner and next validation action.
Answer with a fact or cited source where available. Where evidence is incomplete, record the assumption, consequence, responsible owner and next validation action.
Answer with a fact or cited source where available. Where evidence is incomplete, record the assumption, consequence, responsible owner and next validation action.
Answer with a fact or cited source where available. Where evidence is incomplete, record the assumption, consequence, responsible owner and next validation action.
The sources below were selected as institutional or primary guidance for the broader practice. They support the handbook method; they do not imply that every statement or clause in a source applies to every project. Confirm the current edition, jurisdiction, contract and application before treating any requirement as mandatory.