Change Assessment
Working assessment performed by the PM and CCB to support a disposition decision by evaluating alternatives and implementation plans.
In this resource
§1 Purpose of the Change Request Assessment
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.
§2 Blank Template
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).
CHANGE REQUEST ASSESSMENT
1. Reference
2. Alternatives Considered
| # | 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] |
3. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
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] |
4. Recommendation & Implementation Plan
§3 Worked Example: Mary's Consulting
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.
CHANGE REQUEST ASSESSMENT
1. Reference
2. Alternatives Considered
| # | 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. |
3. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
| 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 |
4. Recommendation & Implementation Plan
Highest weighted score (440) reflects strong stakeholder value with manageable cost and schedule risk. Cost of $400 fits comfortably within the remaining $11,200 contingency. PM recommends routing to the Sponsor for approval given that the change touches the consultant directory (a sponsor-visible deliverable) and extends the bio data the firm collects from consultants.
- Christine to add LinkedIn URL field to bio intake form by Oct 18.
- Bob to add icon component to bio card template by Oct 22.
- Update the RTM with new requirement F-08 by Oct 17.
- Update the Change Log with the approved disposition.
- No baseline updates required (within contingency, no schedule impact).
Objective Scoring
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.
Unrequested Alternatives
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.
Actionable Next Steps
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.