Quote:
Originally Posted by Frequitude
There is a very big difference between scope uncertainty and estimate uncertainty. Scope is what your going to build. The estimate is how much it will cost to build that thing.
Estimate uncertainty is the +/- cost & schedule estimate range on a fixed scope. i.e. you know what you're building but you haven't spent tons of detailed engineering on it so you're probably wrong on the cost estimate.
Scope uncertainty is not even having a complete grasp on what you're building.
Estimate uncertainty is completely acceptable and expected at this stage. Scope uncertainty is a big sin in the early stage of a project because it creates a compounding effect on the estimate uncertainty (you might have to build more, and that increased scope might cost more than estimated).
The Calgary Flames thought they only had to look at a portion of the scope. Basically, their facility which can be considered a black box. They did not consider how to plug that black box in. That was naïve and a poor way to develop an asset. It is critical to understand, study and outline the entire scope required for the success of your asset. Even the pieces you may not be responsible for.
The Flames failed to do that. They should be scolded for that. The city picked up the slack. They should be commended for that.
|
The Flames did properly scope out the project. They estimated how much it would cost to build the "black box" as you put it. The City went and tied in every ancillary cost they could think of and tied it to the scoping of the new building. That is disingenuous. As Bingo has pointed out, all of these ancillary projects are required regardless of the project being developed on that space. Hell, those projects likely have to happen without development of the land, so they shouldn't be lumped in the scope of the project. The city should have these costs enumerated, but to include these in the scope of this project is not kosher.