CHANGE DECISIONS
Small changes have a habit of becoming part of the job.
Decide whether a new request belongs inside the commitment already made, deserves a commercial change, or should be challenged before the work expands.
Scope creep rarely introduces itself as scope creep.
It sounds reasonable.
- “Can you just add this?”
- “We assumed that was included.”
- “It shouldn't take long.”
- “We need it for go-live.”
- “Can we sort the paperwork afterwards?”
Sometimes absorbing a change is the right commercial decision.
Sometimes it protects an important relationship.
Sometimes the work genuinely belongs inside the original obligation.
And sometimes the business quietly accepts additional cost because nobody stopped to make the decision.
The problem
Delivery momentum can turn ambiguity into obligation.
Once teams begin doing the extra work, the commercial conversation becomes harder.
The important distinction is often between:
- what was agreed,
- what has changed,
- and
- what the business chooses to do about it.
Without that distinction, one small exception can become the new expectation.
A better change decision asks
Is this actually inside the agreed scope?
What triggered the request?
Who benefits from the change?
What additional delivery effort or risk does it create?
Does absorbing it create a precedent?
What happens if we challenge it?
What happens if we don't?
Where the Deal Desk is going
Change or Challenge
Change or Challenge is intended to sit after award in the Deal Desk lifecycle.
Its job is to help teams judge whether a change should be absorbed, commercially challenged or treated as a new commitment before delivery momentum decides the answer.
It is a roadmap decision with no public delivery date.
Doing the work shouldn't be the thing that decides whether it was included.
Separate the obligation from the request, understand the commercial consequence and make the decision before the exception becomes normal.