“Can the team also do this?” is a familiar service request. Sometimes it is a clarification of existing work. Sometimes it adds a new location, frequency, task or responsibility. Before making a delivery promise, compare the request with the approved service scope.
Find the actual difference
Begin with the current scope and its version. Identify the result being requested, the affected locations and the required timing. A broad phrase such as “extend the service” is a starting point for discussion, not a complete work instruction. Ask what will be different for the user and how the result will be checked.
Keep questions visible. A request may leave out access restrictions, equipment needs or another team’s involvement. Record these as matters to resolve rather than filling the gaps with assumptions. This helps the requester understand why a reliable answer requires more than a quick estimate.
Consider the whole delivery arrangement
Extra work may affect existing commitments. A team can have enough total hours in a week but still lack the required capability or access at the relevant time. A new location may add travel, setup or coordination effort. Consider the effect on the current service as well as the new activity.
Compare feasible options in terms the decision-maker can use. An option might add capacity, change the start date or introduce an agreed temporary phase. Explain what each option delivers, the conditions it depends on and the information still missing. An estimate should remain identifiable as an estimate until its assumptions have been checked.
Keep the decision traceable
A request, a proposal and an authorised instruction serve different purposes. The requester describes a need; the proposal explains how it could be met; the decision establishes what is approved under the applicable authority arrangements. Record the decision owner, the approved scope difference, any conditions and the effective date.
Where a request affects safety, technical systems or another agreement, involve the relevant competent reviewers. A service-planning discussion does not replace those reviews. The organisation’s procedures and the actual agreement determine who can authorise a change.
Update the instructions people use
Approval is followed by communication. The delivery team, scheduler and person checking the result should work from the same authorised version. Identify superseded instructions, update the relevant records and establish a check after implementation. For a temporary arrangement, make the review or expiry point explicit.
For your next change discussion, bring a one-page comparison of the existing service and the requested difference. Add the open questions, feasible options and the decision required. That simple preparation can prevent an informal request from becoming an unexamined commitment.
Reading and further learning
Concept reference: IFMA, Project Management Course: Student Guide, Edition 2022, version V2017PAPM_1.2, printed pp. 213–214. The reference addresses evaluation, approval and communication of project changes. This independently written article applies the general concept to service planning; it does not imply IFMA endorsement.
Explore M15 — Scope of Work Development & Interpretation for FM Services and confirm the course arrangements through an enquiry.