PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ENGINEERING & REMOTE SENSING
August 2017
533
P
roject
M
anagement
In the Geospatial Community
By Raquel Charrois PMP, CP, CMS | VP
In recent years there has been a real acknowledgment of the
need for risk management in the worlds of project manage-
ment and quality. The release of the Project Management
Institute (PMI) ® Project Management Body of Knowledge
(PMBOK)® Fifth Edition and the International Organization
for Standardization (ISO) 9001:2015 Standards have both
evolved to have a stronger focus on risk and risk management.
Both organizations have identified that risk needs more atten-
tion than either has given it in past versions of the PMBOK
or ISO 9001 standard. During their PMBOK/ISO 9001 review
cycles both organizations looked at where typical failures are
in both process and project management. They identified that
much of the shortcomings occur in the area of risk and the
failure to manage it. Our industry is no different.
As a project comes to life, inevitably there is pressure from all
stakeholders to get the contract signed as quickly as possible.
For example, Sales wants the contract signed so that they
can officially note it as a “Win” while operations want to get
the project under contract so that it can be officially placed in
the backlog. There are many reasons that drive getting the
contract signed but everyone is united in their goal to get the
project started.
The contract, which for the purpose of this conversation
includes the Scope of Work, is the foundation on which the
entire project is built and against which success is measured.
At any point in the project lifecycle that we encounter a ques-
tion that needs answering, a differing of opinions, or general
disagreement that needs a resolution, we refer to the contract.
If that document is unfavorable, poorly written, incomplete
or otherwise lacking, the project is unnecessarily burdened.
All too often during the frenzy of project startup with the
added pressure to “get the contract signed” we miss a critical
opportunity to employ project risk management techniques.
Sadly, this miss is one that we pay for later in the project or
long after.
In general, this is what I would call a non-favored activity.
Few of us that find ourselves working as project managers
The Project Management Professional (PMP)® and the geospatial profession – Contract/Scope of
Work Review
in the geospatial industry have a history in contract law.
Even fewer of us having worked around contract law for any
portion of our career really and truly enjoy it. Unfortunately,
that tends to result in our inclination to do the bare minimum
in or outright ignore the contract review phase. We instead
tell ourselves that we will focus on the details later. For now,
“this will do” and we will simply manage things as they come
up, accepting what is put in front of us, signing and charging
forward. Ultimately that’s pushing unknown risk forward and
increasing the likelihood of some element of project failure.
Project Managers need to proactively identify the risks in the
contract and mitigate them as much and as early as possible.
It is critical to take the time to ensure that the contractual
intricacies are appropriately managed.
What that process actually looks like will vary from orga-
nization to organization, depending on such things as the
organizations size, maturity and risk profile. Some have
dedicated staff that focus on the contracting phase while others
expect the Project Manager to handle it entirely on their own.
Regardless the Project Manager needs to be invested in the
process to ensure that the best possible resulting contract is
in in place. As Project Managers we need to know what we
have committed to and what our full exposure is before we
actually begin, we need to focus on those areas with as much
diligence as we do with a project estimate.
When we are not specific enough in the content of our con-
tract we leave it open to interpretation by the other party in
the contract and by a non related third-party in the case of
mediation or court. The more precise that we can be and the
more ambiguity that we remove the better the position we are
in if there is any form of conflict. It makes interacting with
the stakeholders much simpler and it’s ultimately in the best
Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing
Vol. 83, No. 8, August 2017, pp. 533–534.
0099-1112/17/533–534
© 2017 American Society for Photogrammetry
and Remote Sensing
doi: 10.14358/PERS.83.8.533
