A few years ago, I was involved with an instructional design
project to develop instructor led courses for the military. We were already
familiar with the client having developed courses for them four years prior. We
knew the client had a reputation for not clearly articulating their needs up
front and coming to us late in development with add-ons. Nevertheless, we gave
them the benefit of a doubt.
We had a statement of work, but it was not very specific
about what exactly had to be developed. We worked extensively with subject
matter experts during the first month of design. We completed a design document
and the unit verbally okayed the plan. We worked expeditiously toward our goal
of completing four courses, over 200 hours of training in 9 months.
Half way through the project we began developing the media
presentations. It was at this point that the client realized they wanted
something entirely different. It was not what they envisioned and they wanted
to add some more topics. We ended up having to rewrite the design documents and
several lesson plans and also create one new lesson plan.
The project had to be
extended by about 3 months, and we had to hire consultants to help. In
retrospect, what we should have obtained written approval of the design document
before the project began. The document should have clearly stated what was to
be developed, and it should have been signed off by each subject matter expert,
the course manager, and the commanding officer. When they asked to change the
plan, we could have pointed back to the agreement.
