Is this gold plating?

Submitted by rahulner on Sun, 06/30/2013 - 14:44

If team memebr notices an issue and fixes it without going through formal Cange control process, is it a gold plating ?

 

Forums: 
PMP / CAPM exam Question bank
  • Log in to post comments
  • 1264 reads

rjbuzzing

Sun, 06/30/2013 - 16:11

I don't think it is Gold Plating, and it should logically be categorized under "Scope Creep". Where did you see this Question & Answes. 

rahulner

Sun, 06/30/2013 - 16:32

Thanks for the reply. Its from the preparepm.com , free 200Q test.

Its an issue (non conformance to the requirement), so not sure why its a scope creep. In my opinion, it should be analysed, raised as issue, present to CCB for approval and corrective actionn should be taken to fix it. So I think without this process, correct anwser should be "Undocumented Change"

 

 

 

 

 

cool_dude_shandy

Sun, 06/30/2013 - 19:03

My two cents!  The Keywords in the whole paragraph to look for are ‘While it wasn’t defined in the work break down structure.’ And  ‘…the Customer will probably like what I did.’ Since the activity/task wasn’t defined in the WBS and the ‘Assumption’ makes the gold plating as the best option.

 

pmpnewster

Wed, 07/03/2013 - 14:43

 

The keywords could well be  "an issue that needed to be addressed."

 

Regards.

 

pmpnewster

Wed, 07/03/2013 - 14:40

 

I don't think it is gold plating, either.

The question says, "he noticed an issue that needed to be addressed".  He fixed an issue that needed to be addressed. He did not add new functionality or beautify a user interface to impress the customer.

Maybe he fixed a software bug. Is that gold plating?

Sure, this work is not present in the WBS, but do undiscovered/potential issues or bugs get mentioned in the WBS?

When he says the customer will be happy, that is because he proactively fixed an issue thus avoiding future problems. (Not because he added new functionality).

If we classify fixing an issue as gold plating.... And we know that we need to avoid gold plating at all costs... Does it mean we should not fix discovered issues, lest we get accused of gold plating?

Overall, I guess the team member should have consulted the PM and got approval for fixing the issue. But the issue had to be fixed, won't you agree?

It would be unethical and unprofessional to know of an issue and not address it.

 

Regards.

 

Alpha_romeo0

Mon, 07/01/2013 - 01:31

 I would think that it has something to do with Quality Control.

They used the term "ISSUE" which means problem in the product, so he proactively dealt with the problem that might cause a delay or something.

 

Gold plating is going above and beyond what the customer expects and above and beyond what is in the Scope of the project.

 

The question is not really a good one and is misleading as "Gold Plating" has nothing to do with dealing with defects/issues/problems inherent in the product being produced.

 

Just my two cents

farrous13

Tue, 07/02/2013 - 17:23

Definitely GOLD PLATING.

Here is why. In this question, the member did something outside the scope of the project (check the definition of the Create WBS process in the PMBOK).

Keywords:
- Wouldn't impact the deliverable
- wasn't defined in the WBS

Geethika

Wed, 07/03/2013 - 13:06

 



Scope Creep

Gold Plating

Uncontrolled changes are referred to as “Scope creep”.

Without analyzing the full impact, doing one change which is leading to another change.  For ex, compromising any other project constraint knowingly or unknowingly.

Work authorization system (WAS) helps to control both scope creep and gold plating.

Adding extras are referred to as “Gold plating”.

It’s when the team member actually implements the change usually intended to impress the customers without proper approval.

Requirement traceability matrix (RTM) helps in controlling gold plating, since it tracks each feature and element in the deliverable back to the requirement. 

Explanation given in Q (The customer will probably like what I did) looks like its a Gold Plating.

pmpnewster

Wed, 07/03/2013 - 14:40

 

I don't think it is gold plating, either.

The question says, "he noticed an issue that needed to be addressed".   He fixed an issue that needed to be addressed. He did not add new functionality or beautify a user interface to impress the customer.

Maybe he fixed a software bug. Is that gold plating?

Sure, this work is not present in the WBS, but do undiscovered/potential issues or bugs get mentioned in the WBS?

When he says the customer will be happy, that is because he proactively fixed an issue thus avoiding future problems. (Not because he added new functionality).

If we classify fixing an issue as gold plating.... And we know that we need to avoid gold plating at all costs... Does it mean we should not fix discovered issues, lest we get accused of gold plating?

Overall, I guess the team member should have consulted the PM and got approval for fixing the issue. But the issue had to be fixed, won't you agree?

It would be unethical and unprofessional to know of an issue and not address it.

 

Regards.

 

Geethika

Wed, 07/03/2013 - 20:29

 Issues must be fixed of course. But only after,

(1) Properly analysed for overall impact in the project

(2) Formal change control process

Both were missing here.

Moreover, the Fix/change was not part of the project as it was not defined in WBS which makes the approval process even more important, rather than the stated reason “The customer may probably like” or a proactive solution. This leads to think its kind of gold plating.

 

tweinborg

Thu, 07/04/2013 - 03:00

 Key words are "customer will like what I did."  The fact that he "noticed an issue that needed to be addressed" doesn't mean it was an actual issue.  He made the decision that it was an issue.  Any additions or enhancements to a product that are perceived as something that a customer will appreciate or like is gold plating.

pmpnewster

Thu, 07/04/2013 - 04:09

 

Pls remember: He said it was an issue that needed to be fixed.  He did not say he was trying to make the product better. He did not say that he added/enhanced/improved anything. (The latter would have been gold plating for sure.)

How can we presume that what he considered to be an issue was not an issue?

How can we presume that he  added/enhanced/improved something?

We cannot selectively believe what we feel like. We believe it when he says the customer will like it. But we don't believe him when he says it was an issue that needed to be fixed!!??

Are we questioning the team member's technical competence (could not differentiate between an issue and extra frills) or his integrity (he was lying and trying to fool the PM)?

Just because he said the customer will like it does not mean that it was new functionality!!

Maybe the issue was something that would have surfaced a few weeks later. He just fixed it proactively. Any customer will like it. Being proactive to fix issues is certainly not gold plating.

We have to follow PMBOK Guide, but we should also be wary of extraneous information that could get into some questions, from what people write here.

We cannot base our answer on the presumption that the team member was lying or incompetent.

This question does not seem to be worded well.  Yes, it seems to hint towards gold plating. But it also refers to "issue that needed to be fixed". This weakens the gold plating theory. The question could have been worded better to make it PMIish.

Honestly, I think a lot of effort has gone into discussion on this one :)

 

Regards.