Change Request Analysis
An impact analysis and decision record for adding two data-feed sources to the AHI application.
Public review note: The scenario is educational and sanitized. Names, dates, figures, identifiers, and other details have been changed or generalized for privacy and security.
Request summary
Proposed change
Incorporate two newly identified data-feed sources as inputs to the AHI app.
Preliminary impact
$2,500 for licensing and activation, with approximately two weeks to make the feeds available.
Change type
Scope, schedule, budget, and data integration.
Recommendation
Accept with modifications.
Reason for change
The first feed provides advanced global sales data in the skin-care product industry and is updated weekly. The second provides improved demographic analytics to support product segmentation and positioning. These needs were identified after the initial requirements and data-source review, so they were not included in the original baseline.
Impact analysis
| Area | Finding |
|---|---|
| Scope | Expand app inputs and update requirements, data mapping, integration work, user stories, and acceptance criteria. |
| Work products | Update requirements, architecture/interface documentation, WBS, backlog, schedule, budget, test plan, and stakeholder communications. |
| Quality | Validate data accuracy, completeness, freshness, compatibility, access controls, and weekly refresh behavior before acceptance. |
| Schedule | Licensing and activation add approximately two weeks and may move integration, testing, and launch milestones. |
| Budget / ROI | Preliminary increase is $2,500; the revised baseline would be $252,500 if the original $250,000 budget is used. Benefits are improved sales visibility and demographic segmentation; quantitative ROI still requires confirmation. |
| People / resources | Project management, IT/data integration, Marketing, Leadership, and testing resources must coordinate the change. |
| Dependencies / risks | Licensing approval, source availability, technical compatibility, data quality, security/privacy review, team capacity, and timely sponsor approval. |
Implementation options
| Option | Approach | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Accept as-is | Approve both feeds immediately and update the baseline. | Fastest path to value, but commits the project before licensing, compatibility, and ROI are confirmed. Not recommended. |
| 2. Accept with modifications | Approve conditionally after licensing and technical-fit checks; add $2,500 and two weeks to the baseline; phase integration and testing with acceptance criteria. | Recommended. Preserves business benefit while controlling scope, cost, quality, and schedule risk. |
| 3. Defer | Keep the current baseline and revisit the feeds after Version 1. | Avoids immediate cost and delay but postpones benefits and may create rework. |
| 4. Reject | Do not add the feeds. | Protects the baseline but loses the stated sales and demographic benefits. |
| 5. Further analysis required | Complete licensing, technical compatibility, security, and ROI analysis before commitment. | Useful as a quick gate, but should not create avoidable schedule delay. |
Decision recommendation
ACCEPT WITH MODIFICATIONS. Approve the change conditionally, subject to confirming licensing and technical compatibility, validating the $2,500 estimate, confirming the two-week schedule impact, and obtaining sponsor approval. Update scope, schedule, budget, test plan, and communications after approval.
Follow-up actions
- Log the change and publish it on the project site.
- Update scope, requirements, WBS, backlog, architecture, and acceptance criteria.
- Update schedule and budget after sponsor approval.
- Complete licensing, security, compatibility, data-quality, and integration checks.
- Update the status report and communicate the decision.
- Confirm implementation, testing, and final acceptance of both feeds.