Major Sponsor/Stakeholder who wants to make a major change that significantly affects at least one of the big three- scope, schedule, budget.
Given the Project Control are in place , it would appear that a change request should be routine to handle because Project Control and processes in place should make dealing with the change request routine
Do you agree with this statement?
What situations maybe driven by stakeholders might cause you to be forced to ignore processes you already set up to handle change?
Whether the requested or required changes to the existing arrangement can be considered "routine" is entirely dependent upon the scale of the project and the technical and financial obstacles that might stand in the way of what some might otherwise consider a perfunctory modification. Scope, schedule and budget are intertwined; a change to one may affect the others. The question provides few pertinent details regarding the hypothetical change requested by a major stakeholder. That leaves the question open to myriad interpretations. If the stakeholder in question decides that the budget must contract, than it is reasonable to expect that the scope of the project must similarly contract. After all, it is quite difficult to do more with less. If the budget is expected to shrink, then what effect does that have on scope and schedule? It would presumably limit the scope, but the schedule could be sped up because of the lower amount of work involved, or it could be stretched out or kept the same, requiring modifications to the existing production line.
Similarly, a change in the scope would have certain ramifications for the budget. Expanding the scope could entail increased financial commitments. Shrinking the scope could, depending upon agreements with all parties, shrink the budget, or it could cause unit cost to increase as a penalty that one party must pay for late-in-the-game modifications. In other words, economies of scale could be lost, with per unit costs increasing as a result. A change to the schedule implemented to accommodate the aforementioned stakeholder could certainly increase cost if the schedule contracts without a commensurate reduction in total volume to be produced. Would additional shifts be required to meet shortened time-lines? Would additional infrastructure, including plant size and equipment, be needed to accommodate the new schedule? All of this involves major budgetary implications.
Whether and how much the three components of the hypothetical process are affected by a change to one is dependent upon a number of variables. It would be a little careless, however, to suggest that existing project controls are sufficient to prevent untoward developments in the business process in question. The devil, as the saying goes, is in the details, and the question simply does not provide any of those details.