Is there just unique and solid scope for the whole project?

Chorus singing the same lines

In my experience, every stakeholder is (more or less deftly) pursuing his/her own interpretation of the scope. Lacking effective communication between the project manager and stakeholders drastically reduces the success’ chances of the project. The project manager should act like the choirmaster. Conducting all different “voices” with a single music (according to the “sponsor” outline) Here below you will find my stakeholders’ taxonomy. (Any crossbreeding situation can produce extraordinary results).

Freelance developers:

• It shall be a source for improving professional skills, especially with easier to sell technologies.
  An offer to grow up through quality could pave the way for interesting bargains.
• Do not kill themselves because of other engagements (due to a low wage).
  Do you remember the Iron Triangle? In this situation lower effort (available money) increases the time and/or reduces the scope.

Payroll-developers:

• Knowledge (of the environment) is power. The volatility of this matter could threaten the holder. The defense of status quo ante (legacy?) could be a strong temptation.
  The tendency to read each task at the company’s culture “light” is a good source for seeking better ways to deal with conflicts.

Systems engineers:

• The longing to survive among the pressing demands for pushing (old) machines to impossible performances.
  A good “feasibility study” shall include the analysis of existing network.

Business analysts:

• Sometimes the frailty of this position (a bridge between customer and producers) could push for leaning toward a bigger scope.
  Any reference to the business case is essential.

Project manager:

• Sitting [sic] between a rock (producers) and hard places (various kinds of) customers; he/she tends to share his/her loyalty between the source of power (sr management and/or customer) and the newly born creature.
  Cura te ipsum.

Customer representative(s):

• Whatever is proposed is pricey (excluding the “small” changes).
  Is the Business Case good enough? If yes, the PM should spend some energy for selling it better.
• Technical people have no grasp about this specific business.
  Diplomacy requires good manners, like using the same lingo.
• The price does not include the interview-time with our final users (often the real domain experts).
  Has the WBS been understood and accepted by all stakeholders?

Final users (from manager department to the operators)

• The eavesdropping activity (including meetings) delivers strange rumors about the available features. Often the training times shall be squeezed into the ordinary activities. This will increase the “disaffection” toward the novelties.
  Has the project manager spent some energies to understand how the new workflow will fit in the current organization?

Senior managers

• They simply need things done.
  At the beginning, all the PM’s power comes from their endorsement. Later, the goodness of the project’s results would improve the balance. However, their need for good results asks for their involvement.

Conclusion

The next project, instead of blaming whimsical (external) stakeholders, the project manager should spend some energy to understand, then mapping every person who participates to the project. The identification process can be started with a simple spreadsheet. However, a database could keep tracing the evolution of the relationships. From this, the project manager should be able to conceive a survival strategy and all derived tactics.
The necessity to buy-in sponsors from any internal player and then to sell the results also to the external ones needs a thorough knowledge of many trades.