Project Change Request Cost Impact Review Rate

A project team receives a request to add work. The proposed price looks small, but it may require extra testing, supplier time and support later.

Project change request cost impact review rate measures the share of eligible change decisions supported by a documented assessment of their financial effect, so define the eligible change, since a cosmetic note may not need a full estimate while a new customer deliverable usually does. PMI discusses scope change as an investment decision with potential need for added funding and time.

APQC describes engineering change orders as documented proposals that identify affected products and seek review from change-control authority. These examples support deliberate impact review, not a universal approval threshold, and cost review should happen before approving or rejecting the change unless a documented emergency process applies.

Capture direct cost, as labour, materials, equipment and subcontractor charges may rise or fall, and indirect impact, since rework, testing, warranty and operational support can matter even when no new material is bought. Check schedule cost, because a delay or acceleration can change overtime, mobilization or financing needs.

Check revenue and price too: the customer may agree to pay, but a proposed quote is not approved recoverable revenue. Preserve the baseline by showing the original budget and forecast to complete before adding the change, and avoid double counting, since one subcontractor quote can appear in both direct cost and contingency if not reconciled.

Check assumptions, because a preliminary estimate with uncertain scope should show range and confidence, and consider alternatives, as a lower-cost way to meet the customer's need may exist with a different schedule or function. Record approvals, since project manager, finance and customer can have different authority for budget and contract terms.

Choose the denominator by counting proposed decisions above a declared materiality threshold or all formal requests, and define review carefully, because a field saying cost reviewed is weak without estimate, assumptions and responsible reviewer. A valid assessment can conclude no material cost change, but it must explain why, and a request awaiting vendor quotes should remain pending rather than quietly excluded.

Separate implementation, since a reviewed change can still overrun its estimate and actuals should be tracked later, and check currency and taxes, because multi-country procurement needs conversion assumptions and an estimate date while project pricing and tax treatment vary by location and contract, so seek specialist input. Avoid sunk-cost bias, as money already spent does not make new work automatically justified, and track rejected changes, because the cost estimate can explain rejection and help future planning without becoming authorized work.

Keep the version, since a scope revision after review may invalidate the estimate, segment risk so safety or compliance changes are not dismissed because their near-term cost is high, explain material financial effects to the client under the contract before making promises, and audit samples by comparing approved scope, estimate, funding decision and cost baseline update. Check savings claims, internal displacement and forecast timing: removing work may reduce the forecast, but cancellation charges or committed supplier capacity can offset savings; a change using existing staff still has an opportunity cost if it delays other committed work; and a change approved after a monthly forecast cutoff belongs in the next controlled baseline rather than silently rewriting the prior snapshot, so use this rate to make financial effects visible before project commitments are changed.