In brief
Revisions become contentious when the original brief and acceptance criteria are vague. A change process should distinguish correcting agreed work from adding a new requirement.
Revisions become contentious when the original brief and acceptance criteria are vague. A change process should distinguish correcting agreed work from adding a new requirement.
Revisions become contentious when the original brief and acceptance criteria are vague. A change process should distinguish correcting agreed work from adding a new requirement.
Record the change reference, original requirement, revised requirement, reason, and effect on price and timing. Identify the person authorised to approve it and the date the revised instruction takes effect. Make clear whether the supplier should pause affected work while a decision is pending. This prevents a discussion about an option from being mistaken for an instruction to proceed.
After approval, update the working scope and tell the people responsible for delivery and acceptance. Keep the original and revised records linked. At closeout, check completed work against the approved version rather than reconstructing decisions from scattered messages.
Consider this hypothetical example.
A buyer asks for a new integration during a project review. First decide whether it corrects an agreed requirement or adds a new one. Ask for the effect on development, testing, cost, and launch timing. Record the approved change in the current brief. This avoids treating every revision as either automatically free or automatically chargeable and helps the delivery team work from one accepted definition of the project.
Approve the revised output and its consequences together rather than treating each conversation as a new instruction.
Explore all Media, Marketing & IT supplier guides for UAE buyers.