This worked case is part of the scope creep adjudication guide, which covers what to inventory before a PSA migration. Here the job is to walk one hard case end to end, so a professional services automation consultant can recognize the same pattern at a client.
The engagement before anything went wrong
Illustrative only. A 180-person IT consulting firm runs a fixed-fee data platform engagement for a regional retailer. SOW version 2, signed on February 3, covers the platform build plus 120 hours of handover support after launch. Time is logged in the firm's PSA against project and task codes, and SOWs live in its contract tool.
Fixed fee matters for what follows. Microsoft's Project Operations documentation describes the general difference: time and material lines can carry a not-to-exceed limit that caps revenue, while a fixed-price line carries a value that does not move with costs incurred. On fixed-fee work, unplanned hours show up as effort with no revenue behind it, which is exactly what makes this case hard to see. Time and materials vs managed services covers the commercial side of that choice.
The case, step by step
Each step names the record that captured it. Read down the last column: that is the evidence chain.
| Step | Date | What happened | Record created | System |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Feb 3 | SOW version 2 signed: build plus 120 hours of handover support | Signed SOW, version 2 | Contract tool |
| 2 | Mar 11 | Client asks: "Could your analyst also refresh the weekly sales dashboard? Should be quick." | Email with no project or task code | |
| 3 | Mar 12 to May 30 | Analyst logs 6 hours a week (72 hours in all) to the handover support task | Approved weekly time entries | PSA |
| 4 | Jun 2 | Project manager sees handover hours at 112 of 120 with two months left | Budget report | PSA |
| 5 | Jun 4 | Change request CR-07 raised: weekly refresh as a recurring service, 6 hours a week | Change request with scope and hours | PSA |
| 6 | Jun 9 | Delivery director approves; account lead agrees to absorb the 72 hours already worked as goodwill | Approval with written comment | PSA |
| 7 | Jun 16 | SOW version 3 signed, adding the refresh at a monthly fee from July | Signed SOW, version 3 | Contract tool |
| 8 | Sep 30 | Quarterly review notes the client renewed the refresh service | Review note | CRM |
Step 3 is where the creep hides. The time entries went through normal approval: in a system like Project Operations, team members submit entries and project approvers approve them, and rejected entries come back for correction. Each week's 6 hours was approved because it was logged to a legitimate task. Nothing in the time record says the work was out of scope.
Who decided what
The case turns on three decisions, made by three different people. This table separates them.
| Decision | Who made it | What they decided | Where it was recorded | What would be lost without it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Say yes to the favor | Analyst, informally | Do the refresh without raising it | Nowhere; implied by time entries | The start of the exception |
| Name the exception | Project manager | Treat the refresh as out of scope | Change request CR-07 | The link between hours and request |
| Adjudicate | Delivery director with account lead | Absorb 72 past hours; bill future hours | Approval comment on CR-07 | The reasoning behind the outcome |
| Contract the outcome | Client and firm | Add a recurring monthly service | SOW version 3 | The commercial result |
The June 9 comment is the record that matters most. The director split one problem into two: past hours written off as goodwill, future hours billed. Without the March email and the June comment, the history shows only a support task that ran over and an unrelated amendment.
Why this sequence is useful evidence
A case like this is valuable because it captures judgment under commercial pressure, with the outcome checked months later. Four properties make it useful rather than merely complete:
- A clear baseline. SOW version 2 states what was promised, so the exception can be measured against it.
- A visible trigger. The budget report on June 2 shows how the firm noticed, not just that it did.
- A reasoned decision. The approval comment explains the split, which a bare approval flag would not.
- A checked result. The September renewal shows the decision held up with the client.
Microsoft's project-to-profit guidance treats processing project change requests as a step of its own, next to estimating, negotiating and maintaining contracts. That matches what this case shows: the change request is the hinge record, and firms that kept it with its comment have adjudication history; firms that approved by phone have only hours and amendments. The exception workflows guide draws the same line for purchasing, and the accounts payable exception process shows it in finance.
How to recognize similar cases at a client
A PSA consultant does not need to open a single record to spot this pattern. Listen for these signals:
- Support or handover tasks that regularly run over budget on fixed-fee work.
- Change requests raised late in a project, after hours were already spent.
- Goodwill write-offs mentioned in project reviews or margin discussions.
- SOW amendments that add recurring services to project engagements.
- A delivery director who can tell the story of a specific case from memory, which suggests the decision was discussed and probably written down.
Then ask, at metadata level: roughly how many change requests a year, how many were absorbed versus billed, whether approvals carry comments, and how many years the PSA and contract tool cover. The data scope worksheet gives the firm a format for those counts, and the system map shows which identifiers join the records across tools.
Rights sit above the delivery director. SOWs and client emails usually carry confidentiality terms, so counsel decides what could ever be licensed and what would need removing or de-identifying first; the who-can-license page names the executive. The introduced company needs 50+ full-time employees at peak (contractors excluded), a documented operating history, rights to license the records and an authorized contact. Companies in the U.S., Canada and the EU qualify, as do companies in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, India, Singapore, South Africa, Latin America, the UAE and Saudi Arabia when at least 90% of the data is in English. Unknown until SourceX reviews it: buyer interest, the rights review result and any terms. Partners sign the Channel Partner Agreement before submitting introductions, and the first valid introduction within the 90-day window is credited when the company submits a verified application. The referral brief template turns the counts into a note.
Next step
Refer a company. Earn up to $100,000. Default reward: 25% of Actual Supplier Payout, capped at $100,000 cumulatively per referred company. Eligibility and payment conditions apply, and a signed Schedule A or addendum can differ. A lead, meeting or signature alone does not trigger payment.
If a client's delivery director can point to change requests that carry the reason for each absorb-or-bill decision, register as a partner, check the firm on who qualifies and read the program terms before you suggest an introduction.