Thanks for sharing your research on the subject.

I am taking a PM course, and was requested (a few weks ago) to post the pros & cons of “gold plating.” I ran into your post today and have cut-n-pasted my exact post below. Note that the YouTube link contains my work in safety. Take care! Paul

———

Posted by Paul Sheridan Wed Apr 7 13:44:59 2010.
Reply: Before we can discuss these questions with any degree of competence or integrity we need to review the blatant duplicity and confusion that already exists in the literature regarding this “gold plating” vernacular.

Slide 6 says:

“Gold Plating: Gold plating refers to giving the customer extras. For example giving extra functionality, higher-quality components, and extra scope or better performance.”

So here the literature describes a situation (better performance”) where the customer IS receiving value that will be of benefit and will be realized/used. But then that slide references a link (www.snyders.us/contractor-consultant.htm that says:

“The Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) describes gold-platting as ‘giving the customer extras (extra functionality, higher-quality components, extra scope of work or better performance).’ The PMBOK position is that ‘gold-plating adds no value to the project.’ “
Note the second sentence blatantly contradicts the first.
The Sharyn Brotz paper entitled, “The Positive Side of Gold Plating- Introducing the Concept of Scope Interpretation Bandwidth” says (edited):

“ ‘Gold plating: PMI does not recommend giving the customer extras (e.g. extra functionality, higher-quality components, extra scope of work or better performance). Gold-plating adds no value to the project. Often such additions are included based on the project team’s impression of what the customer would like. This impression may not be accurate. Considering that only 26% of all projects succeed, project managers would be better off spending their time conforming to requirements (PMP Exam Prep Guide, 2nd Edition, Beaver’s Pond Press, 2000). ’

There are so many objectionable and arguable phrases within this paragraph . . . What makes REQUIREMENTS indicators of project success? Who wrote the requirements? . . . requirements typically portray a functional need, addressing WHAT is desired and not HOW these needs will be provided.”

So, if it is clear that the so-called PM experts cannot agree on what the vernacular “gold plating” refers to, how are we to answer the DQ questions?

Obviously the current definitional status (i.e. Tower of Babble confusion) forces an answer of ‘It depends,’ and in response to BOTH DQ questions. With that answer, let me offer an example where so-called “gold plating” is not merely “a good management practice,” but an ethical requirement that has been upheld repeatedly as-such in the courts.

When someone buys an automobile, the essential scope statement constrains the manufacturer to many “customer requirements” including “Compliance with all applicable government regulations” (That is an industry quote.). However, if we adhere to the PMI recommendation of not giving the auto customer “extra scope,” will we have fulfilled our duty to “a good management practice, and/or can we hide behind the PMI notion that we were justified to renege based on an anticipation of an inaccurate “impression of what the customer would like”? Not a chance.

The US government, to this day, still does not require installation of a simple, inexpensive device called brake-transmission shift interlock (BTSI). Therefore, BTSI is not implicit in any auto manufacturer’s product scope statement. As such, under the PMI definition, BTSI is an “extra.” Try telling that to Mr. Todd Golden, or Ms. Amy Dawson, or Ms. Donna Saderfield :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=corrR7Wx8Bo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oppQrqf54-E&feature=related

Outside the US, BTSI is almost universally a government requirement so the issue of “gold plating” cannot apply to BTSI or its management. But the question arises:

Are project managers constrained by customer requirements that the customer may or may not have the expertise to request/demand? And if the answer is yes, does this denigrate the “extra” to that of “gold plating”?

In this context, product safety, the answer to the first DQ question is clear: We maintain the well-being of our customers and users of our products; an obvious advantage. If the context is a few extra lines of software code, that may or may not delay the project or may not provide “extra performance,” then there are distinct disadvantages and it may amount to poor management practice.

Quite frankly the term “gold plating” is offensive (at any level), meant to be biased/biasing, amounts to street talk, and as-such has no place in diligent/conscientious discussions about or within project management. Certainly we can derive a more suitable term for the broad contexts and issues involved.