A Client Requests More Work: Record the Scope, Fee and Date Decision
The client asks for a second-site comparison and wants to keep the report date. Your team can estimate the extra work, but that is not yet a decision to do it. Keep the request, its proposed effects and the exact approval separate.
A request, an estimate and an approval answer different questions. Record what the client wants, assess the effect on the work already agreed, and identify the exact option each decision-maker has accepted. Keep the original assignment moving where it is unaffected; give the additional work a clear release decision of its own.
APM's change-control guidance separates recording and evaluating a request from deciding its outcome, updating the plan and carrying out the work. The small-team method below applies that distinction to an invented consulting assignment. Its people, records, fees and dates are fictional.
Start with the agreed assignment
In the example, a consultancy is reviewing one site's reporting process. Scope S03 names that site, two interviews, one report and one consolidated review round. The agreed fee is €4,800 and the report is due on Friday 20 November 2026. The internal estimate is six consultant days. These are the starting commitments, not figures to replace as soon as a new email arrives.
On Tuesday 10 November, the client asks for a comparison with a second site while keeping the original report date. The delivery lead acknowledges the request and promises options on Thursday. She has not promised to perform the comparison or keep its delivery on 20 November.
Keep the request connected to S03 and its supporting message. If the discussion was verbal, use the meeting-note distinctions between decisions, commitments and open questions before writing it up as an instruction.
Fill the request before estimating it
The delivery lead records the proposed difference. A request such as “include the other site” needs an output, a boundary and the inputs that would make it assessable.
| Field | Recorded request |
|---|---|
| Request and source | CR07; client message E10, received 10 November 2026 |
| Current agreement | S03: one-site review; €4,800; report on 20 November; one review round |
| Requested difference | Compare the second site's reporting process with the first and add a comparison section to the report |
| Proposed boundary | Two second-site interviews and one comparison section; no staff survey, implementation work or extra review round |
| Inputs to assess | Client-approved representative exports and process outline for the second site; interviewee availability |
| Assessment owner | Noor, delivery lead; Sam checks the senior review requirement |
| Decision route in this example | Internal partner confirms the commercial option; Ellen, the named client sponsor, confirms scope, fee and date |
| Immediate state | Requested. Assess the change; continue unaffected S03 work. Do not start the comparison. |
The decision route is part of this fictional team's arrangement. For an actual assignment, identify who can confirm feasibility and who can approve the commercial change, then use your business's agreed approval and document process. A colleague's availability check and the client's approval are separate evidence.
Estimate the difference, not the whole project again
Noor checks the extra activities rather than charging the original report a second time. These estimates assume comparable exports, two available interviewees and the same single consolidated review round.
| Additional work | Consultant days | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Check second-site inputs | 0.5 | Inspect the agreed representative exports and process outline |
| Prepare and hold two interviews | 1.0 | Two confirmed interviewees, with preparation included |
| Compare the two processes | 0.5 | One comparison against the first site's agreed scope |
| Write the comparison section | 0.5 | Use the existing report structure |
| Senior review | 0.5 | Sam reviews the comparison within the existing review round |
| Total additional effort | 3.0 | 2.5 days for Noor and 0.5 for Sam |
For this fictional quote, the team uses €800 per consultant day for both the original and added work. Six days account for the original €4,800; three additional days produce an estimated €2,400 change. The proposed total is €7,200 for nine consultant days. These invented amounts exclude taxes and expenses; neither is calculated here. They are not a recommended rate, a margin calculation or a customer result.
If the exports turn out to need substantial preparation, the three-day assessment needs revisiting. Do not silently treat an estimate based on comparable files as an agreement to fix any data problem.
Check the delivery date separately
Three consultant days do not automatically mean a three-calendar-day extension. Noor can allocate two full days on 23 and 24 November and half a day on 25 November. Sam can review on the morning of 26 November. Their checked sequence supports a combined report by the end of Thursday 26 November. It does not support the requested 20 November date.
The proposed option therefore names both its conditions: the client supplies the agreed second-site inputs by Friday 13 November, and Sam's review slot is confirmed. Noor's 2.5 days and Sam's 0.5 day are effort across those available slots, not a claim that either person is free throughout all four dates.
The client can choose the additional comparison for €2,400 with delivery on 26 November, or keep S03 unchanged at €4,800 with the one-site report on 20 November. If the original deadline is essential, assess a genuinely smaller useful output before offering it. Do not relabel a kickoff or move an existing commitment without checking the work affected.
Keep the request, estimate and approval visible
The internal partner clears the proposed commercial option on 11 November. That authorises the team to offer it; it is not evidence that the client has accepted it. Noor sends option C07-v2 on 12 November with the added scope, proposed fee, revised date and conditions together. On 13 November, the team confirms receipt of the files listed in the agreed input inventory; the detailed half-day inspection remains part of the additional work, not something already performed.
| State and evidence | Scope, fee and date recorded | What the team may do next in this example |
|---|---|---|
| Requested 10 November; E10 / CR07 | Second-site comparison requested; original date requested. No added fee or revised date agreed. | Assess CR07 and continue unaffected S03 work; no comparison work released. |
| Estimated 11 November; C07-v2 | Comparison only; +3 days and +€2,400; proposed total €7,200; report 26 November, subject to the stated inputs and review slot. | Check feasibility and present the named option. Estimated does not mean approved. |
| Internally cleared to offer 11 November; I11 | Partner confirms the proposed €2,400 change and delivery basis. Client decision still missing. | Send C07-v2; keep the added work pending. |
| Approved option 13 November; sponsor reply E13 | Ellen confirms C07-v2: comparison only, +€2,400, €7,200 total and report on 26 November. Staff survey remains excluded. | Check that E13 refers to the exact option, and confirm its conditions before release. |
| Released for the agreed work 13 November; delivery record R13 | Agreed input files received; Noor's allocation and Sam's review slot confirmed. CR07 points to E13, I11 and S03. | Issue the updated delivery brief and reserve the named slots. The added work is approved, not yet completed. |
The starting record S03 remains available. The current delivery brief links it to the approved change and identifies the resulting scope, total fee and report date. A colleague can reconstruct why the original one-site commitment now has an approved comparison alongside it without mistaking the earlier request or estimate for that decision.
If a reply says only “please go ahead” without identifying the option, ask the sponsor to confirm the unresolved scope, fee or date. If an input misses its condition or a slot is lost, return to the affected decision-makers with the consequence. Keep the previous approval and the revised proposal distinguishable.
Send a recap the delivery team can use
After the checks in R13, Noor's fictional recap can be specific:
CR07 is approved for the second-site comparison in C07-v2. The added fee is €2,400, making €7,200 in total, and the combined report is due on 26 November. We have received the agreed inputs and confirmed the named delivery and review slots. The staff survey, implementation work and extra review rounds are outside this option.
Read that recap against the actual decision evidence before sending it. Give the delivery owner the approved outputs, conditions, allocated people and current due date. Keep an unapproved suggestion out of the work list, even when it arrived in the same conversation as an approved change.
Test whether a colleague can find the current decision
Ask someone who did not handle CR07 to find the original commitment, the added work requested, the option approved, its fee and date, and the evidence releasing it to delivery. If they cannot separate an open request from an approved instruction, fix the record before adding another reminder.
When evaluating Konekt CRM, use this fictional record set to test how your intended setup would make the current decision and its supporting documents retrievable from the relevant client or opportunity. Verify the required configuration, access and plan. Keep detailed fee calculations, scheduling and approval evidence in your existing reliable tools until the intended workflow has been demonstrated; this example does not establish built-in change control or scheduling.
The useful next step is a human decision: confirm the exact option with the responsible people, then give the delivery team a brief that matches it.