Treat a new request as a decision about scope, learning, time and support. Explain its purpose, estimate its effect and agree what it replaces or defers. Obtain the required employer and academic approval, update the current brief and tell learners which earlier expectation has changed before they act.
Capture the request before accepting the work
A new request often arrives as a helpful suggestion during a review: compare another product, add an interview or turn the analysis into a working tool. Write down what is being requested and why. Ask whether it corrects a misunderstanding, responds to new evidence or reflects a new business preference. These reasons may justify different decisions. The group should not assume that every suggestion from a senior stakeholder is immediately compulsory.
Identify who has authority to decide. A mentor may approve business relevance while the academic lead needs to assess learning and workload. Additional data, external contact or technology access can require another owner. Bring the right people into the decision instead of asking learners to negotiate conflicting responsibilities alone. Work already started without approval can make a sensible refusal feel more difficult, which is why the request should be captured early.
Show the trade-off in concrete terms
Estimate what the change requires: learner hours, new preparation, information access, supervision and revised evidence. Identify which existing task will be reduced, removed or postponed. If nothing can move, explain the likely consequence for quality or timing. A statement that the addition is small should be supported by the actual work involved, particularly when it requires a tool or method learners have not used before.
Check whether the revised task still provides the intended learning opportunities. Removing a method review to make room for an extra presentation may weaken the educational purpose. Conversely, replacing a redundant output with a more relevant investigation may improve it. Ask whether the request belongs in a future project rather than this one. A useful idea does not become urgent merely because it arose during the current activity.
Approve and communicate one revised baseline
Record the decision, reason, affected outputs, new dates and responsible owners. Update the authoritative brief and milestone plan together. Learners need to know what remains required, what has been replaced and whether assessment expectations change through the institution’s process. Do not leave the original list in one document while a different list circulates through messages. A short change note can link the versions without forcing participants to reconstruct the conversation.
If the change is declined, explain the reason and record any future action. A respectful refusal can preserve trust when it makes the capacity boundary understandable. If a dependency remains unresolved, state which work can continue safely and which must pause. Avoid allowing provisional approval to look like permission for unapproved access or external contact.
Review accumulated changes. Several individually modest additions may create a materially different project. Compare the current workload with the original capacity and learning purpose at each milestone. At closure, assess the approved final scope and capture what the change process taught the partners about preparing a better brief next time.
Illustrative case: an extra comparison halfway through
Fictional Fallow College is analysing an approved support guide when the employer asks for a comparison with a second product line. The team has three weeks remaining and has not received approved material for that product. Its tutor captures the request and asks what decision the comparison would support. The mentor explains that it would help a future planning discussion, rather than the current learning objective.
The parties decide to finish the original analysis and add a short list of questions for a later comparison. The revised handover scope is documented, while the second product study remains a future possibility. Learners do not search private systems for material to satisfy the request. This fictional decision demonstrates that acknowledging a useful idea does not require absorbing it into an already committed workload.
A checklist for your next step
- Capture the request, reason and decision owner.
- Estimate effects on learning, workload, access and timing.
- Identify what the change replaces or defers.
- Update the authoritative brief and communicate the approved baseline.
Common questions
Can learners agree a small change directly with the mentor?
Follow the agreed authority boundaries. A change affecting assessment, access or workload should reach the relevant institutional owner, even when it sounds small.
What if work has already started on an unapproved addition?
Pause the affected part and review its implications. Record a decision before allowing effort already spent to determine the remaining scope.
Further reading
These primary resources provide related background. They do not validate the illustrative example or endorse AcadNexus.
AI-assisted drafting and automated technical checks. Examples are illustrative; no independent expert review or real-world outcome validation is claimed. Read our editorial policy.