The definition of underlying infrastructure in the context of the question relates to the fabric that supports the services rendered for a given collection of systems such as example cabling, power, cooling, etc.

Currently it isn't clear if the project is responsible for defining these or simply subscribes to existing capabilities. For example, if a given system is deployed that requires a certain amount of power, does the project simply communicate this or does it need to expand on existing requirements.

The scope of the project thus far has been to deliver the system.


Whether the project delivers this, or whether it is an agency external to the project that feeds in to the project, is entirely down to the scope definition and practises at the company- there is no law that says what a project may or may not deliver, even for identical projects or deliverables in different organisations

Look to your project brief and your scope definitions. Determine whether Solution and/or Technical architects are present in the organisation, determine the process used in the past to define and manage the infrastructure deliveries and then figure out if you need those resources in the project team and encapsulate all the findings and arrangements in the Project Initiation Document, including Roles & Responsibilities.

  • 1
    Marv's first paragraph can apply even for apparently identical projects within the same organisation! - Some places work on the basis that infrastructure is "free" if there is capacity available, but the next project that comes along has to purchase the next chunk of capacity if the existing capacity is inadequate. Inequitable? - probably. Simple? - yes. – Iain9688 Dec 2 '15 at 17:16
  • @Iain9688 - Thanks. How does that worked with something that is perceived to be a shared service or product? – Motivated Dec 3 '15 at 17:27
  • It only works if everyone understands that they are acting in the best interests of the wider organisation, either as winners or losers. In effect, the organisation has chosen not to build shared infrastructure as a separate project. Where I have seen this working, the organisation has been prepared to accept a business case based on the "conventional" model, and fund the additional infrastructure spend separately as a necessary cost, and the project is given funding to deliver the infrastructure it needs, with a bit of spare capacity for expansion or for the next project to use. – Iain9688 Dec 3 '15 at 22:35
  • @Iain9688 - Thanks. If the project is given the additional funding, is the general view that the infrastructure is limited to the project or is it the case when the next project comes along it benefits from the first? – Motivated Dec 5 '15 at 6:23
  • It depends on the circumstances. If the project needs all of the capacity it buys, then there is no subsequent benefit. If the project has to buy more capacity than it needs, then the next project can benefit. For example, you can't buy half of a switch or half of a cabinet, and the rules state that you buy agreed, standard kit, so you are not allowed to buy a smaller cheaper switch. You get to use the half that you need, and the next project gets to use the rest at no cost. – Iain9688 Dec 5 '15 at 9:28

Your Answer

