Handling Urgent Requirement Insertion: Risks, Benefits, and Process

This article, authored by a project‑management specialist from iQIYI PMO, discusses the challenges that project managers face when urgent requirements are inserted into an ongoing project.

It defines an urgent requirement as a high‑priority demand with a tight deadline that usually consumes more resources than normal requests and often brings additional business opportunities or higher revenue.

The author identifies two extreme mistakes: (1) strictly rejecting all urgent requests, which may cause missed business opportunities; (2) accepting every urgent request, which can damage team morale and increase costs.

Four project types are introduced, based on time‑sensitivity and replacement cost:

PC WEB / backend projects – low time pressure, low replacement cost.

Plugin / tool projects – moderate time pressure, low replacement cost.

Activity‑type projects – strong time pressure, low replacement cost.

Main‑line APP projects – strong time pressure, high replacement cost.

For each project stage (e.g., pre‑review, formal review, development, testing, BAT testing, etc.) the article lists the specific impacts of inserting an urgent requirement and gives concrete recommendations. For example, during the pre‑review stage the impact is minimal, while during BAT testing the impact on development and testing is severe.

The core decision‑making framework consists of six key questions that must be answered before discussing whether to insert the requirement:

Has the demand side (operations/product) reached consensus?

What concrete benefits does inserting the requirement now bring compared with the next release?

Is the solution already clarified?

Has feasibility and effort been evaluated?

What are the scope, risks, and possible side effects?

How will the version schedule and content change?

Based on the answers, the project manager can either support the insertion or reject it. If rejecting, they should try to persuade the demand side; if supporting, they follow a defined urgent‑requirement workflow:

Hold an urgent‑requirement review meeting with all team leaders to assess impact and risk.

If both the project manager and quality‑control side oppose, increase the cost/threshold for insertion.

If the project manager supports but quality‑control opposes, seek alternative processes or tools to mitigate impact.

After approval, formally notify all teams (e.g., via email).

The article concludes with reflective questions for continuous improvement, such as tracking the frequency of requirement insertions, analyzing their causes, and exploring more flexible development or management practices.