The preliminary project scope was very much influenced by the availability of resources, and any restraints on these. The conditions inside the camp itself made the project very dynamic and this had to be considered by Bushell when defining the scope. The captors could be somewhat unpredictable and take actions on a whim.
For example, POWs could end up in the "Cooler" (prison) or worse still be moved out to another camp, and certain privileges could be removed like access to Red Cross parcels. Routines were often changed to try and catch POWs off guard. Similarly, prevailing conditions outside the camp could prevent Red Cross parcels from getting through into the camp.
Bushell and the escape committee were well aware of all these factors, as many of the POWs had been incarcerated for up to 4 years. They knew the unpredictability within the camp increased the risk and so did the large scope of the project. But in the end Bushell's approach was deemed to have the best probability of success, and the original project scope remained unchanged.
You can find more about Mark's story of The Great Escape on the web at: http://www.lessons-from-history.com/.
About Part 2
In Part 2 of this case study, Mark will discuss
The Great Escape from the perspective of project risk management.