Memos and Scope Creep

TO: Senior Project Managers

FROM: Head of PMO

DATE: August 16, 2022

SUBJECT: Scope Creep

Even the most carefully managed projects can fall prey to scope creep. If project scope is defined as “the sum of the products, services, and results to be provided as a project,” when new requirements unexpectedly or even expectedly arise this can create scope creep (PMBOK Guide, n.d., p.84). Experience suggests that there are certain factors which can increase the risk of scope creep, such as a complex work breakdown structure (WBS), where a delay in one area of the project can lead to a cascading spiral of delays elsewhere, or if there is a lack of clarity about which group is doing what, which can lead to redundancy and inefficiencies (PMBOK Guide, n.d.). The definition of done (DoD) can likewise create scope creep; although having rigorous beta-testing and controls regarding such a definition may seem optimal and admirable, if such standards are very high, this can create a cascading series of delays (PMBOK Guide, n.d.).

There must also be clear definitions of quality standards before the project begins to prevent scope creep. Standards must be acceptable, yet realistic given the budget and the resources at hand. While it is tempting to say that the ideal is the highest possible quality that can be realized, time demands and the actual resources at hand often exert inevitable limits upon uniformly high quality in every area. Instead, customer needs and the specific objectives of bringing the project to market must act as a guide in setting priorities, so the company knows when to outsource or economize, and when to focus its internal resources on the unique value proposition offered to the customer. If not, then different members of the project team can be overly focused upon their own responsibilities and lack a greater sense of urgency to complete the project as a whole.

As scope is defined, it creates the need for communication between the different members of the team, so they understand the project timetable, the importance of their requirements in the construction of the project, and the need to conserve resources of time and labor, as well as maintain a high standard of quality. Of course, depending upon the needs of the project this may vary, as some projects may put timeliness ahead of quality and vice versa. Regardless, one issue which often arises in scope creep is the fact that while the actual stated deliverables and needs of the project are one thing, the culture of the organization can work against the desire to minimize scope creep.

For example, a heavily bureaucratic organization which requires approval for even the most minimal of independent decisions can make it difficult for a project to evolve in an agile and responsive manner, when the requirements change based upon environmental shifts and the needs of the project (Banister-Hazama & Hazama, 2014). Geographically diffuse organizations, or organizations where there are few face-to-face meetings between teams can also result in scope creep, due to a lack of internal accountability within the project.

Business plan goals and objectives must be clear in a concrete fashion relative to the project, for the project to succeed (Banister-Hazama & Hazama, 2014). Again, this may vary greatly depending upon the nature of the project, as a project which merely revamps an existing product to generate excitement and buzz will have a much narrower scope and a much shorter timetable than a revolutionary project which entirely shifts the way the company does business. Even relatively small organizations must cope with projects that have different standards, team components, and levels of quality expectations. But such expectations and requirements must be determined beforehand, versus allowing projects to spiral out of control due to unclear or shifting scheduling or quality expectations. Planning and communication are required to avoid the costs of scope creep.