Scope - To creep or not to creep, that is the question.

Welcome to Common Sense Implementations latest article. This article focuses on one of the key causes for an implementation, or any project, to be delivered late or to poor quality, Scope Creep. It is a topic that has been discussed and debated to great length but continues to best even the most experienced Project Managers. Why is this? Well, to use another famous literary quote, “To err is human.”

Now we are not saying that all scope creep is due to human error, or that scope creep is always wrong. Scope is the tightrope that every project must walk along until is it delivered. The idea of this article was born out of a conversation had last week with a company founder, within the Wealth industry. They said the original idea for their proposition was one that they believe will change the way people think and operate. They are sticking to this until it is fully delivered. They are picking up clients on the way, but the founder said that “we are not right for all clients currently, and that is fine with us.” “We will continue to deliver what we see is the right thing to do, and eventually most firms will see the benefit of using us, but early adopters will reap more of the reward.” This was very refreshing to hear. In an industry which has an increasing trend for firms to rush to build a Minimum Viable Product (MVP), just to win one client, and then build out the product to suit that one client. The problem they then find is they must then rebuild the product for the next client, ultimately creating a final proposition that is costly to support, does not deliver what it was originally trying to achieve and is of lower quality.

A company’s idea for a proposition is just another word for scope. This Founder is the Project Sponsor. The Project Sponsor in this example is ensuring the implementation avoids scope creep, unless necessary. No large client, with lots of money, is going to change the fundamental principals of the project, because the Founder deems the end proposition to be one that will eventually, not only win the large client but many other clients.

So why do all projects not just do this? Stick rigidly to the project scope and then you will deliver what you want, why the debate? The answer is very simple, things change. Using the above example, the Founder is sticking to the scope BUT, they are not saying there will NEVER be changes to the scope, just no changes to the fundamentals of their product. Every project will have an element of change because industry changes daily and people change. Maybe some part of the original scope was wrong, somebody key was missed in the scoping stage, as we said people do err. Maybe a new regulation comes in mid-project and the scope must change. Maybe new technology is delivered which allows a better overall delivery to a project. Maybe the budget is cut, and the delivery has to be sped up, or with a reduced scope. This is the tightrope that must be constantly walked, and each step closely monitored.

A good Project Sponsor, Project Steering Committee and Project Manager, will be tracking the project scope. Identifying early if there is a possibility of scope creep and communicating effectively. If a decision needs to be made around the scope, the Project Manager should do an impact analysis on project budget, timelines and quality, and then deliver that to the decision makers. The decision makers (Steering Committee and/or Project Sponsor) have the tough job then of ensuring they remove any emotion out of their decisions, stick to their convictions and make decisions based off the information provided, ensuring first the information is in fact correct. If those making the decisions cannot make them, or do not have strength of their conviction, a project will quickly get delayed and/or deliver an inadequate output.

So, what is the moral of this story I hear you ask? To creep or not to creep? Like all good debating topics, there is no one right answer. Each potential for scope creep needs to be looked at in isolation. What we can do is ensure the right things are in place to get the best outcomes, which are:

1)      Ensure the initial scope and the business case of a project/implementation is well documented and referred to.

2)     The right structure is set-up so that those who needs to make the decisions are in the position to do so.

3)     Good communication lines and monitoring tools are in place to identify early any potential changes to the scope.

4)     Impact analysis based on budget, timelines and output quality are documented and based on fact, for any possible change to scope.

5)     Those making the decisions remove any emotion, base their decisions on the facts in hand and have conviction when making their decision.

In addition, the decisions and scope changes should be documented for future reference and for audit purposes.

Thank you for taking time in reading this article. Like any article of this nature, it is written from our viewpoint based on our experiences within the field. We are very much open to constructive discussion and debate on this or any topic, as collaboration between Change Specialists should lead to better project delivery outcomes for end clients. Plus, it makes common sense 😊.