Many of us faces scope creeps during project implementation.
It sometime creates dillema. If we allow it, that means we do additional work with no additional pay.
But if we reject it, customer can get upset. Expect to get complain "why you request payment for such small work", etc.
Once I dodge scope creep using below strategy:
"Offer customer significant additional scopes on top of what customer asks in scope creep, so it becomes reasonable to charge for additional fee."
If customer takes the offer, you get add-on sales and customer gets what they want.
If customer refuses the offer, they are usually not disappointed too much and you don’t need to do free job.
Sometimes, it's a big dillema for me cause I'm an ownerside project manager. I am between the internal customer change requests (not always formal), and the suppliers demands of extra payments. But it's key role of a PM to manage that situation. Saving Changes...
this is the benefit of having a scope management plan which will ensure there is agreement between all parties on what constitutes a meaningful change.
Kiron Saving Changes...
Drew CraigSr. Agile & Product Coach| VanguardPhiladelphia, Pa, United States
These can be challenging situations, but keeping it simple is easiest approach. If I have $1 to get a candy bar, but see another one I like at checkout, I can't simply get both b/c I now want the other option, one or the other :) Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Hi Mochamad,
Putting additional focus and effort into planning (e.g. scope and change management plans) is always a good idea, but situations like the one you described will still occur on occasion as customers will always gravitate to reasoning and justifications that serve their personal interest – and that occurs regardless of prior commitments and/or agreements.
Your approach to "dodging scope creep" is creative and in my opinion appropriate. Project managers (internal or external) need to have "defensive strategies" for dealing with project boundary issues, recognizing they occur even when methodological due-diligence has been executed.
