Project Management

Please login or join to subscribe to this thread

PM Myth #2: “Scope Creep Is Always Bad” ---- Project Management Myths We Should Rethink

linkedin twitter facebook  
avatar
Zakaria Botros
Community Champion
Project Manager | Driving Clean Energy Innovations for a Sustainable Future| Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Ontario, Canada

**Shoutout to the community for a great suggestion on this one.



We’ve all heard the warning: “Scope creep is a project killer.”
And yes — unmanaged scope changes can impact timelines, budgets, and team focus. But that doesn’t mean all scope changes are harmful.



In reality:
👉 Sometimes, scope evolves because business needs shift.
👉 Sometimes, it’s driven by new insights or user feedback.
👉 And sometimes, expanding scope helps deliver greater value than originally imagined.



The real issue isn’t the change itself — it’s how we respond to it.



When scope adjustments are made with clear communication, stakeholder buy-in, and thoughtful impact analysis, they can strengthen a project’s relevance and outcome. It becomes a matter of adaptive delivery rather than deviation.

💡 Instead of labeling all scope change as failure, we should ask:
Does this still align with our goals? Does it bring value?

✅ When has evolving scope helped (or hurt) your projects?
✅ What strategies help you stay flexible without losing control?
✅ Got another PM Myth in mind? I’d love to hear it — it might be Myth #3!
 
Sort By:
avatar
Rami Kaibni
Community Champion
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten Associates New Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Zakaria, I like the way you framed this, especially the idea that scope change isn’t inherently bad, and that adaptive delivery can lead to greater value.

That said, I’d slightly push back on one point: the term “scope creep” itself already implies uncontrolled change. So when people warn that “scope creep is a project killer” I think they’re specifically referring to unmanaged or unplanned scope changes, not just any evolution in scope.
...
1 reply by Zakaria Botros
Jun 20, 2025 12:45 PM
Zakaria Botros
...

Thanks Rami, I see your point and I agree with you.



Thanks for sharing.
avatar
Luis Branco CEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, Ldª Carcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal

Zakaria Botros
Excellent point — treating all scope change as negative oversimplifies the reality of adaptive delivery in today’s dynamic environments.

Some of the most impactful project outcomes emerged because we allowed space for scope to evolve in response to real-time learning and stakeholder feedback — not despite it.

The key distinction lies in intentionality: when scope changes are reactive, unvetted, or politically driven, they’re dangerous. But when they’re based on validated insights, aligned with strategic goals, and accompanied by impact analysis, they’re powerful catalysts for value creation.

- One technique I’ve found useful: keeping a “Value Alignment Filter” — every proposed scope change must answer: Does this move us closer to business outcomes?
- Another: maintain a dynamic roadmap that explicitly anticipates iterative evolution, rather than locking everything down.

Looking forward to Myth #3 — these discussions are much needed in our profession. Thanks for starting the conversation!
...
1 reply by Zakaria Botros
Jun 20, 2025 12:47 PM
Zakaria Botros
...
Thank you Luis. I like this technique and I see that I can be useful in all life interactions , not only PM work "Value Alignment Filter"
avatar
Zakaria Botros
Community Champion
Project Manager | Driving Clean Energy Innovations for a Sustainable Future| Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Ontario, Canada
Jun 16, 2025 12:09 PM
Replying to Rami Kaibni
...
Zakaria, I like the way you framed this, especially the idea that scope change isn’t inherently bad, and that adaptive delivery can lead to greater value.

That said, I’d slightly push back on one point: the term “scope creep” itself already implies uncontrolled change. So when people warn that “scope creep is a project killer” I think they’re specifically referring to unmanaged or unplanned scope changes, not just any evolution in scope.

Thanks Rami, I see your point and I agree with you.



Thanks for sharing.
avatar
Zakaria Botros
Community Champion
Project Manager | Driving Clean Energy Innovations for a Sustainable Future| Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Ontario, Canada
Jun 16, 2025 1:58 PM
Replying to Luis Branco
...

Zakaria Botros
Excellent point — treating all scope change as negative oversimplifies the reality of adaptive delivery in today’s dynamic environments.

Some of the most impactful project outcomes emerged because we allowed space for scope to evolve in response to real-time learning and stakeholder feedback — not despite it.

The key distinction lies in intentionality: when scope changes are reactive, unvetted, or politically driven, they’re dangerous. But when they’re based on validated insights, aligned with strategic goals, and accompanied by impact analysis, they’re powerful catalysts for value creation.

- One technique I’ve found useful: keeping a “Value Alignment Filter” — every proposed scope change must answer: Does this move us closer to business outcomes?
- Another: maintain a dynamic roadmap that explicitly anticipates iterative evolution, rather than locking everything down.

Looking forward to Myth #3 — these discussions are much needed in our profession. Thanks for starting the conversation!

Thank you Luis. I like this technique and I see that I can be useful in all life interactions , not only PM work "Value Alignment Filter"

Please login or join to reply

Content ID:
ADVERTISEMENTS

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

- Mark Twain

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsors







Vendor Events

See all Vendor Events

Newsletters

Jun 3: The Career Problem Facing New PMs
May 20: Your PM Career as a Project Life Cycle
May 13: The Big Lie After Layoffs

See all newsletters