Santosh Kumar PandaProject & Technical Manager| Safal Building Systems Ltd, Kenya, East AfricaNairobi, Kenya
In some of the projects, project team, often with good intentions, add extra features or enhancements they believe will impress the client. Usually without the client's knowledge or approval, and without a formal change request.
When the term "gold plating" is used, it implies an unnecessary unsanctioned addition or modification to project scope. Scope changes in and of themselves aren't good or bad but if a predictive approach is being used to deliver a project which tends to be more common with construction projects at actual construction time then gold plating could result in a variety of issues including defects, permitting challenges, stakeholder dissatisfaction, and other impacts to cost, schedule and quality.
Kiron Saving Changes...
Mark WarnerProject Manager| AURATucson, Az, United States
This is a classic bad practice of new project managers: under-promising and over-delivering. Sounds good, but it's not. You're basically being deceptive, spending project time and money on something that customer did not ask for. If you want to add scope or gold-plate a specification, do it the right way: via change requests. I've written about it before and got some, ahem, interested and animated emails back as a result. https://www.theprojectmanagementblueprint.com/p/dont-be-a-creep and https://www.theprojectmanagementblueprint....ur-stakeholders Saving Changes...
Muthurakkappan ShanmugamSenior Project Management| Denholm Yam Contracting CompanyAL DHANNA, AZ, United Arab Emirates
Gold plating is not a good practice in construction projects. Even if done with good intentions, adding features without client approval or a formal change request goes against PMI ethics and scope management principles. It often leads to budget overruns, resource wastage, and client dissatisfaction. A project manager should always follow the approved scope and manage any changes through proper change control.
Muthu Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Gold plating almost always creates more risk than value.
Even with good intentions, adding features the client didn’t request breaks scope discipline, introduces contractual exposure, and can impact cost, schedule, and warranties.
In construction, clients don’t want surprises, they want predictability and alignment.
If something adds value, the right path is simple:
Propose it, analyse impact, get approval, then deliver.That’s professionalism, not gold plating.
...
1 reply by Aung Sint
Nov 14, 2025 7:24 AM
Aung Sint
...
Absolutely agreed. Work together and co-create to reach a shared objective!
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Santosh, I completely agree with Kiron. Gold plating is rarely beneficial. While teams often add extra features with the intention of impressing the client, it can backfire and lead to disappointment at the end of the project. Often, clients enjoy “playing builder” and requesting additional features along the way, so it’s important to know how to say no diplomatically and focus on delivering what’s truly in their best interest. Saving Changes...
Gold plating is bad for construction projects. Even small “extra” work can cause cost overruns, delays, and contract issues. It’s always safer to follow the approved scope and get client approval for any additions. Saving Changes...
SAFe isn’t completely “new”, it mostly bundles existing Agile, Scrum, and Lean principles into a scalable structure for large enterprises. What is new is the way it standardizes alignment across teams through things like ARTs, PI Planning, and synchronized cadences.
But SAFe is not a pure project delivery framework. It’s more of an organizational operating model focused on product delivery, not project-style governance.
In many companies, SAFe and project management run side-by-side, not as replacements. Saving Changes...
Gold plating almost always creates more risk than value.
Even with good intentions, adding features the client didn’t request breaks scope discipline, introduces contractual exposure, and can impact cost, schedule, and warranties.
In construction, clients don’t want surprises, they want predictability and alignment.
If something adds value, the right path is simple:
Propose it, analyse impact, get approval, then deliver.That’s professionalism, not gold plating.
Absolutely agreed. Work together and co-create to reach a shared objective! Saving Changes...
Thomas WalentaGlobal Project Economy ExpertHackenheim, Germany
Gold plating is bad.
In projects, it means adding an uncontrolled scope and projects should control what they can. In my experience, it often comes from a show-off attitude by developers, they tend to do what is technically possible instead of limiting themselves to building what was agreed.
In programs, gold plating may come as an emerging benefit, and can be acceptable when communicated and agreed upon. The difference is that the additional scope is judged from the stakeholder/customer's perspective, just like all benefits. Saving Changes...
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
I agree with everyone here, gold plating usually creates more risk than value, especially in construction. Even when intentions are good, adding anything beyond the approved scope breaks alignment and can lead to cost, quality, or contractual issues later on.
The best approach is to propose, assess, and approve before adding anything new. Clients value transparency and predictability more than surprises.
Community Champion
