Adding additional features and functions can really affect the scope of a project. It can be costly and time consuming to deal with but if major players within the project are adamant on including a certain element into the project, then it typically has to be done. Too many changes without formal analysis can lead to gross overestimations of benefits, delays, greater costs, management difficulties, and negative unintended consequences (Roy, Searle, 2020). Most of the time when it comes to scope creep members of a team are working on elements that were not authorized and therefore delaying what should be doing.
A team of us teachers who are qualified to teach financial literacy were tasked with creating a new financial literacy course for the new state requirement that all students graduate with a credit of financial literacy. When it comes to planning a course like financial literacy the possibilities are endless. We have state approved standards to follow, however those state standards can be interpreted in many different ways. We had many stakeholders involved in what should be included in the course giving opinions and suggestions before we began planning. We had multiple meetings to decide what everyone thought should be covered in the course. However, there were multiple times throughout the creation of the course that these stakeholders wanted to add something or change something. This was likely due to the fact that the standards could be interpreted differently; they continued to come up with ideas of what should be added. Each time something was added, the budget changed and so did the completion time of the course.
There were stakeholders that did not want to change the content because they could see the delays it was causing every time something needed to be changed. We did allocate time for this to happen however, it seems it was happening multiple times a week. Some of the other stakeholders did voice their concerns with the amount of changes that were happening and how that affected how we were designing the course.
After all was said and done, I think that having more meetings held face to face when the scope continually changed would have helped. We could have met to discuss why the new material needed to be added when we already finalized what was going to be taught during the course. I think that if we all communicated a little more, the scope creep would have been stopped and the project timeline and budget would have been spared.
Roy, S., & Searle, M. (2020). Scope Creep and Purposeful Pivots in Developmental Evaluation. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 35(1), 92–103. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.56898