Guarding against scope-creep while meeting expectations

I’m sure that you know what “scope-creep” is, so there’s no need to bother here with a detailed definition.

The problems with scope-creep

Scope-creep (SC) usually involves a consultant doing work that was not originally specified. In turn, that usually brings with it five potential problems:

• increased timescales and project management challenges – something that might play havoc with your commitments to other clients;
• a big growth in your risk profile – that’s because SC tends to result in “fix it quick” ad-hoc bits of work that are not always correctly analysed. That, in turn, increases the likelihood of error;
• the “domino effect” – one piece of SC creates two more as a consequential knock-on. Those, in turn, create two more pieces of scope-creep each and so on;
• whether you’re going to be adequately compensated for the extra work not included in your original pricing proposition;
• the dangerous precedent it sets. After all, if you’re doing out-of-scope work now, surely you can do it again in the future?   

Nobody is ever going to argue that SC is a good thing. If that’s the case though, why does it happen so often? More importantly, what can you do to reduce the occurrence of SC?

In the discussion below, we’ll be concentrating on top tips to cope with specific circumstances. Note though, here I’m assuming that the SC is arising from the client end and isn’t attributable to poor up-front analysis on the consultant’s part!

The client stakeholder will not let you meet the project sponsor or other key stakeholders

There are many reasons why this might happen. It’s often driven by politics and personal insecurities within the client organisation. That’s a situation you might never fully understand.

However, you must resist this where appropriate. The logic is simple – if you don’t speak to all the key stakeholders then there is a highly increased risk of scope errors arising in your proposal.

The client is not prepared to meet you before you submit a proposal

This isn’t uncommon and might arise for any of many reasons.

The solution is likely to be variable, based upon the individual circumstances. You could try heavily caveating your proposal in recognition of the limitations imposed upon your initial analysis.

More positively, suggest a video conference. Some people resist face-to-face meetings but are much more relaxed, for sometimes no obvious reason, about video or audio conferencing.

The requirements lack clarity and sufficient depth but the client is unwilling to amend

This should be a showstopper for you. Your chances of being seen to have succeeded against a backdrop of imprecise requirements are probably zero.

If you can’t resolve this through logical discussion, be prepared to walk away.

The client’s expectations are unrealistic

Many clients will be looking for the most they can get for the lowest amount possible. That is business as usual!

It can be driven by one of two reasons:

• the client is simply trying to get the “best bang for the buck”, perhaps in part because they know they just don’t have the budget they really need;
• they may simply be trying to do something that can’t be done for other reasons (e.g. IT dependencies).

In the first case, you’ll need to draw upon your negotiating skills. Don’t be so desperate to secure the work that you’ll take on anything they ask for without a commensurate cost/lead time impact.

The second scenario will draw upon your educational skills. Try an online presentation, demonstrating why their requirements cannot be achieved (don’t make this entirely negative and instead, if possible, state what else would be needed to achieve their objectives. Make sure you’re perceived to be solutions not roadblock focused).

There is misalignment within the client’s organisation in terms of requirements and expectations

A common cause of SC!

However, don’t get involved in the internal politics of your client. Present the position here immediately to the sponsor and leave them to resolve it (with your input).

Requirements change during the project

This is commonplace and need not cause concern providing you’re adopting and fully using change management procedures.

Avoid being petty and bureaucratic but do not slip into the “quick favour” mindset because it will be expected every time the requirements change.

Ensure that change control requests are formally signed off by the sponsor and the effects on timescales and/or pricing accurately reflected.

The client attempts to bully you, mid-project, to take on requirement changes without increasing the price (normally seen on fixed price engagements)

Whatever you might think of the business ethics of this, it happens regularly. In a sense, it’s a normal part of commercial negotiating.  

I can’t give you specific advice here because each situation will be different. Obviously if this has never happened before with a client and they’re very valuable to you, you may decide to “bend” just this once. That could be a commercial call.

However, be cautious! If you start to be perceived as a pushover, you may experience this with increasing regularity from your client. Build in regular payment milestones so that you’re not over exposed in the event requirements change. 

Think about developing the tactics and strength required to say “no”!

Key messages

Ultimately, the avoidance of SC is about communication between you and your client.

Formality is an important part of that but so too is the nature of your relationship. This is one of the areas where we at U-2-Me can offer support to consultants and clients alike.

Why not sign up now and find out more?