Scope creep is when a project starts to grow beyond its original scope or projected definitions of what is possible within the original financial limitations. It is almost always a factor and will cost your client or your company money if not managed. It can be a good thing if it is addressed directly and not ignored. It occurs to me that one of the basic concepts we need to embrace is that of redefining limiting factors as opportunities rather than obstacles. It can mean an opportunity to address an oversight or include a feature that would cost far more if postponed. A rational choice can be made by the client whether to increase the scope and budget of the project or stay with the original limitations. If not addressed directly it will resurface, often indirectly, and usually not in a pleasant way.
I just read an article that asserts that scope creep rather than being an evil to avoid might just be the natural order of the creative process. Sometimes our clients may not know exactly what they want and therefore can’t define it until they see it or see it done wrong. That isn’t a fault on their part. It’s normal when we are exposed to possibilities we haven’t previously considered. It’s a synergy created when people collaborate. As designers we might have experience that help us avoid obvious design pitfalls, but we too, are often surprised by the discrepancy between a great sounding idea and the reality of ink on paper or pixels on a monitor. Most bad ideas die on the sketchpad where they should. and never make it to a mockup phase or even to the computer. Bad ideas are like lies, or vampires. The don’t do well in the light. Designers help bring them out. The positive side is that along with the bad ideas good ideas also emerge. The process can be arduous, but very satisfying.
One of the best ways we handle this normal tendency for projects to expand is to welcome it. Another is to create inexpensive, disposable prototypes sufficient to find flaws or limitations or problems quickly. This in order to ferret out errors or objections early, when the cost of changes are minimized. Mockups, models, plans, drafts, focus groups, performance tests and pilot projects are all examples of this intensive process. It may be a little easier to comprehend design costs for a building or an airplane, but the same principles apply to a brochure that costs thousands of dollars to produce. Especially when it can’t be mailed because it violated postal regulations that weren’t considered. This is where much of the value of good graphic design resides. The design of a website may be a bit more forgiving because it’s often easier to implement changes or corrections, but it also could be months or years before you learn that one quarter of your potential customers couldn’t find the “buy” button on a critical page.
By definition, creation means bringing new things to life. It’s natural that we might discover new possibilities in the process or that we might kindle new creative fires in our clients. It’s what we were hired to do! So why would we be surprised when a project seems to take on a life of it’s own? Yet we often are. We’re perfectly content with eliminating bad ideas, but sometimes we have to allow for discoveries and we might even have to be willing to set aside good ideas. Mostly we have to look at those good ideas, acknowledge them and allow our clients to decide if they want to expand the budget a bit or return to the original proposal for right now. Part of our job as designers is to manage the creative process for our clients. Our clients can often be very creative people, but we’re the ones who are charged with separating the bad from the good, or the good from the very good, and making clear decisions which continue moving us ahead to completion. After all, it is also true that they are paying us to complete the project.
Another concept that is useful is that of managing the creative process by defining the goal of the project, AND the goal of each particular phase. When that goal is reached that phase should be considered “frozen” and thus can’t be revisited without incurring additional cost—both in money and time. There will always be the possibility that something can be made sightly better, but remember the adage that, “The perfect is the enemy of the good”. It is also the enemy of the budget.
Violating this rule puts a project in extreme jeopardy by putting the process into a tailspin where it is as likely to be going backward or sideways, as it is to continue moving forward. Revisiting decisions that have already been made opens the possibility (likelihood, in my experience) of covering the same territory again, and again, usually with little or no gain, indeed, often producing negative results, sending us back re-cover ground already traversed.
A key function of a creative director or designer is to make sure the project and creative process continues forward and produces the desired results. If a project never ends, it will never reach its goal and may never produce any value whatsoever. By acknowledging the tendency for projects to expand we regain control both for ourselves as designers and for our clients. We put them in the position of making informed decisions with predictable consequences. That’s what we want for ourselves as creative people and more importantly it’s what we want for our clients. It’s one of the ways we can help to create win-win outcomes for all.
We are then able to utilize the natural tendency for projects to succumb to scope creep to remind us of our need to be aware and vigilant and to communicate the dangers when we are deviating from our original mission. Rather than fearing and resisting change, we need to acknowledge it and plan ahead for it. Thus scope creep becomes a friend rather than an evil to be feared or a foe to be opposed. That is a good thing in my view.