Project management can be defined as the discipline of organising and managing resources so that a project is delivered within defined scope, quality, time, resources and budget constraints. One of a project manager’s primary responsibilities is managing the agreed scope to ensure expectations are met. Controlling scope creep is therefore fundamental to successful project delivery.
In project management, scope creep is often reflected in wasted budget, reduced stakeholder satisfaction, or failure to realise the expected project value. Most projects experience some degree of scope creep, and in many cases it is unavoidable—even with good controls in place. However, there are proven ways to reduce its likelihood. To do so, a project manager must first understand what causes scope creep.
According to the PMBOK® Guide, scope creep is defined as “adding features and functionality (project scope) without addressing the effects on time, budget, and resources, or without customer approval”.
Change itself is unavoidable in projects, and therefore scope changes are also inevitable. However, scope creep does not simply occur because requirements change. The critical factor is whether changes are formally authorised. If scope expansion is reviewed, approved, and managed through the appropriate change control process, it is not considered scope creep.
When a project team works on unapproved features or changes, time and effort are diverted away from authorised deliverables. In most cases, these additional changes must still be completed within the original schedule and budget, leaving less time and fewer resources for agreed project outcomes.
As a result:
Ultimately, scope creep can prevent a project from delivering its intended value.
Scope creep can be caused by many factors, and these can vary from project to project. Below are five common causes of scope creep in project management.
When a project does not include thorough requirements analysis, the scope remains unclear. In these situations, there is a high risk of misinterpretation and unintended scope expansion.
The high-level scope is typically documented in a project charter, which is then expanded in the project scope statement. However, these high-level views alone are not sufficient. Without a deliverable-based Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), teams struggle to fully understand what is included and excluded.
If a detailed WBS is missing, gaps in understanding emerge. These gaps widen further when high-level scope is not reinforced through rigorous and validated requirements analysis.
As projects evolve, requirements naturally change. Over time, projects often begin to drift away from the original scope. It is easy for “rogue” requirements to be introduced during day-to-day discovery and refinement, sometimes without anyone realising it.
Without a clearly accountable project manager, team members may struggle to determine whether new requests fall inside or outside scope. In such cases, teams rely on individual judgement, which increases risk.
Another common issue is gold-plating, where developers add features they believe are useful or interesting but were never formally agreed. While well intentioned, this contributes directly to scope creep. This is why all change requests must follow a defined approval process.
On the other hand, overly rigid enforcement of scope can lead to “scope kill”, where necessary and valuable changes are blocked due to an inflexible change process.
Collecting requirements is the process of establishing, documenting, and managing stakeholder needs to achieve project objectives. This process lays the foundation for defining both product scope and project scope.
When process boundaries are unclear, scope boundaries become unclear as well. This leads to:
These conditions increase the likelihood of unintentional scope drift.
Requirements are the conditions or capabilities that a product, service, or result must meet. They represent stakeholder needs and expectations and must be gathered, analysed, and documented in sufficient detail to be included in the scope baseline. Budgeting, scheduling, quality planning, procurement, and the WBS are all built upon these requirements.
As scope begins to slip, more stakeholders are often added to requirements sessions. These additional stakeholders introduce new requirements that were not part of the original scope—creating further scope creep.
Lack of sponsorship and stakeholder engagement are two of the biggest contributors to project failure and scope creep.
Sponsors may not wish to be involved in every decision. As a result, project teams often begin making decisions independently. When change requests appear minor, teams may implement them without following formal change control procedures.
Ironically, overly rigid or time-consuming change processes can encourage this behaviour, as teams bypass governance to maintain momentum. As the centre of decision-making shifts away from the sponsor and towards the team, the risk of scope creep increases.
Long projects do not directly cause scope creep, but they significantly increase the opportunity for it to occur. Projects with large scope and long timelines create more chances for new ideas, features, and enhancements to be introduced.
The longer a project runs, the more time teams have to:
Unless these changes are formally requested, reviewed, and approved, they are considered scope creep.
A change request can involve adjustments to scope, policies, methods, plans, processes, costs, or schedules. Regardless of size or impact, the key requirement is that changes are formally approved before implementation
Managing scope creep is challenging. Even with a well-defined initial scope, projects typically face multiple change requests during execution. Team members, clients, and stakeholders can all contribute to scope drift. However, the previously outlined causes do have practical solutions.
Clear and well-managed scope documentation is critical to project success. This includes:
All key parties should contribute. Sponsors help define strategic intent, while business analysts support effective requirements elicitation and documentation.
A formal change management process should be embedded within the scope management plan. Clearly defined roles and responsibilities ensure that scope decisions are made consistently and transparently.
Scope management ensures that requested changes are reviewed, agreed upon, and implemented in a way that is acceptable to all stakeholders.
Establish and consistently apply scope modelling, analysis, prioritisation, traceability, and change management processes. Visual scope models can be created early to encourage alignment and shared understanding.
Use progressive elaboration to refine requirements in layers:
This approach supports clarity while allowing controlled refinement.
The project sponsor is best placed to define the project’s vision, benefits, and limitations. Use sponsor-focused status reporting that highlights progress against deliverables.
Apply a RACI matrix (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) to clarify responsibilities and decision authority. Identify risks related to stakeholder disengagement and plan contingencies accordingly.
Encourage sponsors to break large initiatives into shorter subprojects with clear deliverables. As phases are completed:
This approach maintains momentum, reinforces value delivery, and keeps stakeholders engaged.
There are many more scope creep solutions covered in our PMP Passport Course.
The course is structured to help project managers:
FAQ
All Courses
Upcoming Course Dates
Professional Courses
Academy & Short Courses
IPM Courses
PMI Courses
IPMA Courses
PRINCE2 Courses
Corporate Training
Corporate Partnership
Strategic Partnership
IPM Competency Pathway
Growth Partner
Certification Overview
IPMA Certification
PMI Certification
About IPM Hub
IPM Membership
EMEA Monthly Events
Mentorship
All Resources
Expert Insights
Ebooks & Toolkits
Publish Your Writing
IPM Jobs Portal
The Institute
Faculty
Global Advisory Board
Apply to Lecture or Volunteer
Apply to Intern or Campus Ambassador
Speak to an Advisor
