The term scope creep describes a gradual expansion of an effort's scope, often outside the awareness of the people involved. They do recognize that the effort has become more ambitious, but they usually express surprise and shock when they finally appreciate the size of the resource shortfall. Curiously, the word creep doesn't connote growth or expansion — it carries instead a sense of gradual change with no direction implied.
That raises several questions. When scope creeps, why does it expand much more often than it contracts? Why don't we ever wake up one morning shocked to find enormous budget surpluses resulting from the gradual ebbing of scope that took place outside our awareness? Why do we never finish projects under budget and early because of out-of-control scope ebbing?
Downscoping does happen, usually when we trim goals to get out of trouble. But downscoping is consciously planned. Scope creep is neither conscious nor planned. The real question is: Why do so many unplanned changes of scope lead to scope expansion instead of scope contraction?
Two classes of mechanisms might explain the dominance of expansion over contraction. First, when we make scope change decisions, we might systematically fail to investigate — or even consider — suggestions that contract scope. Second, when we make such decisions, we might systematically favor alternatives that expand scope.
Because cognitive biases often provide intriguing explanations of behavioral phenomena that seem unrelated to intent, here is Part I of a short catalog of relevant cognitive biases, emphasizing systematic biases inhibiting adoption or consideration of scope contraction strategies.
- Sunk Cost Effect
- To investors, the term sunk cost describes costs already incurred and not recoverable. The sunk cost effect [Staw 1976] is a bias that tends to make us unwilling to terminate an effort, because of the difficulty of accepting failure, even when continuing the effort will only lead to greater losses.
- Irrational Escalation
- Irrational escalationWhy don't we ever wake up in the
morning shocked to find enormous
budget surpluses resulting from
the gradual ebbing of scope
that took place outside
our awareness? bias can cause us to commit increasing levels of resources even when evidence strongly indicates that doing so is foolish. Unlike the Sunk Cost Effect, this bias can take hold even before resources have actually been expended. Mere commitment of resources is all that's required. For example, in bidding wars, the bidders eventually increase their bids well beyond the value of the items sought.
- Endowment Effect
- This bias affects how we value what we possess relative to what we don't. We tend to ascribe greater value to what we have now than we would be willing to pay to acquire it. In the business context, this bias might account for overvaluing work already performed, which could enhance both the sunk cost effect and irrational escalation. We might also overvalue the opportunity to continue work already underway, relative to any work we might do instead.
These three biases can contribute to failure to consider scope reduction alternatives. Next time, we'll examine biases that might make us more receptive to scope expansion. First in this series Next in this series Top Next Issue
Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenVNdCldyQbUlxSgGaner@ChacWASfIhjWdsYZVcEHoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Project Management:
- Status Risk and Risk Status
- One often-neglected project risk is the risk of inaccurately reported status. That shouldn't be surprising,
because we often fail to report the status of the project's risks, as well. What can we do to better
manage status risk and risk status?
- Remote Facilitation in Synchronous Contexts: III
- Facilitators of synchronous distributed meetings (meetings that occur in real time, via telephone or
video) can make life much easier for everyone by taking steps before the meeting starts. Here's Part
III of a little catalog of suggestions for remote facilitators.
- Backtracking in Incremental Problem Solving
- Incremental problem solving is fashionable these days. Whether called evolutionary, incremental, or
iterative, the approach entails unique risks. Managing those risks sometimes requires counterintuitive action.
- The Politics of the Critical Path: II
- The Critical Path of a project is the sequence of dependent tasks that determine the earliest completion
date of the effort. We don't usually consider tasks that are already complete, but they, too, can experience
the unique politics of the critical path.
- Wishful Interpretation: II
- Wishful "thinking," as we call it, can arise in different ways. One source is the pattern
of choices we make when we interpret what we see, what we hear, or any other information we receive.
Here's Part II of an inventory of ways our preferences and wishes affect how we interpret the world.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming November 29: Manipulators Beware
- When manipulators try to manipulate others, they're attempting to unscrupulously influence their targets to decide or act in some way the manipulators prefer. But some targets manage to outwit their manipulators. Available here and by RSS on November 29.
- And on December 6: Reframing Revision Resentment: I
- From time to time, we're required to revise something previously produced — some copy, remarks, an announcement, code, the Mona Lisa, whatever… When we do, some of us experience frustration, and view the assignment as an onerous chore. Here are some alternative perspectives that might ease the burden. Available here and by RSS on December 6.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrentMNdXDQXmQYVhjQBner@ChacfQueYTRxYaiuaIGVoCanyon.com or (617) 491-6289, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- Ten Project Management Fallacies: The Power of Avoiding Hazards
- Most of what we know about managing projects is useful and effective, but some of what we know "just ain't so." Identifying the fallacies of project management reduces risk and enhances your ability to complete projects successfully. Even more important, avoiding these traps can demonstrate the value and power of the project management profession in general, and your personal capabilities in particular. In this program we describe ten of these beliefs. There are almost certainly many more, but these ten are a good start. We'll explore the situations where these fallacies are most likely to expose projects to risk, and suggest techniques for avoiding them. Read more about this program. Here's a date for this program:
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
- Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.