Understanding Scope Creep: Causes and Consequences

What is scope creep

Scope creep in software development refers to the gradual expansion of a project’s scope

beyond its original objectives, requirements, or boundaries, often without proper approval or

adjustments to time, budget, or resources. This typically happens when new features,

enhancements, or changes are introduced during the development process without a

structured change management process.What are the costs of scope creep

How does it happen

There are more then 1 way scope creep can happen and mostly scope creep

happens for several reasons;

Unclear Requirements

Vague or incomplete initial requirements lead to additional changes

later.

Lack of Proper Documentation

Without well-defined project documentation, stakeholders

may request modifications that weren’t initially planned.

Stakeholder Influence

Clients, managers, or end-users may push for additional features

after development starts.

Poor Change Control

If there’s no formal process for reviewing and approving changes,

requests can pile up and disrupt timelines.

Gold Plating

Developers or teams add features beyond the agreed scope, believing they

improve the product.

Evolving Market Needs

Rapidly changing technology or user expectations can drive the

need for additional features.

Miscommunication

Lack of clear communication between developers, product owners,

and clients can lead to misunderstandings about project goals.

Consequences of scope creep

1. Delays in project completion

2. Increased costs and budget overruns

3. Higher workload and burnout for the development team

4. Reduced product quality due to rushed work

5. Potential project failure if scope becomes unmanageable

How can we mitigate or minimise scope creep

Define Clear Project Requirements

Set expectations early with detailed specifications.

Use a Change Control Process

Implement a formal review and approval system for

modifications.

Maintain Strong Communication

Keep all stakeholders aligned with regular updates.

Set Priorities with a Product Roadmap

Categorize feature requests based on necessity.

Use Agile Methodology

Agile development allows for flexibility while maintaining control

over feature additions.

Document Everything

Keep track of all agreed-upon changes, deadlines, and expectations.


Case Study’s:

Denver International Airport Baggage System

Background:

Denver International Airport planned to open in 1993 with an advanced automated baggage

handling system to speed up luggage transport and reduce turnaround times for airlines.

How Scope Creep Happened:

1. Initial Plan:

The airport initially intended to implement a simpler baggage system for just one

airline (United Airlines).

2. Expansion of Scope:

During development, airport officials decided to expand the system to cover the

entire airport and multiple airlines. Additional features, like automated barcode

2scanners, intricate conveyor networks, and baggage rerouting, were introduced

without adjusting the timeline or budget.

3. Lack of Proper Change Control:

The additional complexity required software and mechanical changes that weren’t

part of the original project scope. The team tried to accommodate the new features

without a structured review process.

4. Technical Challenges:

The system was now expected to handle thousands of bags per hour across three

concourses, leading to software bugs, mechanical failures, and misrouted

baggage. Developers had to patch issues on the fly, which made the system

unreliable.

5. Delays and Budget Overruns:

The airport delayed its opening by 16 months, and the cost of the baggage system

ballooned from the original $190 million to nearly $560 million. Eventually, the

automated system was abandoned, and airlines reverted to manual baggage handling.

Key Takeaways:

• Uncontrolled feature expansion led to project failure.

• Lack of proper change management made it difficult to adapt.

• Stakeholders kept adding requirements without considering technical feasibility.

• Ignoring developer warnings led to costly mistakes.

This is a classic example of how scope creep can turn a well-intended software project

into a disaster if not managed properly.


Healthcare.gov (U.S. Health Insurance Marketplace)

A more modern example of scope creep in software development is the Healthcare.gov

website launch in 2013.

Background:

Healthcare.gov was developed as the online marketplace for Americans to enroll in health

insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The goal was to create a user-friendly

platform where people could compare plans, check eligibility for subsidies, and sign up for

coverage.

How Scope Creep Happened:

Frequent Policy & Requirement Changes

The project originally started with simpler requirements, but as political

debates and policy changes evolved, new regulations had to be incorporated

mid-development.

Developers had to rebuild key components multiple times due to changes in

eligibility rules, enrollment processes, and security policies.

Unrealistic Timeline & Expanding Scope

The government set a fixed launch date (October 1, 2013), but kept adding

new features along the way.

The project was too large, instead of a phased rollout, it was expected to go

live nationwide all at once.

Lack of Clear Coordination

Multiple contractors worked on different parts of the system, but there was no

centralized oversight to manage the expanding scope.

Testing and debugging were rushed because the scope kept changing up until

the launch.

Massive Technical Failures

On launch day, millions of users tried to access the site, but poor scalability

planning caused it to crash repeatedly.

Many users faced error messages, slow load times, and incomplete

enrollments because the backend system wasn’t prepared for the volume.

Budget Overruns & Fixes After Launch

The initial budget was estimated at $93 million, but after multiple fixes and

rework, the cost soared past $2.1 billion.

The government had to bring in Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Google

engineers to stabilize the site after its disastrous launch.

Key Takeaways:

Scope creep + fixed deadlines = disaster

Expanding requirements without adjusting

timelines leads to failure.

Incremental rollout is safer

Instead of launching nationwide, a phased approach

would have reduced risks.

Better change control is crucial

Unchecked feature additions caused instability and

delays.

Proper testing matters

The system wasn’t tested under real-world conditions, leading

to catastrophic failures.

Scroll to Top