Could you just also look at the finance team?
The engagement is an operating model review for the client's operations function. In week three, the client's COO asks whether the team could also take a look at how finance supports operations. The consultants do, because it seems relevant and the client is pleased. In week five, the client asks for an extra workshop with regional managers. In week seven, an extra analysis of outsourcing options. None of it is in the statement of work.
At the end the engagement is over budget, the team is exhausted, and the partner realises the client has had a larger piece of work than they paid for.
Why scope creeps
- The SOW is signed and filed, and consultants on the ground do not have it in front of them.
- Extra requests are small, reasonable and made by the person you most want to please.
- Effort on extra work is booked to the same code as the agreed deliverables.
- Raising a change request feels like it risks the relationship.
- Partners only see the overrun when the budget report arrives.
The client's view of scope is also different. To the sponsor, the engagement is about solving their problem, and the SOW is a document procurement signed. Requests that feel natural to them look like new work only to someone reading the SOW, and the consultants on site rarely are.
What unmanaged scope costs
| Pattern | Consequence |
|---|---|
| Extra work absorbed | Margin erodes, sometimes to nothing |
| Team stretched | Quality of agreed deliverables suffers |
| No record of requests | Hard to discuss scope with the client later |
| Precedent set | Client expects extras on the next engagement |
Often the extra work is exactly the follow-on engagement the firm would like to sell. Giving it away inside the current budget loses the sale as well as the margin.
How we build scope tracking
- The SOW's deliverables, activities and assumptions are loaded into the engagement's scope log when it starts.
- Consultants flag a request from a quick form or by forwarding an email, noting who asked and what for.
- The engagement manager marks each request as within scope, a change, or a possible follow-on.
- Changes get their own time code, so effort is visible separately.
- For changes, a change request is drafted from your template with the request, the effort estimate and the impact on timeline, for the partner to review and send.
- Possible follow-ons are passed to your pipeline as opportunities.
- The partner sees a weekly summary of requests, effort on changes, and budget position.
The log is a prompt to have the conversation early, not a way to bill for every favour. Many firms choose to absorb small requests on purpose. The point is that it becomes a choice.
We usually load the SOW for one or two live engagements and ask the managers to walk through the requests they have had so far. That exercise often surfaces a surprising amount of unrecorded work, and shows the team what flagging should look like.
What the engagement looks like with a scope log
Consultants can say yes to a request and flag it, rather than feeling they must refuse. The engagement manager sees the pattern building, and the partner raises a change or a follow-on while the client still values the extra work.
At the end of the engagement, the record shows what was delivered beyond scope, which strengthens the next proposal.
Is scope creeping on your engagements?
- Engagements regularly go over budget without a single big cause.
- Consultants do extra work without mentioning it.
- Change requests are rare, even when scope changes.
- Effort on extras is not recorded separately.
- Follow-on opportunities are delivered inside current engagements.