Talk:Scope creep

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Disambig to Scope creep (relationships)[edit]

I added this article after noticing that the term was included in this article and might be confusing to the reader. User:Theoldanarchist noted that this is a neologism which is irrelevant to this article. I agree and this is the reason I migrated it over to a sub article. The criteria for a disambig link is much lower however: as I understand the policy a page only needs to have a high likelihood of being confused with another term to merit a link or disambiguation page. In this case, it is impossible for someone searching for the alternate definition of the term to find it because 'scope creep' will direct them here. Whether the definition itself is wikiworthy is another issue and could be taken up with an AfD nomination. See WP:D for policy details.


Sputniks Down[edit]

Hi Just to let you know that i've added a lot more content to this page and added quite a number of citations/sources. Would it be possible for you to re-check the page? Thanks {Dianogah 15:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)}

Scope Creep = Growing Scope?[edit]

This article currently seems to suggest that "Scope Creep" only means "Growing Scope", that is, the customer expects more and more requirements to be implemented. I experience the opposite in the current project: the supplier increasingly delcares requirements as "out of scope". How does it correspond to this antipattern? Is there a dedicated antipattern for that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.180.31.65 (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Scope creep is the process of the project requirements expanding while the project is underway--for example, "Oh, PDF 1.7 just came out, can you support the new feature set?", asked halfway through development, would be a case of scope creep. In your case, either you're trying to creep the scope, by asking for things that were not explict in the original requirements, or they're trying to scale back the project because they're in over their heads. Either way, it just goes to show that you should be as explict as possible in the contract, to leave the minimum possible room for misunderstanding. scot 20:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Functionality Creep should not be redirected to Scope Creep[edit]

Functionality Creep is the process where technologies and processes are used for purposes not intended, or when the technologies and processes evolve into a new identity from a form with a lessor function. This is not Scope Creep. Scope Creep may fall under the category of Functionality Creep. Functionality Creep should have its own Wikipedia page, as before this series of redirects from Featuritis to Scope Creep. Perhaps there is a more pervasive, elusive process at work here that contiues to misidentify and mislabel the Functionality Creep concept. Perhaps Functionality Creep is an adventursome, catastrophic principle on the cutting edge of human thought that has yet to see its banner unfurled in full rendition. That may explain how well-meaning Wikipedians continue to misappropriate the unfortunate case of Functionality Creep. Kreepy krawly 19:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean with functionality creep; "When all you have is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail" sums it up, I think. I'm not sure I agree that this is synonymous with featuritis, I see featuritis is a hybrid of the two. When someone says "I want to be able to write Word documents in my web browser", it's not a case of using the browser for something it wasn't intended; someone has to deliberately add that ability, that's what makes it featuritis. Functionality creep is me using my "extract details from shadow" algorithm, with a negative image function before and after, to extract details from washed out areas. I didn't write the algorithm to do that, but I didn't have to change it to use it differently, I just had to use it differently. scot 20:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

seeking minimal transitive closure - minimal path[edit]

if you can do it in 2 steps why to do it 20 ? this entry is more about : if you do not even know where in the "feature rich" mess a controll/command can be. Like being hashed by a function and then search original value. Hashing is one way relation. One should reflect, create relation both ways. Why is it i never see relation to graphs in wikipedia? Data structures are graphs. Control structures are graphs of flow. Programs are made from them. And is it worth tranforming those non-exact articles to more exact (simpler!) form ? I do not think there should be rich mathematical formulas. But if you understand some basic you should see the mappings (again graph :) ). Xchmelmilos (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

rfc[edit]

should a referenced real-life example of this phenomenon be included in the article or not?

Comment from an uninvolved editor: I would love to see more examples. Surely there are lots of well-recorded examples of scope creep? However, it might not be appropriate to include a politically controversial one (where there isn't even widespread agreement that it's scope creep, per se) unless we're really desperate for new additions - it'll just be a magnet for conflict and coatracking. Would somebody like to add some alternative examples? bobrayner (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I just don't think it is a very good example. Off the top of my head a few military ones are : V22, F35, Clansman, and almost anything Australian. To really qualify it has to be a project that is being run properly and the scope gets away from what was originally quoted on. Greglocock (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
At the moment, the article appears to be completely unreferenced. It would make an appropriate candidate for deletion if this is rectified. We already have an article on Mission creep and I'm not sure why this shouldn't just redirect to that. --FormerIP (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Isn't mission creep a subset of scope creep? Greglocock (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is.Pm master 15:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the article could quote itself as an example? Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

weak oppose it could be constured as either WP:Trivia or WP:UNDUE to mention a certain example. That said consensus can be gained on which to include (afnd if opposed later WP:Consensus can cahnge(Lihaas (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).

"value for free" explanation?[edit]

I don't understand the term "value for free" policy. There seems to be nothing on wikipedia. Is there another term one can use?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.154.103.130 (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)