The Impact of Scope Creep on Project Success: An Empirical Investigation

Abstract

Advocates of software engineering and software project management stated in the literature that creeping of scope is one of the most common causes for the failure of software projects. Also, advocates believed that it could occur in almost every software project, which leads to compromise in quality, delayed schedules, increase cost and decreased customer satisfaction. However, the lack of empirical evidence demands a comprehensive investigation to identify the factors of scope creep and to propose a conceptual framework to empirically evaluate the impact of scope creep on software project success. To determine the scope creep factors in this study, two exploratory methods, i.e. a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) and interview from experts are performed. Following the analysis of these methods, a conceptual framework is proposed. To empirically evaluate the proposed conceptual framework, data is collected through a survey method. Next, the collected data is analyzed through Partial Least Squares' Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM). From the results, it is evident that the identified factors of scope creep are negatively associated with software project success. The results of empirical evaluation also second the findings of SLR. The outcome of the study may help the practitioners to understand the dynamics of factors, which undermine scope creep in software SMEs and to assist them in the development of effective control and mitigation strategies, therefore, to increase the project success rate. INDEX TERMS Scope management, scope creep, requirement creep, software project success, partial least squares structural equation modeling.

An Empirical Investigation of Factors Causing Scope Creep in Agile Global Software Development Context: A Conceptual Model for Project Managers

“…A properly characterized and managed scope prompts transmit a quality product in agreed cost and intimate determined time schedules. According to Chaos Report from Standish Group, 51% of IT ventures are "tested"genuinely late, over the financial plan, and anticipated deficient highlights [6]. Figure 1 presents the statistics regarding project failures due to scope creep.…”

“…Some of the researchers considered these pillars as a triangle of the whole project because these multi-dimensional aspects provide coverage to the overall project. Hence, scope creep factors would be increased in case of an issue in any area [6]. Through the conducted systematic review, scope creep factors are identified from the literature.…”

A Framework of Software Project Scope Definition Elements: An ISM-DEMATEL Approach

“…The survey statistics showed that 21% of the software projects failed, often termed aborted or canceled, and 53% were challenged, completed but with time and budget overrun, also with fewer features and functions. Among several causes of software project failures, an inadequate scope is deemed as one of the biggest contributors [4], [9], [16], [17], [32], [35], [57], [65]. It has been recognized that an inadequate or incomplete scope definition at the early stages of the project life cycle is a common source of difficulties in the implementation process [4], [6], [16], [34], [35], [43].…”

“…Consequently, a poorly defined project scope imposes a variety of adverse effects on the project schedule, cost, and quality [4], [15]. It has been found that incomplete or poor scope definition extends the project time and efforts, disrupts project rhythm, and lowers the morale of the project team [4], [6], [16], [17].…”

“…One of the most crucial reasons for software project failure is not meeting the needs/requirements of the user [16], [25], [28]- [30]. Lack of a clear scope definition has been recognized as a major cause of software project failure [4], [9], [17], [31]- [36]. Few of the reasons associated with software scope definition are partial requirements, unclear objectives, changing requirements, impractical customer expectations [4], [13], [37], poor requirements [9], [38]- [40], insufficient requirements engineering, poor planning, communication gap among stakeholders [41]- [43], lack of user involvement, lack of planning [13], [44], [45].…”