1. What factors and forces contributed to scope creep in this case?
In this case, the scope creep includes There was a change in the client's needs. The clients, in this case, agreed to change their minds, instead of sticking to a bathtub they had wanted. Thus, this needed new requests. There was also a poor estimation of what was necessary from the beginning issues could be identified right from the start of the planning phase. Finally, one of the forces that contributed to scope creep is the inability of the person undertaking the project to say no, to what the client wants, which leads to blurred and unclear conditions.
2. Is this an example of good or bad scope creep? Explain.
It is a good scope creep in that at the end of it the Nelson's will benefit. That Nelson believes that with the changes the installation would be a good bargain when he finally sells the house after the girls graduated from college, so to him it was a good long-term investment of the installations in the house. Looking at what the bigger picture or end goal finally, is to sell the house and gain some profit. So, in a real sense, the scope creep is valuable to Nelson's. For this reason, even after extra cost, looking at cost versus benefit shows that the investment is worth every penny, which most probably may eliminate any cost implications in the future. But at the end of it all, it is necessary to evaluate one cost about the overall profit.
3. How could scope creep be better managed by the Nelsons?
One of the important aspects to manage scope creep is for one to have it all clear about the project from the beginning and to be able to define it. Lack of clarity from the start of the project will cause problems. Thus, ironing out everything to all parties involved in the project is key. It is important to involve everyone, as well as the experts. In the case of Nelson’s, they did not sort enough guidance on the best tub to install in the house; thus, the person also leading the project did not take time to look at the proposals that Nelson presented; instead, he agrees with everything that was suggested. Thus, the Nelson’s were not updated on what was or wasn’t in the scope as they were just being advised it will be done without clear thought. The person undertaking the project did not raise issues that were coming up, and he was not clear enough with the Nelson’s. The person in charge of the project did not also do enough due diligence on new requests. It was good if he reviewed all the requests that the Nelson’s did