u/Fit-Development-6761

In my research into how different development agencies tackle scope creep, there have been some findings.

Every agency:

* has contracts;

* has Statements of Work;

* has approval procedures;

* uses Jira, Notion, and Slack workflows.

However, scope still goes beyond what's originally defined.

Rarely because of any single big request. More often because of little things that build up throughout implementation:

* "fixes"

* revisions

* Slack requests

* meetings

* changes to deadlines

* growing customer demands.

Now I wonder if scope creep isn't even a contract problem. Because it looks like contracts just define scope formally, while everything becomes a bit more flexible during the process.

Would be interested in your opinion, agency owners/project managers.

Do contracts really help prevent the problem in your case?

Every development agency says the same thing:

"The client keeps adding minor stuff."

Minor stuff turns into:

- Extra pages

- Additional revisions

- "Quick" integration

- Meetings

- Timeline delays

And suddenly, the agency loses money on that project.

The funny thing is:

There's still no system controlling scope creep.

Teams use:

- Slack

- Notion

- Jira

- WhatsApp

- Calls

- Approval processes

But none of them stop the work outside of the scope before execution begins.

So we decided to develop ScopeOS.

Instead of sending requests straight to the developer,

the client contacts the project layer AI.

The AI knows:

- The project scope

- Pricing

- Deliverables

- Timelines

- Agency policies

Then makes decisions regarding:

- In scope

- Out of scope

- Additional costs

- Impact on the timeline

Essentially:

Financial control for the dev agencies.

MVP still in development.

Curious about how many dev agencies are facing this problem on a daily basis.