The issue of new changes to be introduced into the system should be addressed during the earlier stages than at the late stages of the software development life circle. The later a change is addressed, the greater the cost, risk and duration of the project.
The first scenario depicts some stakeholders (the project team leaders) as being part of the source of the feature creep introduction. The company signs an agreement that was not initially part of the deal. This issue has both its advantages and disadvantages. Starting with the advantages, the company has decided to adopt a framework that is in line with the ADA and section 508. This is a great deal as it provides for more user needs and standards. The feature creep in this case helps achieve the business goal as well as the customer needs. It as well aids in advancing the project to fit into its ideal problem solving state.
Based on various techniques, a team through their leader can cope up with the changes and come up with a strategy that will allow them to deliver the software according to the new requirements. First of all, on the start of the project, the team has a mandate to accept that feature creep is part of the project so, prepare in advance. Secondly, they can commit enough time to the requirements elicitation. While performing the intensive requirements analysis, they should also consider the boundaries to changes and when they can be made. Meanwhile, the team should remain task-oriented and consider the customer as right while taking on a lot of research before deciding to commit.
On the other hand, the feature creep has negative impacts on the developing team. First of all, additional costs have to be incurred. The developers possibly have to fix the new requirements beginning with the point of integration of the new idea. The project takes more time than the initially decided time and more risks have to be incurred. This leads to delay in the project delivery an altered project milestone results. Most programming languages have a steep learning overhead hence new suggestions would put everything on hold. This leads into the team members’ frustration especially in the case where they were not consulted. It is therefore necessary to have the project team aware of any consultations and their directions.
In the second scenario, the Contents Management System, a scope creep is introduced into the system. The project is now meant to handle more Operating Systems based on a web platform. The result of this is additional development expenses and time introduced into the system. In addition, the complexity of the system becomes a question.
Before anything can be done with the suggestions that have been made, it is necessary to carry out a change analysis. The requirements must be considered so that the product satisfies the client’s needs. Some changes may be critical to a system so, they must be included whereas some are optional hence can be included in a version of the software.
Any alternative that is taken has an impact on the design. First, there is a time taken to decide on which option to take. Secondly, there are new risks that are introduced into the project’s design phase. The design may be produced in a manner that doesn’t satisfy the customer’s need. Lastly, the cost of the whole project goes higher than the initially intended costs. This is due to more resources that need to be allocated to the projects in order to accomplish the new mission.
Nevertheless, the second scenario leaves the system developers with a decision to make on whether to take the change defer it or reject it. If the developers decide on a progressive application upgrading, then they can start off with the initial projects and implements the customer’s needs. However, rejecting the change is the least expected decision. A project that fails to address the change in the requirements and quantifying the effects of the changes normally fails.