The first line of defense against scope creep is to be crystal clear from the start about what is and is not included in the contract. This will avoid a lot of headaches and feelings of resentment down the road.

Input vs. output

Services contracts can be input-based—stipulating the inputs that you will make, such as billable hours—or output-based—focusing on what you will produce. In general, input-based contracts will better protect you from scope creep than output-based contracts. For example, most law firms historically have focused on billable hours, in part to insulate against scope creep, but clients are increasingly asking for—and getting—project-based fees to gain more clarity around their expected costs.

In an output-based account, the client has a strong incentive to pile on more work, since such add-ons are effectively free. A good defense against such incentives would be to have a “safety valve” hourly rate attached to any additional work. If work threatens to go beyond the scope specified, you could then offer to take on the extra work on the clock.

Making a murky contract transparent

When a contract is not perfectly specified, be up front in expressing your opinion that the additional work would go over budget.

Ideally, the client will agree that you should be paid for this work. If the client doesn’t agree with your interpretation of the contract, you might consider doing the work without further compensation to preserve the relationship.

If you go this route, make the concession transparent. For example, add a line item to the bill for the additional hours spent and flag them as “no charge.” This maximizes goodwill and reduces the likelihood of similar requests. Then, next time, negotiate a safety valve for any additional hours you might work.

Sunday Minute Summary: When negotiating terms of service with a client, factor in the possibility of scope creep to ensure you are fully protected.

Read original article


Tags: