THE DIRECT ANSWER

Acknowledge the new request, compare it with the agreed deliverable, and estimate its effect before accepting it. Explain which existing commitment would change, then ask the authorized person to choose a tradeoff. A reasonable addition can still exceed available capacity. Keep the original commitment visible until a revised scope, date, or capacity arrangement is explicitly agreed.

Describe the change without accusing the requester

“Scope creep” is useful as a planning label, but it can sound accusatory in a conversation. Start with the request itself: “You would like an additional comparison page.” Then state how it differs from the agreed work. This allows the other person to correct your understanding before you debate time, fees, or priorities.

Distinguish a new requirement from a correction needed to meet the original requirement. If you omitted something already promised, do not automatically classify the repair as an extra. If the baseline is ambiguous, quote the relevant agreed description and identify the uncertainty. Resolving that ambiguity is part of the conversation.

Calculate the effect on the whole commitment

In the fictional Scope Swap case, the original core requires four hours and mandatory handoff one. Five hours are available, so the original commitment uses all five. A new request takes two additional hours. Accepting it without another change produces seven hours of work against five available; it does not become feasible because the request sounds small.

Estimate integration and review as well as the visible new task. If the two-hour estimate already includes those steps, say so. If it does not, make the missing effort explicit before proposing a commitment. Keep the required handoff in the plan rather than quietly sacrificing it to absorb the addition.

Offer a change decision instead of a reflexive yes or no

Ask whether the requester wants to replace or defer two hours of agreed work, move an affected delivery with authorization, or explicitly provide two hours of additional real capacity. Any replacement must preserve a usable result and the mandatory handoff. The appropriate options depend on the project; there is no automatic entitlement to choose for the other person.

State the recommendation and the decision needed. “I can include the comparison if we agree which two hours of current work to remove or defer, or authorize two additional available hours. My recommendation is to retain the original package for this delivery and schedule the comparison separately.” That recommendation is a proposal until approved.

  • Identify the addition and its acceptance criteria.
  • Show original effort, added effort, and available capacity.
  • Name the affected promise.
  • Request an authorized choice and record it.

Match the boundary to your role

Employees can make workload effects visible even when a manager has authority to change assignments. Ask that manager to confirm what should move. Freelancers should use the agreed change process and clarify any fee or schedule implications before starting the addition. People with several income roles should avoid promising time already committed elsewhere.

If the requester lacks approval authority, help route the decision to the owner. You can gather details or estimate the change without accepting it. Explain the distinction so discovery work is not mistaken for a commitment. If the addition is urgent, specify the latest decision time that still permits a feasible delivery.

AUTHORED FICTIONAL EXAMPLE

A conversation you can rehearse

Authored fictional example — the Scope Swap case. An agreed five-hour package consists of four hours of core work and one hour of mandatory handoff. A stakeholder adds a two-hour comparison page.

A first reaction

“Sure, it is only one extra page. I will squeeze it in.”

A more specific response

“The comparison is a two-hour addition. Our original core and handoff already use the five available hours, so the revised total is seven. To include it, we need an agreed two-hour removal or deferral, or two explicitly authorized and available extra hours. Which change can the owner approve?”

The revised response treats the addition as a decision about the entire commitment. It neither rejects the idea automatically nor accepts an infeasible workload.

Before you act

  • Locate the agreed baseline.
  • Check whether this is new work or an original requirement.
  • Estimate the addition and integration.
  • Protect mandatory handoff.
  • Obtain a specific decision before changing the promise.
  • Send a concise updated scope record.

Common questions

What if the requester calls the addition a tiny favor?

Acknowledge the intention and use the effort estimate rather than debating the word “tiny.” Explain that the original five hours are already allocated and the addition requires two more. Ask which approved commitment or capacity arrangement should change.

Can I start the new work while approval is pending?

Only within whatever authority you already have, and without implying approval that has not happened. If starting it would jeopardize the original commitment, state that consequence and wait for the owner’s decision. Continue compatible authorized work where practical.

Original practice guidance using a fictional scope change. Contract interpretation and employment obligations depend on the actual arrangement. This guide is general practice material, not legal advice.

Source basis: an original scenario-based practice framework. The example is fictional, and no external research finding or measured effectiveness is claimed. Read the editorial method.