Here’s a common scenario game studios may be familiar with: a contractor and studio meet, decide they want to work together, and then begin a short evaluation period so both can test the working relationship. The evaluation goes well and they agree to continue.

A few extra requests get added here and there. Weeks later, the contractor sends an invoice for work the studio thought was included. Now there’s a dispute over whether that work was included in the original agreement or requires a new invoice. Next logical question: well, what did the contract say?

Scope creep happens when a project expands beyond the agreed work without a clear discussion about cost, timing or responsibility. What’s the solution? A strong statement of work, commonly called an SOW, and key terms in the agreement  can reduce that risk by defining the original assignment and creating a process for changes (and keep the producer happy.)

Define the Scope Clearly

The first defense against scope creep is a specific description of the work.

Broad phrases such as “support the inventory system” or “assist with user interface development” leave room for disagreement. A stronger description might say that the contractor will “design and build one inventory screen using approved wireframes and existing art assets” and include specific approval and rejection mechanisms. The more specific, the better.

The SOW should also identify if something is specifically excluded. For example, the inventory screen may exclude icon creation, sound design, animation or engine implementation. Clear exclusions protect both sides. A contractor should not be expected to perform unpaid work, and a studio should know when a request falls outside the agreed price (and the producer will appreciate the “definition of done” being so clear right off the bat.)

Set Limits on Revisions

Revision requests are the equivalent of death by a thousand scope creep cuts.

To avoid the spiral of endless revision requests, the SOW or the services agreement should state how many revision rounds are included and explain what counts as a revision. Minor changes to an approved design may fall within scope, but a new creative direction or a request to rebuild an approved feature may require additional fees.

The agreement should also explain how extra revisions will be approved and priced, or if there are other consequences for failure to get to approved milestone.

Use Acceptance Criteria

Like that one stubborn project ticket every producer has run into at least once in their tenure, a deliverable can remain open indefinitely when the SOW does not clearly define when the work is complete.

Acceptance criteria may include approved specifications, technical requirements, file formats or testing standards. The agreement or the SOW should also give the studio a defined review period to accept the work or identify problems. The studio may have a set number of business days to accept the deliverable or provide a written list of issues and change requests.

Without a review deadline, feedback may continue long after delivery. Once again, the project ticket doesn’t close. The producer is annoyed. The cycle continues.

Require Written Approval for Additional Work

Additional work should not begin until it is scoped, priced and approved in writing.

The approval does not always need to be a long contract amendment. A short change order may be enough if it identifies the new work, additional fees and any schedule changes.

The agreement should also identify who has authority to approve changes. Although this probably shouldn’t happen, a producer, designer or department lead may sometimes request work during production without having authority to increase the project budget. If the contractor relies on that request, the studio may later dispute the charge. The producer is annoyed yet again.

The SOW should make clear that informal suggestions or production discussions do not change the scope unless the approval process is followed.

The Practical Takeaway

The best way to fight scope creep is to have a clear process.

A strong SOW defines the deliverables, identifies exclusions, limits revisions and explains how additional work will be approved. It should also include acceptance criteria and name the person authorized to change the scope.

Studios that establish a solid framework before work begins are less likely to face disputes over invoices, deadlines and expectations later.