Scope Creep Examples — Web development
Help documentation the agency never agreed to write
The SOW assumed the client would write end-user help content. With launch approaching and no docs delivered, the client asks the dev team to write them.
The SOW's assumptions note that the client's team will produce end-user help documentation and in-app tooltip copy, with development building the UI to display it. Launch approaches with none of that content written, and the client asks the dev team to draft it instead, since they're "already familiar with how everything works." Familiarity with the code isn't the same as writing clear, accurate end-user documentation — it's a distinct skill and a real time cost that was never quoted.
Clause typically implicated
Clause typically implicated
Assumptions clause→ — Names help content as a client responsibility — worth pointing back to directly when that responsibility hasn't been met and the ask shifts to the dev team.
Suggested change-order wording
Suggested change-order wording (illustrative, not legal advice)
Our SOW assumed help content and tooltip copy would come from your team — the UI is built to display it, but the writing itself wasn't scoped for us. I can draft an initial pass for [X], though it'll need review from someone on your side who knows the product deeply for accuracy. Alternatively, we can launch with placeholder tooltips and add real copy in a fast-follow. Which do you prefer?
How this usually resolves
Placeholder content plus a fast-follow is usually the more realistic path when the client's own team is the bottleneck — it gets the launch date met and puts the actual writing responsibility back where it was always supposed to sit.
Related reading