How do you prevent POC scope creep when customers keep asking 'can you just...'?
Answer
Gate requests with a 2-minute "In-POC or Out-of-Scope" decision tree. If the feature wasn't on the day-1 charter, it's out. Pavilion research: 71% of stalled POCs failed because feature requests diluted focus. The move: document 3–4 "explicit out-of-scope items" on the POC deck (version control, custom fields, third-party integrations) so the customer self-edits.
The Decision Tree
``` "Can you add field-level audit logs?" → Is audit logging on the signed POC charter? No. → Does this block a success metric? No. → Decision: "That's a smart ask. Let me log it as a feature request for post-POC evaluation." → Timeline: Drop it in a shared backlog; revisit week 5 if POC is winning.
"Can you support our custom workflow?" → Is workflow customization in the charter? No. → Does this block a success metric? Check metric #2 (payroll accuracy)... No, it doesn't. → Decision: "This is valuable. For now, let's run the standard workflow to validate core functionality. We'll scope custom workflows into the contract." ```
Scope Creep Checklist
- Week 1: Customer requests 2–3 additions (normal). Log all in a "parking lot" doc shared with sponsor.
- Week 3: Push back on any new request that wasn't on day-1 charter. Frame as scope protection ("Let's nail these 3 metrics first.").
- Week 5: Review the parking lot. If POC is passing metrics, discuss whether 1–2 items unlock the deal. If POC is failing, items are irrelevant—kill the POC.
Language
Wrong: "We can't do that. It's not in scope." (defensive; shuts down conversation).
Right: "That's strategic. Here's the trade-off: adding that feature burns 4 days, which delays our validation of the core payroll workflow. You want us focused on nailing these 3 success metrics by day 35, right?" (collaborative; educates).
TAGS: POC_scope,feature_creep,scope_management,Pavilion,deal_momentum,negotiation