When managing multiple stakeholders with conflicting priorities, scope creep can sneak in quickly if you’re not careful. My first step is always to ensure there’s a clear, agreed-upon scope documented and visible to everyone. From there, I treat new requests with respect—but also with process. I ask: What’s the business value? How urgent is this? What are we willing to trade off? I use prioritization frameworks like MoSCoW or value vs. effort grids to create transparency. I also keep a change request process in place so any scope changes are formalized, not informal hallway (or Zoom) decisions. Most importantly, I communicate consistently—reminding everyone of the shared goals and what we risk by stretching too thin.

Scope creep isn’t a backlog issue — it’s a clarity issue. I’ve learned that when multiple stakeholders push conflicting priorities, the solution isn’t just control, it’s influence. Anchor scope to user outcomes, not features. Drive alignment through impact mapping, and frame trade-offs in terms of business risk vs. opportunity cost. Use lean roadmaps to show what gets delayed when scope shifts. And protect team bandwidth by enforcing a decision stack — where only validated, high-impact changes make it in. Scope isn't sacred, but focus is. Guard it like the product depends on it — because it does.

If I had stakeholders pulling in different directions, I’d pause and align them. I’d say, “Let’s get clear on what success looks like — for all of us.” Then I’d write it down, share it, and stick to it like a contract. When new requests come in, I’d ask, “Does this serve our agreed goal?” If not, I’d park it for later — not ignore it, just park it. And I’d give updates often, so people feel heard, not sidelined. Because scope creep isn’t about tasks. It’s about unclear agreements.

In my experience all the stakeholders are going to push for the piece that interest them, three things that I’ve found helpful in this scenario: -Align the priorities of business and define the big bets for the year -Prioritize the core products/services -Explain why of these choices The stakeholders are going to see the racional of these choices, they are going to see that the part of business they interest it’s going to have a priority but in different order

If you're suffering scope creep the problem is upstream. It's the setting of expectations at the start. Clearly set milestones, deliverables and most importantly responsibilities. Priorities only tend to become conflicting when not clearly set out with expectations. If you are running a project with multiple stakeholders there is a common objective (delivery of the project), as long as all responsibilities and deliverables are clearly set against this common aim mission creep can be significantly reduced.

Managing scope creep starts with clarity and boundaries. When multiple stakeholders pull in different directions, anchor the project in well-defined goals and a prioritized backlog. Communicate transparently about trade-offs — every “yes” means a “no” elsewhere. Use data to support decisions, and involve stakeholders in setting priorities, not just making requests. Keep scope changes tied to value, not noise. Strong facilitation and a clear change control process turn chaos into alignment.

First, I will prepare the Backlog Document and schedule a requirement walkthrough call. Subsequently, we will organize a requirement prioritization call, utilizing techniques such as the 100 Dollar, MoSCoW, or Kano analysis. During the walkthrough call, we will discuss the business needs with the Business Owner, assess the current impact, and explore alternative workflows. Based on these discussions, we will prioritize the requirements using the chosen prioritization technique. we will verify that the requirements are SMART. I will request sample data, current state data, and expected outcome data. Before implementing the requirements, we will prepare a Proof of Concept (POC) to ensure alignment with the business needs.

Managing scope creep when juggling multiple stakeholders with conflicting priorities requires clear communication and strict boundaries. Start by ensuring that project goals and objectives are clearly defined and agreed upon by all stakeholders upfront. Regularly communicate the project’s progress and align expectations, emphasizing what’s in scope and what’s not. Create a change management process to handle requests for adjustments and assess their impact on timelines, resources, and costs. Encourage stakeholders to prioritize their requests and make it clear that any changes will require a formal approval process. Set up frequent check-ins to address concerns early and keep everyone on the same page.

Scope creep is a result of: - Unclear requirements - Better backlog refinement - Poor communication: Facilitate consistently collaboration with stakeholder’s - Lack of Process: Set a process for new requirements and educate the team and organisation on Agile.

Managing scope creep while handling conflicting stakeholder priorities requires a blend of diplomacy, clarity, and structured communication. I start by ensuring a well-defined and documented scope, aligned with business goals and signed off by key stakeholders. Then, I maintain a transparent change control process any new requests are logged, assessed for impact, and discussed in structured prioritization sessions.