From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Following later history, the following passage may no longer accurately represent a significant viewpoint"
"There are continued criticisms that the American led coalition should have ousted Saddam Hussein at the end of the first Gulf War after the ease with which the Iraqi forces were expelled from Kuwait."
- Don't kow there, ther have been suggestions that things would ahve been better all 'round if this had been done, since Iran was less powerful then, there was better support for war in Iraq both within the USA and internationally, the USA could claim UN authorisation, and Hussein would have been removed several years earlier.
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The result was do not merge.
These two terms have the same general meaning. I suggest they be merged into one more comprehensive article. --SueHay 03:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Scope creep is specifically a product development term. A bottom up & inside to outward effect of individuals within a development team suggesting/implementing additional functionality above and beyond the original specification. The creep's baseline is at the start of a project. While a product may already have too much functionality for the market, the creep starts after the spec's have signed off. A change in the quantifiable aspects of a product
Mission creep could be described as a top down and outside influence on a project (campaign/mission). Where the project is actively reacting to outside influences. A change in the qualitative aspects of the project.
I agree there are great similarities but at a day to day level I think there is sufficient difference between an engineer adding a feature because its cool and the UN adding more troops because violence has spilled across a border. Bottom up v top down. regards - pauric Radiorental 16:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Strongly recommend against the combination. Within the world of military operations, when discussing operational requirements, I have never heard the term "scope creep" mentioned.
Against - diferent phenomena in different feilds. In the event of a merge I;d argue that scope creep has prescidence as a title. Artw 21:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree that the terms are not interchangeable. I work as a technical project manager, and on the opposite side of the coin, we've never used "mission creep", while "scope creep" is a common term and problem. If there is a common link, its the word 'creep'. But unless both are going to be (equal) sub-topics of 'creep', I feel they should stay separate. 72.25.166.53 20:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Against I agree with the comments above, 'feature creep/scope creep' refers to product development. Mission Creep refers to military. When sending my students to research the term 'feature creep' I would not expect them to have to wade through military related comments.
Agree that the terms are not interchangeable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aftabm (talk • contribs) 21:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Against - Echoing what others have said above. In my 19 years of working in software development, I have never heard of "mission creep" used while "scope creep" and "requirements creep" are used in almost every project. Although the definitions are close, they are not used interchangeably. MasNishimura 10:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Against - Scope Screep is specifically used before the project has completed. It is described as 'The addition of requirements without adjustment of budget or schedual' which indicates that it can only be done before the project has been completed. Reue (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Against - The two terms are used at different levels of management and organization. There is some overlap, but they are not the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.227.137.71 (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
