What Are the Risks?
Generally, the risks are proportionate to the level of creep that exists on a particular project or job. For example, if a homeowner asks a lighting designer to oversee a small portion of an electrician’s work, the potential risk to the designer is relatively minor. On a larger project where the potential for creep is greater, however, the risks can be devastating.
The best way to illustrate the magnitude of the potential risk is to go back to the aforementioned story of the lighting designer. Shortly after agreeing to take on the additional work, the designer began developing the screening room’s lighting design scheme without communicating with the interior designer first. After spending hours designing the layout, the lighting designer presented his design to the homeowner and interior designer. The interior designer explained that the proposed lighting plan would not work because she was redesigning the entire basement, not merely the screening room. The homeowner apologized for not clarifying the issue with the lighting designer and asked if he would be able to work with the interior designer to formulate a new lighting plan for the basement. At this point, the job had significantly decreased in profitability for the lighting designer.
The homeowner then approached the lighting designer and asked if he would supervise her electrician’s work, offering an additional hourly fee for this. The lighting designer explained that he is a designer and not an electrician but agreed to oversee the implementation of his lighting plan. The electrician caused a fair amount of unnecessary damage to the home’s ceilings and walls, which created a nearly four-week delay. Ultimately, the electrician and lighting designer were sued for negligence and breach of contract. The homeowner sought more than $700,000 in compensatory and consequential damages. In an effort to avoid the protracted litigation, the lighting designer settled his portion of the claim for $115,000.
Can Scope-Creep Be Prevented?
While many would like to believe that scope-creep is something that can be prevented, in reality, it cannot. Changes to the scope of work are inherent to almost every project. To suggest that it can be avoided or eliminated is wishful thinking.
That being said, every job is going to require some tweaks to the original scope of work. These adjustments to the original scope are not necessarily damaging if the increase in scope of work is handled and documented properly. In other words, you cannot eliminate changes to the project scope, but you can manage its effect by following a few simple procedures.
The two best ways to manage changes to the scope of the project are through proper communication and contract procedures.
Proper Communication
It is imperative, regardless of whether hired by a homeowner, developer, or architect, that the lighting designer clearly explains his or her services and expertise as well as explains what types of work are included—and excluded—in the project agreement. This all should be outlined at the initial meeting and also should be referred to briefly in his or her contract. If the lighting designer is required to sign the developer’s or architect’s contract, he or she should look to include language in the contract clearly establishing his or her scope of work.
For example, the designer in our story should have advised the homeowner in writing that he is not qualified to oversee the work of the electrician and that he would only be overseeing implementation of his design. Separately, he should have advised her that he would not be held liable for any consequential damages arising from the implementation of his design. Consequential damages are damages that are not directly related to one’s contract, but which can arise from his or her work—such as penalties for delay or loss of use.