Running head: PJM 6005 – 5 – PM TOPIC LITERATURE GAP AND




The past weeks have been a significantly unique learning experience with the analysis of various scholarly works, a task that furthered my understanding of the topic of project scope. I now understand that project scope is a process conducted at the beginning of a project as part of the planning process. I also understood that project scope is the process that should engage all stakeholders in a project to achieve effective planning. According to the Project Management Institute (2015, p. 3, para. 2), stakeholder engagement is vital to the project scope because it facilitates the gathering of essential data and support for a project, which is also a vital step to the project scope even when a stakeholder evidence low support to a project.

However, I would like to advance my understanding of the topic of the project scope by learning more about whether the project scope is guided by estimation, assumptions, or projections. I would like to understand how much of the three elements influence the project scope because issues such as time and cost may be significantly delicate aspects of a project to effectively plan to use the project scoping process. A further understanding of these issues would make it easy for me to understand the vitality and process of the project scope.

I also feel that the topic of project scope has a redundant form of research into the concept that predominantly revolves around defining project scope. I believe that the role of Work Breakdown Structures to project scoping has been significantly under-researched. I believe this because most scholars paint the image that Works Breakdown Structures are an independent concept when it is under project scoping. I believe that the role of WBS in preventing poor project scoping should be explored further, which would generate a format for achieving effective project scope. In this light, a question such as “How can a project manager know that they erred in the project scope?” and “What is the difference between project management and Work Breakdown Structures?” have not been answered.


Response to Maritere

I really appreciate that you have made impressive progress with your topic of project creep. I believe that the topic is significantly important to project management because it allows managers to avoid the unpredictability of changes, as you strongly argue. However, I am concerned with the factors that you identified as vital to preventing project scope, such as project communication. Gray and Larson (2020, pg. 111, para. 4) explain that the causes of scope creep include gold plating the project, poor requirements identification, and late involvement of users. I believe that this shows that communication can be achieved in a project, but it does not necessarily guarantee the prevention of scope creep.

Response to Joseph

Your post was significantly enlightening because I believe that you use a different approach to project management that is beyond the books’ versions. I draw this conclusion from your argument that most scholars do not explore the role and input of cognitive frameworks to project planning. However, I believe that the work breakdown structure is a process that can be used to assert the identification of cognition’s input to project planning. According to the Project Management Institute (2019, pg. 59), work breakdown structure entails monitoring, planning, and executing strategies. I believe that these three steps translate to the use of cognitive practices such as thought, problem-solving, analysis, and memory.

Response 3

I am drawn to the extensive nature of your post, where you use advanced examples to support your arguments. I like that you identify the importance of elements such as cost leadership and differentiation in projects that you identify these factors as possible causes of scope creep. Gray and Larson (2020, pg. 111, para. 4) identify gold plating a project as a significant problem that may lead to scope creep because it misleads project managers into overvaluing their ideas, which, makes it difficult for the managers to recognize flaws. I believe this matches your argument because differentiation may lead to extra and blinding confidence in a product that may make flaws go unnoticed until they present as scope creep. 


Gray, C. F., & Larson, E. W. (2020). Project management: The managerial process (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Project Management Institute. (2015). Business analysis for practitioners: A practice guide. Project Management Inst.

Project Management Institute. (2019). Practice standard for work breakdown structures – (3rd ed.).