How to share project status without inviting scope creep

No one likes scope creep. The problem is that it rarely arrives labelled as such. It doesn’t announce itself with flashing lights. It shows up quietly — as a small request, a minor tweak, a quick “can we just…?”

Individually, those requests feel reasonable. Of course we can adjust that. Of course we can add this. Of course we can squeeze that in. But left unchecked, those small additions compound. One tweak becomes three meetings. A minor change becomes a revised timeline.

That’s exactly why stakeholder updates matter so much.

They act as guardrails. A structured update keeps decisions visible, tradeoffs honest, and next steps clear. If stakeholder engagement is about helping people feel informed and involved, then clarity is what prevents the project from turning into a well-intentioned but never-ending discussion.

Read next: How to manage project scope without scope creep

The goal of a stakeholder update is clarity

A stakeholder update isn’t a diary entry. It’s not a place to prove how hard the team is working. Instead, you need to see this as a short, structured message that answers the questions stakeholders are already thinking.

It should be questions like what’s changed since last time? What decisions were made? What risks are on the horizon? What help is needed? What happens next?

Include a RAG status as well, as these help flag problems in a very visual way.

Those questions need to be answered here because those answers are consistently in the same place, and scope creep has fewer places to hide. Instead, people can see what’s in scope, what’s been deprioritised, and what would have to move if something new is added.

Name risks early, even if they seem ‘small’

It really doesn’t matter how ‘small’ small is; it’s a big deal. In my experience, this is the part people skip because they don’t want to sound negative (or rude), but at the same time, it’s also where scope creep can be prevented with one sentence.

Here’s an example. Imagine an ecommerce expansion project to expand our small business sales online as we now have a Forth Worth branch. Maybe the shipping is ready, the website updates are nearly done, and marketing wants a launch date for the socials.

But while the tech is almost ready and the new draft website pages look great, there are some risks the project is carrying that mean we aren’t at the point of pressing publish just yet.

A good project status update would flag that there are still compliance and operational checks that need ownership. In our ecommerce expansion example, that could include:

• Finalising payment gateway and merchant account approvals (for example, Stripe, PayPal, or your acquiring bank and getting that signed off by the Finance team)
• Confirming data protection and consumer protection requirements (such as state-level privacy laws in this US example, and having the data protection officer sign them off)
• Reviewing fulfilment, shipping, and returns policies (including cross-border duties or courier SLAs with the procurement and ops teams)
• Clarifying state or regional tax obligations (for example, understanding sales tax in Texas as we’ll now be trading there)
• Securing any required licences or regulatory registrations (such as resale certificates or sector-specific permits).

These aren’t dramatic risks. They’re the kind that quietly sit in the background, until they suddenly become launch blockers. Calling them out early isn’t pessimism. It’s control, and it helps reduce the ‘can we just…’ type requests that seem to get more and more common the closer we get to go live.

Use the same simple format every time

A repeatable format makes updates easier to write and easier to read. It also makes it harder for random extras to slip in unnoticed. So what would a straightforward structure look like?

• Start with progress, but keep it brief.
• Follow that with decisions (updates tend to get powerful at this point)
• Add tradeoffs and risks. If something is going to affect timing, cost, quality, or workload, call it out plainly
• Remember, someone should always know what’s expected of them after reading the update.

My simple status update template will help.

Include the “If this, then that” for new requests

Stakeholders will always have new ideas. While some will be genuinely useful, you don’t want those ideas being handled to the point where they’re blowing up the plan. Your one-sentence catch-all is: “This request is possible, but it will require X, and it will affect Y.”

Then name the tradeoff. Most stakeholders can accept tradeoffs, if they know what their options are, and that helps them make a decision. What they actually struggle with is surprise.

Scope creep rarely announces itself as ‘creep’. It shows up as enthusiasm, urgency, or someone trying to be helpful. A stakeholder update gives you a neutral place to make scope visible.

When what’s in scope, what’s at risk, and what the tradeoffs are written down in the same format every time, new ideas don’t automatically expand the project. They trigger a conversation. That conversation is where you protect time, budget, and focus. Without that structure, scope expands quietly. With it, scope becomes a decision.

Bring it back to control

Scope creep isn’t usually caused by difficult stakeholders (and I’d challenge whether they are being difficult anyway – it’s normally behavior that is challenging, rather than a person being inherently a problem).

Scope creep is caused by unclear visibility. When people don’t know what’s already committed, what’s at risk, or what will move if something new is added, they default to optimism. A strong stakeholder update replaces optimism with clarity.

You don’t need a longer report. You don’t need more meetings. Consistency is your friend. A short, structured update that highlights progress, decisions, risks, and tradeoffs is one of the simplest tools you have to protect your project.

That gives you the context stakeholders need, and the groundwork for you to have a respectful conversation about what gives if something new comes along.

When stakeholders can see the boundaries, they (tend to) respect them, or at least challenge with purpose rather than blind optimism. And when tradeoffs are explicit, scope stops creeping and starts being managed.