Talk:Mission creep

Following later history, the following passage may no longer accurately represent a significant viewpoint"
 * Probably Update Needed:

"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.
 * Actually, any update should be along the lines of "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't." It was an extremely popular anti-Bush (senior) argument in the 1992 election that Operation Desert Storm (actually the second Gulf War - the Iraq-Iran War being the first) had been a failure because Coalition Forces didn't go onto Baghdad and topple Saddam. Of course, commentators like Eleanor Clift of Newsweek claimed that to be successful, Bush (senior) would have had to install democratic governments in Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. for Desert Storm to have been successful in her eyes - talk about mission creep! 15 years later these same folks have claimed that Bush (junior) should never have attempted to remove Hussein from power. Jmdeur (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Split second sentence in definition
The second sentence "Mission creep is usually ...; its outcome never meant to be." is overly long and should in my oppinion be shortened. Understanding the sentence for a newcommer like me is very, very hard.

I hope this is the right place for a proposition like this.

Dte-bavaria (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Merge Scope creep into Mission creep
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)

"Mission creep" vs. "Feature creep"
In software I always heard of "feature creep", and I had also heard of "mission creep". I always figured the latter was some kind of military slang that gave rise to the former's use in software. But if this article cites April 1993 as the first usage (much later than I would have guessed) I have to wonder.

Using Google's usenet search, the earliest reference I could find to "feature creep" was February of 1993, a few months before the first use of "mission creep" cited by this article. Using the same methods the earliest mention of "mission creep" I found was from September of 1994. 

Can anybody find earlier references to either term and where they originated? 166.250.37.11 (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mission creep. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070203182759/http://www.carlisle.army.mil:80/usawc/Parameters/01winter/record.htm to http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/01winter/record.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mission creep. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061130005607/http://www.navyleague.org/seapower/three_decades_of_mission_creep.htm to http://www.navyleague.org/seapower/three_decades_of_mission_creep.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607222916/http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?id=1235 to http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?id=1235

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

History
"The phrase first appeared in 1993, in articles published in the Washington Post and in the New York Times concerning the United Nations peacekeeping mission during the Somali Civil War." This is not correct. From an article in the Indiana Gazette (Indiana, Pennsylvania) for June 19, 1978: "... clearly NATO is reluctant to commit itself to too much. Smith and others have warned of the dangers of "mission creep" - gradually accepting new responsibilities. [...] "Mission creep is defined as taking the first step down that slippery slope and as a result of that creep ending up out of control," Carter said.  NATO's role in Bosnia should be a "very controlled process.""  (source: newspapers.com [subscription])  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plfca (talk • contribs) 11:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)