The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The concept of function creep
Open accessAbstract
Function creep – the expansion of a system or technology beyond its original purposes – is a well-known phenomenon. Correction: it is a well-referenced phenomenon. Yearly, hundreds of publications use the term to criticise developments in technology regulation and data governance, but surprisingly, no-one has ever written a paper about the concept itself. This paper fills that gap in the literature, by analysing and defining ‘function creep’. This creates conceptual clarity that can help structure future debates and address function creep concerns. After analysing the term ‘function creep’ itself, I discuss concepts that share family resemblances, including other ‘creep’ concepts and many theoretical notions from STS, economics, sociology, public policy, law, and discourse theory. Function creep can be situated in the nexus of reverse adaptation and self-augmentation of technology, incrementalism and disruption in policy and innovation, policy spillovers, ratchet effects, transformative use, and slippery slope argumentation. Based on this, I define function creep as an imperceptibly transformative and therewith contestable change in a data-processing system’s proper activity. Argumentation theory illuminates how the pejorative ‘function creep’ functions in debates: it makes visible that what looks like linear change is actually non-linear, and simultaneously calls for a much-needed debate about this qualitative change.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“SAI functions may slowly 'creep' (Koops, 2021) into currently unknown possibilities of misuse.”
From A Fate Worse Than Warming? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and Global Catastrophic Risk (2021) · cites this paper as Koops, 2021
In the citing paper
“In that context, it is not surprising that there would be a 'function creep' (Koops, 2021) in which the use of AI spontaneously expands from the expected or intended, into unanticipated practices:”
From Artificial intelligence and unconditional love: the rise of generative AI as an alternative form of mental health support (2026) · cites this paper as Koops, 2021
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- 121 DA Schön, ‘Generative Metaphor: A Perspective on Problem-Setting in Social Policy’ in A Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought (Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn 1993) 137.
- 123 I Ayres and J Braithwaite, Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate (Oxford University Press, 1992).
- 124 R Owen, J Bessant, and M Heintz, Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and innovation in Society (Wiley, 2013).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Algorithms and Decision-Making in the Public Sector
Levy, K. E. C., Chasalow, K. E., & Riley, S. (2021) · Annual Review of Law and Social Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041221-023808 · Cited by 165
Boyd, K., & Andalibi, N. (2023) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3579528 · Cited by 69
A digital mask to safeguard patient privacy
Yang, Y., Lyu, J., Wang, R., Wen, Q., Zhao, L., Chen, W., Bi, S., Meng, J., Mao, K., Xiao, Y., et al. (2022) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-022-01966-1 · Cited by 58
A Fate Worse Than Warming? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and Global Catastrophic Risk
Tang, A., & Kemp, L. (2021) · Frontiers in Climate · doi:10.3389/fclim.2021.720312 · Cited by 58
“Considering that political preferences are unlikely to remain static over decadal timescales (see section: Politics), SAI functions may slowly “creep” (Koops, 2021) into currently unknown possibilities of misuse.”
BackgroundPangrazio, L., & Selwyn, N. (2023) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/14155.001.0001 · Cited by 61
Metadata
- Authors
- Koops, B.-J.
- Affiliations
- Tilburg University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Koops, Bert-Jaap
- ORCID
- Koops, Bert-Jaap
- Venue
- Law Innovation and Technology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2021-01-02
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 29-56
- ISSN
- 1757-9961 (ISSN-L)
- 1757-997X
- OpenAlex
- W3014550337
- Cited by
- 145
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 31 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 12
- FWCI
- 140.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Law Innovation and Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Research portal (Tilburg University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- European Union’s Horizon 2020 (653626)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Innovation, Technology, and Society
- Keywords
- function creep, technology regulation, data governance, conceptual definitions, incrementalism, disruption, policy spillovers, ratchet effect, transformative use, argumentation theory, nonlinear change, data processing systems
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review