Skip to main content

Say No to Feature Creep

Chris Saad has a great post over on his blog: Leadership includes saying no « Paying Attention

Not sure if he just went through a specific scenario to inspire the posting but it's a great read, especially for technical managers.

One of my clients had a problem: they have a list of over 397 enhancement requests to their product. Now, to be fair, some of those are fairly cosmetic and but at least 200 of them require some kind of review for someone to say "no - we are not doing this"

So why don't they? Because when they get in front of their customers, "no" is the hardest thing to say. And I'm a terrible accomplice but because if they ask "can it be done?" , the answer is "yes, it can". The real question should be "SHOULD it be done?"

When some people think about feature creep, they tend to think of it in relevance to a particular function - but in this post, think about feature creep being about the entire product line.

As a result, the client has about 30 open projects that have yet to be prioritized and when they return from customer visits, there might be some more.

Why not add more developers to get them all done?
Before you do that, you have to ask the question : are they all really needed? And then, are they all needed tomorrow?

So we tried to devise an easy way of identifying a real priority. I used to take a listing of all the issues and sorted it based on how many calls we had for a particular feature. The problem with that is that customers tend to be focused on the "issue of the day" as opposed to the "vision for the future", a vision that typically appears as a high priority a few days after we've put our heads down and gotten all the "issues of the day" done.

1. Narrow your focus, for at least a single release.
2. Publicize that focus - make sure no one is unaware of what your current focus is, and make sure no one takes you aware from that.
3. Make that release a short one (no, I don't mean in the sense of Agile with a two week turnaround, although that might not be a bad idea)
4. Have the managers who continually try and re-prioritize items start planning the NEXT release, instead of throwing more irons on the current fire.

There are a lot of benefits to this approach:
a) you have a "focused" release that can be easily marketed.
b) you can deliver a "focused" message (instead of one that's all over the map)
c) there's a finite list of items to work on.

The problem with this approach?
It requires managers who are able to do that - in short, managers/clients who are able to say "no", even if all they have to say is "no - not just yet"

Certainly, hearing "No" is something VFP developers have heard for a while. "64-bit?" no. "VFP 10?" No. "Open EULA?" No. "Access to core code?" No. But we haven't been told no about stopping what we're already doing. There's certainly a limit to what's possible in the "no" world but one "no" does not mean no more "yesses".

What about you?
Have you ever turned away a client or turned off a feature? How did you say No?   What thought pattern did you go through?

Comments

Tod McKenna said…
I find the following helpful:

Use a positive "no", whenever possible. I find that saying something like, "we can think about including that in a future release" usually works. If the customer still complains, then likely they see the new item as critical (and therefore should be a priority). If you never hear about it again, well then you win!

I've also used a feasibility graph with success as well. The x axis represents the combination of time and resources needed to implement the feature (most difficult is close to 0,0), while the y represents business value (least valuable is at 0,0). You can often lop off all low valued and difficult tasks using this method.

Great post, by the way. This is a topic that needs much more discussion. As developers, we're often in this situation where we need to say no, but we often can't quite justify it in a way that resonates with the customer!

Popular posts from this blog

FoxInCloud Stats

FoxInCloud sent this link a while back about their statistics regarding visits to their site:

http://foxincloud.com/blog/2017/12/27/VFP-community-lessons-from-foxincloud-site.html



What's interesting here is the breakdown of people. Yes, I think it's understandable that the Fox community is getting older.

Another factor is the growth of the mobile and web environments taking over development. These environments really do push people towards the newer non-SQL or free SQL/hosted environments but more towards hosted storage options like Amazon and Google. A tool like FoxInCloud that helps MOVE existing applications to the cloud inherently competes with those environments.

But FoxInCloud also allows developers to extend their application further by giving them a starting point using Javascript and the basic CSS (such as Bootstrap). If you're not rebuilding your application from scratch, it's certainly a great step forward.

Well, that explains CodePlex...

In a move that will be sure to anger open source (or rather anti-paid software, anti-Microsoft open source)  zealots, Microsoft is planning to buy GitHub.

A year ago, I mused about why Microsoft would shut down CodePlex and how the world needs competing source code repositories to be strong. I'm not the only one per this Slashdot article :
"...people have warned about GitHub becoming as large as it did as problematic because it concentrates too much of the power to make or break the open source world in a single entity, moreso because there were valid questions about GitHubs financial viability...." - Jacques Mattheij

I will be interested in seeing this play out - whether developers jump ship or not. Have all the efforts Microsoft has made in pushing towards open source be seen as genuine or will all the zealots jump ship or maybe even attack?

Microsoft's comment about why they shut down CodePlex referred to how spammers were using CodePlex. Well, GitHub has its own …

The World of Updates Today

I just received an update for Office 365. It certainly includes some cool features - including starting in one environment and picking it up in another environment. In recent years, I've certainly enjoined the use of Continuity on a Mac and in fact, I feel spoiled being able to start a message in one environment (even Google) and then finish it off on another.  This has become some pervasive when we were reviewing our most recent backlog at a client site, a similar feature was added to the current workload.

But with web applications, the trend is to reduce the amount of software on a client machine. I used to have automatic backup for all of my machines (thanks Carbonite!) but these days, many of my machines don't need anything beyond the core OS and some basic applications. Certainly that's the feeling with Chromebooks and even the lightweight aspect of many iOS apps. The functionality is mostly in the cloud.

When you upgrade your system, you expect it to a big update. So…