Behind Schedule And Scope Creep

Two failed notions.

The related notions of "behind schedule" and "scope creep" are fundamentally wrongheaded. It's 50-year-old thinking that many of us have abandoned because it doesn't work. "Behind" implies an accurate estimate of a large, detailed specification. That is, you can't be "behind" unless you have a fixed "done" date. Similarly, "scope creep" implies that we can accurately predict exactly what needs to be built. (Sometimes that's true, but not often.)

The problems with this approach are legion, of course. Our specifications (and thus our plans) are always wrong because nobody knows what they actually want until they have something in their hands. "Scope creep" implies that we won't learn anything as we work, that we'd rather be done 'on time' than implement the changes necessary to build something our customers actually need. There's a fundamental contempt for the customer built into that attitude. It also implies that the world will not change while we're working. Finally, both assumptions imply that product development ends. It doesn't; we're never "done."

This approach has rarely, if ever, been effective. It's better to first identify just enough to get started. Build that, get feedback, and adjust. We discover what to do next by doing the current thing. There are strategic goals, but decisions about what to build are ongoing. Given that we're releasing every day (or more often), it's not possible to be "behind schedule." With that thinking comes major changes in things like budgeting. For example, we need to fund the teams and then dynamically allocate them to work as needed, rather than "project" thinking, where we budget the project, not the teams.

Of course, I say the above knowing that many will respond that the "real world" doesn't work that way. Many of those comments will come with a certain fatalism that arises from knowing that the "real world" systems don't work and that individual engineers have no power to change them. Some of that fatalism is justified (large corporations won't adapt), but not all of it (an agency can sell a different way of working as part of the client-acquisition process rather than letting the client dictate how the agency must work). However, if it's possible to improve the way you work, it's worth the effort.