Views: 22
Summary – The lack of Definition of Ready and Definition of Done creates misunderstandings, delays and loss of predictability between business and development, undermining quality and trust. By gating backlog entries with mockups, business rules and acceptance criteria (DoR) and enforcing automated tests, code reviews and documentation (DoD), agile rituals become operational contracts that stabilize flow and empower teams. Solution: deploy DoR and DoD through collaborative workshops, measurable metrics and agile governance to significantly reduce late feedback, sprint interruptions and governance debt.
In a landscape where digital transformation is imperative, agility is sometimes perceived as a collection of theoretical rituals disconnected from operational challenges. Yet the Definition of Done and the Definition of Ready are not mere checkboxes in a Scrum backlog but explicit contracts aligning business, product, and technical expectations.
They guarantee delivered quality, predictability, and collective accountability. This article shows how DoD and DoR evolve into operational governance mechanisms that prevent implicit misunderstandings. Examples from Swiss organizations illustrate their impact on reducing friction and stabilizing the delivery flow.
Framing Ambiguities with DoR and DoD
Without clear definitions of “ready” and “done,” teams operate blindly and deliver misaligned results. DoR and DoD act as explicit contracts that eliminate misunderstandings and stabilize the flow between business, product, and technical teams. This shared definition ensures precise anticipation of requirements.
Misunderstandings without Clear Definitions
In many organizations, “done” doesn’t mean the same thing to the technical team as it does to the business. This lack of clarity produces incomplete or untested deliverables, triggering a chain of rework. When a user story is deemed “ready” without precise criteria, the team may lack the context needed to start implementation.
Accumulated misunderstandings eventually create frustration between Product Owners and developers. Each side feels the other has failed to meet commitments, even though no one is actually at fault. These tensions weaken the effectiveness of agile ceremonies and extend time‐to‐market.
Establishing a shared definition of “ready” and “done” allows precise anticipation of requirements before the sprint and minimizes last‐minute adjustments. From then on, every team member knows when a story is sufficiently detailed to start and when work can be marked as complete.
DoD and DoR, Pillars of Agile Governance
DoD and DoR structure the workflow by governing the passage of user stories through each phase of the process. They function like collectively signed contracts, ensuring best practices are applied and business expectations are met. The DoR governs the entry of backlog items into the sprint, while the DoD validates their exit against a set of measurable criteria.
Thanks to these definitions, planning becomes more predictable and estimates gain reliability. The team can focus on delivering value without improvising or multiplying informal checkpoints. Issues are detected upstream, boosting stakeholder confidence.
Adopting these pillars of agile governance does not create unnecessary bureaucracy but establishes shared discipline. Each criterion becomes a reference point for sprint reviews, automated tests, and releases, aligning execution pace with quality objectives.
Example of Clarification in a Swiss SME
An industrial SME struggled to deliver its order management modules to internal project managers. Deliverables were deemed incomplete because the business expected detailed documentation that wasn’t included in the “done” version. This led to late feedback at the end of each sprint and slowed down the delivery pipeline.
The team then formalized a DoR specifying mockups, business rules, and expected performance criteria before starting any ticket. The DoD was enriched with requirements for unit tests, code reviews, and user documentation updates. These definitions were shared in co-construction workshops and validated by everyone.
This initiative reduced late‐stage feedback by over 60% in two months and accelerated delivery cadence without increasing workload. It demonstrates that eliminating ambiguities turns agile rituals into value-creating governance frameworks.
Clarifying the Minimum Standard with the Definition of Done (DoD)
The DoD is not a simple checklist but the expression of a minimal quality standard shared by all stakeholders. It defines the point at which work can be presented, tested, or released to production without generating late feedback or corrections.
Avoiding False “Done”
A ticket labeled “Done” without explicit criteria leads to cosmetic demos where a feature looks functional but lacks robustness. These false “dones” result in late feedback and unplanned repair sprints. The DoD addresses these pitfalls by defining the minimum threshold for automated testing coverage and required documentation.
By instituting the DoD, each story must achieve a defined percentage of automated tests and pass a formal code review before being declared done. This prevents post‐deployment debugging overload and embeds quality in daily practices. Issues are caught during review, not after release.
Over time, this shared quality threshold reduces hidden technical debt and stops quality from being deferred to future sprints. The DoD thus ensures every increment of value is truly shippable upon delivery.
Adaptable and Measurable Criteria
The DoD does not prescribe a rigid framework but offers a set of criteria the team can adjust according to its maturity. For example, a test coverage threshold of 70% can evolve to 80% based on feedback and identified business risks. Each criterion must be measurable to avoid divergent interpretations.
Criteria may include the number of code reviews, updates to functional documentation, automation of regression tests, and preparation of a structured demo. This modularity allows gradual tightening of standards without turning the DoD into a dogmatic constraint. The team tracks indicator trends to adjust objectives.
Across sprints, these metrics feed a simple report showing quality improvements and flagging deviations. This approach turns the DoD into a maturity mirror, redefining each criterion as a lever for continuous improvement.
Impact on Demos and Testing
A service-sector company found its demos consistently ended with “thin” or incomplete features. Post‐sprint feedback accounted for up to 30% of remaining work time to fix defects identified by the business. This situation eroded trust between teams.
After adopting a DoD specifying minimum coverage for unit and integration tests and operational validation in a mirror environment, late‐stage feedback dropped by 75%. Demos turned into real validation sessions rather than showpieces. Each increment was genuinely ready for use or production.
This case shows the DoD did not slow delivery but eliminated false “dones” and strengthened process reliability.
Edana: strategic digital partner in Switzerland
We support companies and organizations in their digital transformation
The DoD as a Collective Learning Tool
The DoD evolves with team maturity and leverages past incidents to refine standards. This mechanism turns mistakes into drivers for continuous improvement without becoming dogmatic.
Leveraging Past Incidents
Every defect or production incident holds valuable lessons for the team. By systematically analyzing root causes, new criteria can be added to the DoD to prevent repeat errors. This practice reinforces a culture of transparency.
For instance, a critical bug in the acceptance phase may lead to adding a specific automated test and formalizing a minimum performance threshold. These learnings are recorded in the sprint-end review and immediately integrated into the DoD. The team strengthens increment after increment.
Through these adjustments, the DoD becomes shared learning capital, making each iteration more robust. This iterative approach fosters mutual trust and aligns evolution with real product needs.
Evolving the DoD with Team Maturity
A novice team might start with a lightweight DoD, including only unit tests and code reviews. As discipline takes root, new criteria—such as integration test coverage or security validation—can be added. Such evolution should be planned outside sprint execution to avoid disrupting cadence.
It’s crucial to distinguish incremental improvements from major DoD revisions. Minor updates can be decided in sprint reviews, while substantial changes warrant dedicated workshops. This governance preserves process stability while supporting gradual skill growth.
Ultimately, a mature team’s DoD may include performance thresholds, security audits, and exhaustive technical documentation validation. Each new criterion reflects gained expertise and ensures ever-higher quality.
Balancing Rigor and Flexibility
While essential for reliability, the DoD must not become an obstacle to innovation or responsiveness. Collective intelligence prevails over rules and may justify temporary adjustments for critical deadlines or business imperatives.
Such exceptions must be strictly controlled and documented to avoid setting dangerous precedents. They remain rare and are reviewed in retrospectives to decide whether to incorporate them into the standard DoD.
This way, the DoD remains a framework for quality while adapting to project realities and strategic priorities, without ever descending into paralyzing formalism.
Securing Intake and Flow with the Definition of Ready (DoR)
The DoR ensures each backlog item is ready for development without improvisation or mid-sprint interruptions. It acts as a contract between the Product Owner and the team, enhancing predictability and reducing estimate errors. Effective sprint planning sessions are shorter and more focused.
Anticipating Needs to Avoid Improvisation
A poorly defined user story leads to endless clarification sessions, disrupting development flow and increasing drift risks. The DoR mandates mockups, business rules, and acceptance criteria before a story enters a sprint. This upfront preparation secures the team’s work.
It also cuts down marathon sprint planning sessions by focusing preparation efforts before the planning meeting. Discussions then center on estimated effort and business value rather than understanding requirements. The team can concentrate on execution.
Beyond clarity, the DoR fosters collaboration between the business and the Product Owner to challenge assumptions and adjust story priorities before kickoff. This early dialogue strengthens buy-in for the roadmap.
DoR as a PO–Team Contract and a Lever for Predictability
The DoR formalizes what the Product Owner must supply: story description, functional breakdown, dependency documentation, and initial estimate. The team then confirms its capacity to deliver under these conditions, marking the story as “ready” for the sprint. This contractualization boosts predictability.
Mid-sprint interruptions for clarifications become exceptions. Each story passes a preparation filter, reducing underestimation and rework. Planning gains reliability, and sprint goals are met more consistently.
Moreover, the DoR guards against vague or oversized stories. It encourages breaking down large features into smaller iterations, promoting a sustainable pace and constant visibility on progress.
Friction Reduction: A Concrete Example
A financial services provider struggled to meet quarterly delivery commitments due to poorly defined stories. Sprints were frequently interrupted for lack of mockups and process diagrams essential for development. This created growing preparation debt.
After introducing a DoR that included mockup availability, business-rule validation, and collaborative estimation, interruptions fell to one-third of their previous levels. Time spent on clarification dropped by 40%, and teams maintained a steady delivery rhythm.
This case demonstrates how the DoR protects development flow and strengthens trust between the Product Owner and the team while improving sprint predictability.
Aligning Agility with Operational Reliability
DoR and DoD frame the agile flow by securing the intake and exit of each user story. The DoR ensures the backlog is ready and prevents improvisation, while the DoD sets the minimum quality threshold and eliminates false “dones.” Together, these conventions stabilize cadence, reduce hidden debt, and foster stakeholder confidence.
The absence of a DoR or DoD often signals organizational ambiguity, misalignment, or governance debt. Growing organizations, high-stakes projects, and multi-stakeholder contexts particularly benefit from formalizing these definitions. Our Edana experts can guide the adaptation and evolution of these frameworks so they serve your product and agility.
