Tackling Feature Creep: Lessons in Effective Product Management and Project Delivery

When managing software projects, success doesn’t depend solely on having skilled individuals in key roles. It also hinges on how teams navigate scope, requirements, and real-time adjustments. Our experience with one such project showed us just how important structured planning and boundary-setting are—particularly when it comes to managing scope expansion, also known as feature creep.

We had a great Product Manager for one of our flagship software initiatives. She was highly knowledgeable, had strong working relationships with the product support team, and direct lines of communication with several of our enterprise clients. Her ability to gather customer feedback and translate it into actionable requirements made her an invaluable part of the project.

The design team appreciated how she worked with them to evolve high-level ideas into detailed specifications, facilitating the creation of high-level design documents (HLDs) that were both comprehensive and realistic. Moreover, she remained actively involved throughout the design and development phases, consistently available for clarifications, reviews, and feedback. Her dedication earned the trust of everyone on the team.

Yet, despite all these strengths, we continually ran into a frustrating issue: teams consistently found themselves rushing to meet final feature deadlines. On multiple occasions, developers worked weekends and late nights in a last-minute sprint. Remarkably, we never missed our deadlines by more than a day—and we always met the quality benchmarks. But the strain on the team was undeniable.

During project retrospectives, team members flagged this pattern, asking why it kept recurring and why we couldn't better plan for it. They pointed out that while commitment and hard work were admirable, this recurring last-minute push was unsustainable. Something needed to change.

---

Identifying the Root Cause of Project Pressure

To get to the bottom of the issue, we launched a structured investigation. There was always a chance that we had flawed time or effort estimation processes. Alternatively, some feared that certain developers might not have been contributing their fair share.

Two of our most experienced leads were tasked with reviewing the project documentation, HLDs, effort tracking sheets, and defect metrics. Their goal: identify where and why our estimations consistently fell short.

What we found was surprising—but also enlightening. Time spent on core tasks—requirement preparation, coding, testing, and documentation—was generally in line with projections. In a few instances, certain segments had a 20% overrun, but there was no clear pattern linked to specific individuals or phases.

The real issue? Feature creep.

---

Understanding Feature Creep in Project Environments

In project management, feature creep refers to the uncontrolled expansion of product features beyond the original scope. It usually happens incrementally—one small change here, one improvement there—until the cumulative impact becomes significant.

In our case, this occurred subtly. As HLDs were being prepared and development moved forward, suggested enhancements came in—some from the development team itself, and many from the Product Manager. These were almost always well-intentioned. They improved the product, addressed edge cases, or reflected late-stage customer feedback.

Because these changes seemed “minor” and “beneficial,” there was a tendency to implement them without formal impact analysis or schedule adjustment. No one wanted to push back. After all, we were building something better for the customer.

But over time, these small changes added up. They chipped away at buffers, consumed developer focus, and led to crunches near the end of each development cycle.

---

Changing the Process: Structuring Scope Management

Once we identified feature creep as a recurring issue, we knew we had to act. Continually burning out the team wasn’t an option. We needed to instill a discipline around how post-freeze changes were handled.

Our solution was simple but effective: after the design freeze, any new requirement—regardless of size—would be classified as a “feature enhancement.” These enhancements were treated like change requests or defects and entered into a formal review and approval process.

We set up a Feature Enhancement Review Board composed of tech leads, QA, and product representatives. They met weekly to review all proposed enhancements. Only after careful evaluation of the effort, risk, and impact on schedule would a change be approved.

---

Outcomes of the New Approach

This change immediately brought several benefits:

1. Clarity and Visibility: Everyone could now see what was being added post-freeze and why.

2. Better Decision-Making: We were able to weigh the customer benefit of a change against its impact on delivery timelines.

3. Improved Accountability: Product suggestions weren’t automatically implemented; they were scrutinized just like technical defects.

4. Informed Resource Planning: Teams could plan capacity with fewer surprises.

Perhaps most importantly, this new framework ensured that the final sprint before release wasn’t a chaotic, high-stress period. Developers could plan their time more predictably, and team morale improved as they regained a sense of control over their workloads.

---

The Role of the Product Manager: Balancing Value and Discipline

This experience also reshaped how we viewed the role of our Product Manager. Her instincts were always customer-first and value-driven—but even the best intentions can have unintended consequences.

By including her in the Feature Enhancement Review Board, we preserved her vital input while also encouraging a more strategic approach. Instead of recommending enhancements during active development, she began to note them for future releases unless the business case was strong enough to warrant immediate inclusion.

This helped her maintain her customer advocacy while contributing to better team performance and smoother deliveries.

---

Lessons for Project and Product Leaders

Every project faces the temptation to “just add one more thing.” But without guardrails, those additions become silent killers of time, focus, and quality. Our experience taught us:

• Feature creep is often a process problem, not a people problem.

• Good documentation and post-mortems are key to surfacing hidden patterns.

• Formalizing how changes are proposed and reviewed encourages better planning.

• Empowering the product team with structure—not restrictions—leads to stronger results.

Ultimately, the discipline of saying “not now” is just as important as the innovation of saying “what if?”

---

Conclusion: Managing Growth Without Losing Control

Software development is a dynamic process. Customer needs evolve, ideas improve, and developers discover better ways to build. But growth must be managed.

Feature creep may not always be obvious. It can masquerade as helpful suggestions, customer-centric improvements, or low-effort tweaks. But if not managed carefully, it erodes deadlines, impacts quality, and drains team energy.

Through formal tracking, cross-functional review, and a shared understanding of priorities, we transformed a recurring delivery issue into a point of strength. Our teams now deliver with greater confidence, and our products still evolve—with intention, not chaos.

Don't Hard-Code URLs in Software or Documentation: Use Smart Redirects Instead

Introduction

At first glance, a broken link may not seem like a major issue. But as we discovered firsthand, something as small as a non-functioning URL can highlight a deeper flaw in your development and documentation process. In the early versions of our software, we included direct, hard-coded URLs to external resources in our documentation and help pages. It seemed like a harmless shortcut—until we encountered a real-world consequence that made us completely rethink our approach.

The Problem Begins: A 404 That Uncovered a Systemic Flaw

A year after release, a customer reported a minor defect. One of the URLs in a help page was returning a 404 error. On the surface, this was a low-priority issue. But when we began reviewing it, we quickly saw that it was just the tip of the iceberg. That broken link pointed to an external help page for a third-party component we were using, and the organization behind that component had updated their site structure.

The result? The hard-coded URL we had embedded no longer worked.

This wasn't an isolated case—it exposed a critical weakness in our software design and documentation process. Our system relied on URLs that could change at any time, and we had no way to update them post-release.

Why Hard-Coding URLs Is a Bad Idea

While it might seem convenient to insert URLs directly into your software, documentation, or help files, doing so creates long-term maintenance and reliability issues. Here are just a few scenarios where hard-coded URLs can cause trouble:

1. External Websites Can Change

As with our initial issue, the structure of external websites is out of your control. If you're linking to third-party documentation or tools, there’s no guarantee those pages will remain at the same location. A restructuring, rebranding, or migration can instantly break all your references.

2. Internal Systems Evolve

Even internally, hard-coded links can be fragile. We once updated our internal Help System by moving to a new content management platform. This change altered our entire URL scheme. All previously working links were rendered useless, and fixing them manually would have required hours of work.

3. Page and Content Changes

Sometimes it’s more efficient to update where a link points rather than rewrite and republish several help pages. But when URLs are embedded directly in software or documentation, updating them becomes complex and error-prone.

4. Localization and Version Control Challenges

If you localize your documentation or maintain multiple versions of your product, hard-coded URLs complicate maintenance. Each version may have different content or links, leading to errors, inconsistencies, and duplicate effort.

The Better Solution: URL Redirection

To address this issue, we adopted a more robust strategy: use redirect URLs instead of hard-coded URLs. A redirect URL acts like a middle layer. Instead of pointing directly to the final destination, you point to a redirect link hosted on your own internal server. That redirect, in turn, forwards the user to the correct destination.

This approach gives you the flexibility to change the final target anytime, without needing to modify the software or re-release documentation.

Benefits of Using Redirect URLs

Implementing redirect URLs offers several advantages:

• Flexibility: You can update the destination at any time without touching the software.

• Centralized Control: All links can be tracked and managed from one place.

• Reduced Defects: Fixing broken links no longer requires product patches.

• Version Independence: You can change targets based on product versions or locales.

• Long-Term Reliability: Even if external content moves, you remain in control of redirection.

Best Practices for Redirect Management

Using redirects effectively requires a structured approach. Here's what worked for us:

1. Create a Redirect Map

Maintain a detailed file that records every redirect URL, its usage, and the current destination. For each entry, include:

• Redirect URL

• Final destination

• Usage context (help file, tooltip, etc.)

• Requestor or owner

• Date created or last modified

• Comments or purpose notes

This file should be version-controlled in your source code management system, just like your software code.

2. Implement Change Tracking

Whenever a change is made to a redirect, log the change via a formal process—ideally as a tracked defect or feature request. This creates an audit trail, which helps during troubleshooting or reviews.

3. Host Redirects Internally

Use your internal web server or infrastructure for managing redirects. Avoid relying on external services for redirection unless you control them.

4. Use Meaningful Redirect Aliases

Instead of using random strings, use human-readable aliases for redirect URLs. This makes them easier to understand and manage. For example:

• /redirects/video_help instead of /redirects/abc123

• /redirects/component_docs_v2 instead of /redirects/xyz456

5. Test Regularly

Set up automated or scheduled testing to validate that all redirects are still functioning and pointing to valid destinations.

Addressing Redirects Across Software Releases

What happens if a redirect breaks, or the target content changes after a software version is released?

By decoupling the hard-coded URL from the final destination, you’ve already protected yourself from most issues. All you need to do is update the redirect. You don’t need to patch the product.

However, for older versions or those with strict support policies, evaluate whether fixing the redirect aligns with your support model. For example, if a security bulletin is posted for a legacy product still used by clients, you can simply redirect to the latest info—even if the original software is years old.

Communication Strategy for Customers

If a redirect breaks or a customer reports an issue, your team can:

• Quickly confirm the problem

• Update the destination in the redirect

• Inform the customer that it’s fixed—often within hours

This builds customer trust. You’re not just fixing issues—you’re responding fast and showing that your development process is future-proof.

You can also use redirects to track user behavior by analyzing which URLs are most clicked. This helps prioritize updates and shows what users care about.

Final Thoughts

Adopting a redirect policy may feel like extra effort at first. It requires planning, documentation, and an internal process for tracking links. But the long-term benefits far outweigh the cost. Once you’ve had to deal with the hassle of fixing a hard-coded URL in released software, you’ll understand just how valuable redirect flexibility can be.

This approach provides future-proofing, minimizes disruption, and improves your ability to respond to change quickly.

Don’t wait until a customer finds a broken link. Plan ahead. Build smart. And never hard-code a URL again.

Keeping Up with Security Fixes and Patches in Software Development

Introduction

Every other day, headlines scream about another security breach. Hackers have stolen credit card data, passwords, or even social security numbers. These stories might seem distant, but for the organizations affected, the damage is real and often severe. The consequences range from customer data loss and reputation damage to layoffs and crashing stock prices. While billion-dollar companies might survive such shocks with minimal tremors, smaller or mid-sized businesses can face lasting consequences.

You might feel immune to such threats. Perhaps your project has never faced a major breach. Maybe you're not even on a hacker's radar. But security risks aren’t always about direct attacks. Sometimes, vulnerabilities lie hidden in third-party components or outdated libraries quietly integrated into your software—a ticking time bomb waiting to be exploited.

How Hidden Security Flaws Enter Your Project

Most modern software projects rely on a variety of external components. These include libraries, plugins, media decoders, frameworks, and even code snippets. It’s neither feasible nor efficient to write everything from scratch. Developers use these components to accelerate development, reduce costs, and integrate complex functionalities quickly.

A great example? Media decoders. Handling all image, audio, and video formats from scratch would be a massive undertaking. Instead, developers include libraries or use built-in OS-level capabilities. While convenient, these additions come with their own risks. Once an external component becomes part of your application, so does any vulnerability it carries.

The Real Risk of Inaction

Here’s the problem: if a flaw is found in a component you've used and the fix hasn't been applied (or your users haven’t updated yet), the vulnerability persists. Tools and scripts to exploit such holes are widely available, making it easy for even low-skill attackers to cause harm. And if a breach occurs due to an issue in your distributed software—even if the root cause is third-party—your customers will hold you responsible.

A Simple Example

Imagine your software includes a third-party component for parsing image formats. A security researcher finds a buffer overflow flaw in that component. The maintainers release a fix. But if you don’t integrate that fix, repackage your software, and distribute it promptly, users remain vulnerable. If someone launches an attack using a specially crafted image, the consequences could range from crashing the application to complete system compromise.

How to Stay Ahead of the Threat

You can’t eliminate risk entirely, but there are several effective strategies to manage it:

1. Component Inventory and Exposure Matrix

Maintain a detailed inventory of all third-party components used in your software. For each component:

• Record its version.

• Note its criticality to the application.

• Evaluate whether it could be exposed in ways that attackers might exploit (e.g., input parsing, network interfaces).

This matrix should be accessible and updated regularly.

2. Monitor Security Feeds and Vulnerability Alerts

Use tools or subscribe to feeds that alert you to vulnerabilities in libraries or frameworks you use. Websites like:

• NVD (National Vulnerability Database)

• Snyk

• GitHub Security Advisories

These resources offer real-time tracking of reported issues.

Assign a team member the responsibility of monitoring these sources and flagging any issues relevant to your project.

3. Establish Response Protocols

Define a pre-approved plan to respond to discovered vulnerabilities:

• How critical is the flaw?

• Does it require immediate action or can it wait for the next release?

• Who investigates and verifies?

• Who tests the patch and deploys the update?

Having a pre-determined strategy ensures a calm and measured response when problems arise.

4. Handle Legacy Releases Thoughtfully

This is a bit tricky. What happens when a vulnerability is found in an older release—say, a version two iterations back? You need to evaluate:

• Do you still officially support that version?

• What is the severity of the flaw?

• What effort would be required to fix it?

If the flaw is minor and the release is obsolete, you might decide not to fix it. However, if many customers still use that version, and the vulnerability could cause significant harm, a patch or workaround might be necessary.

5. Define a Clear Communication Strategy

When a vulnerability is discovered, communication is key. Your customers need to:

• Know that you are aware of the problem.

• Understand the impact (or lack thereof).

• Receive clear guidance on what to do next.

Sending timely updates, publishing knowledge base articles, and even issuing patches proactively builds trust and positions your organization as responsible and customer-focused.

Automation Helps, But Can’t Replace Strategy

Tools like Dependency-Check, npm audit, or automated scanners are excellent. They notify you when outdated or vulnerable packages are present. However, these tools only work if you integrate them into your build process and actually respond to the alerts. Technology can assist, but without policies and accountability, vulnerabilities will still slip through.

Best Practices Recap

• Maintain an inventory of all external components.

• Rate the risk level of each component.

• Assign a team member to monitor vulnerability disclosures.

• Define an internal process to assess and respond to each risk.

• Decide how long older versions are supported and what patch policy applies.

• Communicate clearly with customers when a flaw is identified.

• Automate scanning wherever possible, but maintain manual oversight.

The Bigger Picture: Why This Matters

Security flaws impact more than just your application. They affect trust.

• If a customer discovers a vulnerability before you do, their confidence is shaken.

• If attackers exploit the flaw, the damage can go beyond your software to your brand.

• If news of the breach spreads, legal, financial, and reputational harm could follow.

Being proactive about vulnerabilities isn’t just about code. It’s about credibility.

Conclusion

Security isn’t a one-time task; it’s a continuous process. With the speed at which threats evolve and the increasing use of third-party code, staying updated with security fixes and patches is more important than ever. By implementing structured processes, assigning clear responsibilities, and maintaining a strong communication line with your users, you significantly reduce your risk.

Treat security as a core feature of your software, not an afterthought. Because when trust is broken, no patch can fully fix it.

Partnership with an external party - quick prototyping / solution

A couple of years back, a major disaster took place. We had tied up with an external mobile based organization, larger than us, for providing a customized version of our software which would act as an entry point to their software. Such deals and partnerships happen all the time; the schedule was aggressive, but which schedule is not. Deals such as these are the life blood of a growing organization, since it helps develop partnerships and also builds credibility for other deals (even when the deal may be under an NDA, since you can still use such deals for other partnerships without revealing information that might break the NDA).
So, our marketing team along with their technical team (and a few points from us) managed to seal a deal and there were a lot of congratulations and happy faces. Since the schedule was aggressive, the work started right away. However, within a few days, as the proper design phase started, it became clear that there were problems involved in the probable design. The design changes needed were complex, the number of technical resources that were allocated were far less than the amount required after the design process was evaluated. And with the passage of time, it became clear that the process was only going to go downhill. It was an important collaboration and the organization was willing to add more resources, but the timeline was just not working out. After a series of frantic meetings, it was decided that rather than deliver an inadequate product, it was better to break the deal within time and still be able to maintain a relationship.
Given the importance of the deal and the critical nature of avoiding a situation like that in the future, there was a need to do a thorough analysis of where the problems lay. The analysis took some time, but it soon became clear that the level of interaction with the team that actually owned the product was very low and there was not enough time spent to figure out whether the solution was indeed feasible in the timeframe and with the amount of resources that could be committed. Now, this kind of problem had never been this severe in the past, but now that it had happened once, it became clear that it could occur again in the future. So, the relationship process had to be modified to include more time for a technical evaluation; if the contract was very large, then even a prototype may need to be built before such a contract can be signed off.

The importance of code walkthrough and reviews

When one studies software engineering, the importance of review like activities are actively mentioned. However, during the pressure of actual project work, there is always pressure to reduce the amount of time spent on these activities; in many cases, this is something that the project manager might push. And there are a number of such review activities that happen during the course of the project. Here are some example:
- Requirements / Design review: During the process of detailing the requirements, there is a need to do a review of the requirements to ensure that the requirements cover the entire feature needs and is  comprehensive. When the design process is done, there is a need for experienced design folks to review the design documents / architectural documents and related documents to ensure that the best possible solution is designed. In a number of projects that I have seen, such reviews typically are very value enhancing and can add a lot of improvements to the design documents.
- Test plans / test cases review: Once the design documents have been prepared, the testing documents get into high gear (in many cases, the test plan document would be started before the design documents have been completed). The testing process is critical to weed out all the defects / improper features in the software; if the test plans and cases are not comprehensive, then there would be problems with the software. Hence, a comprehensive review would be necessary, in many cases with the developer also participating.
- Code walkthrough: Code walkthrough is not done for all the code, typically done for the more critical sections of the code. In addition, as the software development process nears the end, this process gets more critical. There have been cases where a defect fix has failed, and caused more problems for the team in trying to figure out what went wrong. The advantages for a code walkthrough are very high.
- Defect review: This is not something that happens in all cases. What happens in many projects is that when a defect is written, it goes to a defect review committee that reviews whether the defect is valid, whether it has the proper severity and priority, and also whether it needs to be fixed. The committee can then decide whether to actually allocate the defect for fixing. This kind of process does add some overhead to the defect process, but can help prevent some defects from getting fixed which are not needed, and also whether the proper allocation of defects to people.
- Defect fix review: This can be critical, especially with defect fixes that touch core areas of the design or the architecture and need a proper review. This overlaps with the code walkthrough as well, but to ensure that the defects are properly fixed, this part of the process is critical.

One can quibble about the amount of time needed for such process work, but the need for reviews at different stages is critical and needs to be done. 

Coordination with external teams - regular meetings to track progress and status

Sometimes when I review some of the posts that I create, it seems like something that is so obvious, why would there be a need to even create such a post; everybody would already know this. And then, one comes across cases where it becomes clear that some people do not really know the contents of the post, that they get into problems which have been described in some of the posts. So the idea of such posts is that people read these, see whether this applies to their current situation, and work out any changes if required. If they are doing things superior to what is being written about in the post, then I would be really grateful if they can update in the comments.
For any team that has been working for some time, especially in the area of product development, there will always be the need for working with external parties. These can be other teams within the organization that depend on your product, or provide you with a component. There can be teams outside the organization with whom you are coordinating with for either inputs or outputs. For example, a simple case was whereby the marketing team had made a deal with a phone manufacturer for loading the product as a pre-loaded application on the phone (yes, the same type of product that many reviews call bloatware, and which users sometimes are unable to uninstall when they get the phone in their hands).
You might think that this is a simple transaction, you provide the product to them and they incorporate it into their phone, with schedules being the major tracking. However, life is not so easy many times. In many cases, we have had to add tracking parameters to the product which let us monitor how many times users loaded the product that was on the phone (as opposed to getting the same product from another source, or buying from us, and so on). All of this requires coordination (and there can be numerous cases where such type of changes and coordination needs to happen).
When you are dealing with teams that are outside of your organization, you should never make the mistake of assuming that they work with the same culture as teams within your organization.
Coordinating with such teams needs to ensure a proper system of tracking requirements, changes, issues, closing issues, defects, status and setting the grounds for acceptability testing (to ensure that both teams are in agreement over what is needed to finally state that the product is good to go).
- There is a need to define responsibilities and contact details, who does what on either side
- With these responsibilities, a further need to map ongoing work to people along with timelines and what the output should be like
- Set up regular meetings for discussing ongoing issues, working through the schedule, deliverables, action items, and escalations
- As work proceeds, define the changing mix of people involved in the discussions (for example, earlier states may have a mix of development and marketing people, and later, when work is ongoing, more of development and testing people from both sides)

This is the general idea of how you go about working with people from outside your organization; the exact granular details of this coordination would vary from team to team, and from project to project.

Giving time for the testing effort

The testing process is one of the most fundamental parts of a software project. Any software that is built (or modified) would have defects in it. Even the most confident of software developers and the most skilled would admit that there will be defects that creep in when they are writing their code (in fact, the best ones are a part of the testing effort, working closely with the testing team to ensure that the team fully understands what all has been done so that they can do their best to tweak all the defects out). So it is well understood that there is a need for testing in order to deliver a high quality item to the end customer; and the process of testing tries to ensure that most of the high severity defect are found out and fixed during the process.
The challenges come in terms of ensuring that there are enough resources for the testing process and the amount of time required for the testing process is also there. There can be a lot of pushback on this front from the project managers and others in the management team, since the development and testing schedules do take up a significant amount of the overall project cycle. From my experience, there is a fair amount of pressure on the test team leaders about pulling in their estimates and trying to get that part of the project done early. If you speak to some of these testing guys, their common refrain is that management typically (in a majority of cases) do not have people that came from a testing background and hence do not really understand the work we do, and hence we get pressured a lot.
So what is the way out to ensure that the testing estimates are accepted, even though there may be some rounds of discussion and some estimates may be refined (could be reduced, or in the off case, during the process of estimation and discussion, there may be some upwards estimation of the estimates as well). Well, like many other issues that come up during estimation and planning, there would be some amount of rigor combined at the same time with some amount of rough estimates.
How does  rough estimate come up ? Well, if you have experienced testing leaders, when they look through the requirements (at a top level, since detailed requirements may not exist, but summary requirements would be there), they would be able to give a fairly good and rough estimate for the testing effort required, which can be broken down into number of people for the desired schedule.
Another way is to see similar projects (a lot of projects in large organizations can be similar, which gives a good idea of the testing efforts for a new project, at least as a good point for comparison purposes).
The effort is in preparing detailed testing estimates by taking the different requirements, breaking them down into test plans (more detailed test cases may not be possible given the state of requirements at this point of time). Some amount of rigorous review of these plans would give a very good consolidated testing requirement, both for the testing effort estimation and for later needs when these test plans would form the basis for preparing more detailed test cases.