If 80% of customers use 20% of features holds for the most part, the implications for sw dev economics are significant.
In particular we must measure feature utilisation. We cannot simply pile up features on the assumption they are making money.
In particular we must measure feature utilisation. We cannot simply pile up features on the assumption they are making money.
The vast majority of features we ship won't earn and must be pulled as soon as possible. Their development represents a sunk cost that grows due to necessary maintenance (which starts as soon as it's written because other code and systems must account for it).
Further a feature that is highly utilised initially might with time become a back-water converting to a sunk-cost hence economic burden. Again, it must be pulled quickly.
It's possible the 80% of features are consumed by "power customers" (the 20%) but this is long-tail economics. Increased complexity of development and maintenance for a small population of customers. Likely not the whole of the long-tail. A small subset. Edge cases.
Unless there is an exponential return on such features, they constitute a loss on the bottom-line and delay more valuable work.
The industry claims to be following a test and learn strategy via CI/CD, Agile, Lean etc to account for such dynamics but we must ask some questions:
The industry claims to be following a test and learn strategy via CI/CD, Agile, Lean etc to account for such dynamics but we must ask some questions:
(1) Do you measure feature utilisation?
(2) Do you have a pricing strategy that accounts for utlisation and cost to build and maintain?
(3) Do you retire features?
(4) Do you aggressively re-work a feature or merely mildly tweak hence hold to an artificially narrow path?
(2) Do you have a pricing strategy that accounts for utlisation and cost to build and maintain?
(3) Do you retire features?
(4) Do you aggressively re-work a feature or merely mildly tweak hence hold to an artificially narrow path?
If the answer to any of those questions is no, it is highly likely you are a feature factory indulging in poor (business) practice. Your actions are out of line with the market, long-term success is unlikely and employees are probably burning themselves out chasing ghosts.
Of course, you might claim your org is special, not subject to an 80/20 feature rule but consider that it is reasonably likely 80/20 also applies to the population of orgs. So, are you really an exception, part of the 20% or in fact part of the 80% and deceiving yourself?
