FEATURE CREEP, CREEPING FEATURISM or FEATURITIS is the ongoing expansion or addition of new features in a product, especially in computer software and consumer and business electronics . These extra features go beyond the basic function of the product and can result in software bloat and over-complication, rather than simple design.
* 1 Causes
* 2 Product life cycle
* 2.1 Introduction * 2.2 Growth * 2.3 Maturity * 2.4 Decline
* 3 Characteristics * 4 Control
* 5 Consequences
* 5.1 Expansion of scope * 5.2 Delays * 5.3 Feeping creaturism
* 6 See also * 7 References * 8 External links
The most common cause of feature creep is the desire to provide the consumer with a more useful or desirable product, in order to increase sales or distribution. However, once the product reaches the point at which it does everything that it is designed to do, the manufacturer is left with the choice of adding unneeded functions, sometimes at the cost of efficiency, or sticking with the old version, at the cost of a perceived lack of improvement.
Another major cause of feature creep might be a compromise from a committee which decides to implement multiple, different viewpoints or use cases in the same product. Then, as more features are added to support each approach, it might be necessary to have cross-conversion features between the multiple paradigms, further complicating the total features.
PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE
A product typically goes through a product lifecycle of introduction, growth, maturity and decline. The Sony Walkman can serve as a functional example whose life cycle is well-documented.
At the introduction stage, a manufacturer introduces a new product with a basic feature set (say, a portable cassette player with play, pause, stop, fast forward, rewind, eject) in order to engage the consumer and support use and acceptance; meanwhile, competitors wait to see if the product will create a market worth investing in, or quickly produce a copy-cat product if they are less risk-averse.
With sufficient growth, competitors enter the space, providing choice to the consumer, often competing merely on price as a cheaper alternative to the flagship brand's product offering.
At the maturity stage, with competitive products occupying the space, new features are introduced ("auto-reverse", "stereo with extra bass", "shock proof for jogging", "waterproof in the rain", etc.) in order to differentiate brands beyond merely price point, and to create brand demand over price demand. The trailblazer is looking to fend off the new challengers, while the new challengers are looking to get a leg up on the trailblazer. It is at this stage that a proliferation of features occurs most often.
A strong indicator that the maturity stage has been reached, beyond feature creep, is when the trailblazer's prices start to drop in response to the downward pressure from the competition. This may occur when there are no further practical features that can be implemented; this point can be referred to as "feature saturation".
Obsolescence is a primary cause of decline, as time and technology advance beyond the capabilities/value of the incumbent market segment's leading technology. The portable music player platform of the 1980s was cassette; of the 1990s it was CD; in the 2000s the platform was MP3 players ; in the 2010s, streaming audio to smartphones has predominated. Each successive platform shift effectively rendered the previous platform outdated.
Feature creep is one of the most common sources of cost and schedule overruns. It thus endangers and can even kill products and projects.
There are several methods to control feature creep, including: strict limits for allowable features, multiple variations, and pruning excess features.
Temptation of later feature creep may be avoided to some degree by basing initial design on strong software fundamentals, such as logical separation of functionality and data access. It can be actively controlled with rigorous change management and by delaying changes to later delivery phases of a project.
Another method of controlling feature creep is to maintain multiple variations of products, where features are kept limited in some variations. Because the ever-growing, ever-expanding addition of new features might exceed available resources, a minimal core "basic" version of a product can be maintained separately, to ensure operation in smaller operating environments. Using the " 80/20 Rule " the more basic product variations might support the needs of about "80%" of the users, so they would not be subjected to the complexity (or extra expense) of features requested by the other 20% of users. The extra features are still available, but they have not crept into all versions of the products.
At some point, the cost of maintaining a particular subset of features might become prohibitive, and pruning can be used. A new product version could simply omit the extra features, or perhaps a transition period would be used, where old features were deprecated before eventual removal from the system. If there are multiple variations of products, then some of them might be phased out of use.
EXPANSION OF SCOPE
Occasionally, uncontrolled feature creep can lead to products far beyond the scope of what was originally intended; this is known as scope creep . However, a more common consequence of feature creep is a delay or cancellation of the product, which may become more expensive than was originally intended.
Often, a reasonably feature-complete software project, or one with
moderate amounts of feature creep, can survive and even thrive through
many iterations, but its successor release may suffer substantial
delays once a decision is taken to rewrite the whole code base in
addition to introducing new technologies. For example, Microsoft's
A similar fate was suffered by
Even after reaching stability and attaining some necessary new
features, the open-source
Mozilla Application Suite
Double Fine Adventures'
Feature creep combined with short deadlines will often lead to a "hacky solution" . The desired change may be large enough to warrant a redesign of the existing project foundation, but deadline pressure instead requires developers to just "make it work" with a less elegant approach. The humorous spoonerism "feeping creaturism" was coined to emphasize a developer's dislike of this situation, personifying the scope-crept product as "a misshapen creature of hacks ... prowling about in the dark", and the harbinger of more creep to come. ("Feeping" is a jargon synonym of "beeping".)
Wikiquote has quotations related to: FEATURITIS
* Greenspun\'s tenth rule
* ^ J.M. Sullivan (8–10 June 2005), "Impediments to and incentives for automation in the Air Force", 2005 International Symposium on Technology and Society, pp. 101–110, doi :10.1109/ISTAS.2005.1452719 * ^ Davis, F.D.; Venkatesh, V. (February 2004), "Toward preprototype user acceptance testing of new information systems: implications for software project management", IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 51, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, issue 1 (1): 31, ISSN 0018-9391 , doi :10.1109/TEM.2003.822468 * ^ Kenneth S. Norton (2001), Applying Cross-Functional Evolutionary Methodologies to Web Development, paper in Web Engineering: Managing Diversity and Complexity of Web published by Springer, ISBN 3-540-42130-0 * ^ Double Fine splits Broken Age in half to fund completion, By Kris Ligman, 2013-07-02, Gamasutra * ^ feeping creaturism, 2016-05-27, Dictionary.com - The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing * ^ Raymond, Eric S.; et al. (December 29, 2003). "feeping creaturism". The Jargon File. Ver. 4.4.7. Retrieved June 20, 2017. CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. (link ) * ^ Raymond, Eric S.; et al. (December 29, 2003). "feeping creature". The Jargon File. Ver. 4.4.7. Retrieved June 20, 2017. CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. (link ) * ^ Raymond, Eric S.; et al. (December 29, 2003). "feep". The Jargon File. Ver. 4.4.7. Retrieved June 20, 2017. CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. (link