3. Capacity trade-off for mid-cycle additions

Date: 2025-10-01

Status

Accepted

Context

Following TDR-0002, when a ticket is added to an ongoing cycle, it has been validated as aligned with cycle objectives and/or urgent enough to be prioritized. However, this creates a new challenge:

• Adding tickets mid-cycle increases scope and risks overcommitting the team
• The cycle capacity was already allocated during planning
• Without removing work, we dilute focus and reduce delivery predictability
• It’s unclear what work is being deprioritized when new work is added
• Stakeholders and team members lack visibility into these trade-offs

We need a discipline to maintain cycle capacity while accommodating validated mid-cycle additions.

Decision

When adding a ticket to an ongoing cycle, the engineer must:

1. Estimate the new ticket in story points
2. Identify equivalent work to remove from the cycle
   • Find ticket(s) with similar total estimation
   • Example: Adding a 5-pointer requires removing 5 points worth of work
3. Communicate the trade-off transparently
   • Clearly document which ticket(s) are being deprioritized/removed (
     • Commenting on the tickets themselves is enough
     • Mention the ticket that has been prioritized
   • Notify relevant stakeholders (team, product owner, CEO if needed) in the appropriate channels
   • Update ticket status/cycle assignment accordingly

The removed ticket(s) should be moved to the next cycle with appropriate context about why they were deprioritized.

Consequences

Positive

• Maintains cycle capacity and prevents scope creep
• Makes trade-offs explicit and visible to all stakeholders
• Improves delivery predictability
• Forces prioritization decisions to be deliberate
• Protects team from overcommitment
• Creates transparency about what work is deferred

Negative

• Requires additional effort to identify and communicate trade-offs
• May create difficult conversations about deprioritizing work
• Some stakeholders may be disappointed when their tickets are removed
• Adds complexity to the ticket addition process

Neutral

• Reinforces that cycle capacity is finite
• Makes prioritization an ongoing team responsibility
• Creates a record of why certain tickets were deferred
• May require more frequent stakeholder communication

Review Schedule

Review after 3 cycles alongside TDR-0002 to assess:

• Is the capacity trade-off discipline being followed?
• Are removed tickets being properly communicated?
• Is this helping maintain delivery predictability?
• Do we need to adjust the process?