Definition Of ReadyEdit

Definition Of Ready is a practical set of criteria that backlog items must meet before a team commits to pulling them into a sprint or iteration. In fast-moving product environments, DoR acts as a gatekeeper for scope, clarity, and feasibility, aiming to reduce uncertainty and last-minute churn. When a backlog item meets the DoR, teams can plan with greater confidence, coordinate with stakeholders, and deliver value more predictably. DoR is not a one-size-fits-all rulebook; it is a flexible, context-driven discipline that teams tailor to their domain, technology stack, and organizational priorities. It sits alongside other planning aids such as the Agile Manifesto and the Scrum framework, and it is closely related to the way teams handle User storys, Acceptance criteria, and the Product backlog.

In practice, Definition Of Ready helps align engineering, product, and business stakeholders on what is actually ready to work on. It complements the Definition of Done by shifting the emphasis upstream (planning and preparation) rather than downstream (completion and verification). A well-crafted DoR supports clear ownership, reduces rework, and improves collaboration between roles such as Product Owner and developers, testers, and operations. It also acts as a lightweight control mechanism to protect sprint focus and commitments without turning into bureaucratic red tape.

Definition and scope

Clear, actionable user stories with a concise description and a defensible scope. A story should be understandable by all team members and stakeholders. User storys are often the unit of work that the DoR applies to.
Explicit acceptance criteria that define what “done” means for the story in its intended environment. These criteria should be testable and measurable, spanning functional and non-functional requirements where appropriate. See Acceptance criteria.
Identified dependencies and blockers, with a plan for how to address them. This helps avoid surprises during sprint planning and execution.
Rough but credible estimation or sizing, so the team can gauge capacity and risk. Many teams use relative sizing techniques aligned with Agile estimation.
Value alignment and prioritization confirmation—teams should understand the business rationale and how the item moves the needle for customers or users. See Product backlog terms and related concepts.
Testability and quality considerations, including test data, environments, and basic non-functional requirements such as security, performance, and accessibility. See Non-functional requirements.
Readiness for design and implementation within the team’s workflow, with no open questions that block progress. This often involves a quick handshake among the Product Owner, the Scrum Master (or equivalent facilitator), and the development team.
Agreement on criteria for scope changes and how new information will be handled during refinement and planning cycles. See Backlog refinement.

Typical criteria are adapted to the team’s context. Some teams emphasize strict technology readiness or security gating, while others prioritize speed and responsiveness, weaving in lightweight governance that preserves velocity without creating bottlenecks. The DoR is closely related to, but distinct from, practices like Kanban-style flow management and formal approval processes in regulated environments. The core idea is to provide a shared, defensible threshold so everyone knows when a backlog item is ready to enter a sprint.

Origins, philosophy, and debates

The concept emerged from early agile practices as teams sought to reduce waste caused by poorly prepared work. Proponents argue that a clear DoR improves predictability, reduces sprint disruption, and helps ensure that value is delivered rather than re-planned mid-flight. Critics worry that DoR, if implemented rigidly, becomes a gatekeeping mechanism that slows innovation, discourages experimentation, or penalizes teams with limited resources. The debate often reflects broader tensions between discipline and adaptability in product development.

From a pragmatic standpoint, the DoR is most effective when it serves as a lightweight, living guideline rather than a rigid mandate. Teams that succeed with DoR typically emphasize alignment with business goals, clarity of scope, and a shared understanding of what constitutes “ready” across disciplines. When DoR criteria are too prescriptive, teams may spend more time documenting rules than delivering value. When they are too vague, the benefits of preparedness diminish. See Agile discussions on how planning gates interact with exploration and learning.

Variants and practical considerations

Context matters: a DoR for a consumer-facing mobile app may stress user experience criteria and performance, while a DoR for a regulated enterprise system may require traceability, auditability, and documentation of risk controls. See Product backlog governance in different domains.
Team maturity and size: smaller, cross-functional teams often benefit from lighter DoR, whereas larger teams with specialized roles may adopt more explicit criteria to coordinate across functions. See Scrum roles and responsibilities.
Relationship to DoD: DoR and DoD serve different points in the workflow. The DoR applies before work begins; the DoD applies after work is completed. Aligning the two helps maintain end-to-end quality. See Definition of Done.
Inclusion of non-functional criteria: accessibility (a11y), security, reliability, and performance considerations can be folded into acceptance criteria or treated as separate DoR items, depending on the domain. See Non-functional requirements.

Controversies and debates

Efficiency vs flexibility: supporters argue that DoR reduces wasted effort by ensuring items are well understood and actionable before they enter a sprint. Critics worry that too-strict DoR can slow teams down and impede experimentation or rapid iteration. The productive stance is to balance clarity with adaptability.
Gatekeeping and inclusivity concerns: some critiques claim that gatekeeping around readiness can exclude teams with less experience or inhibit diverse approaches. Defenders respond that DoR should be a collaborative, evolving standard that includes accessibility and inclusive practices, not a blunt barrier to contribute. The practical view is that well-designed DoR criteria can improve outcomes for all stakeholders by clarifying expectations and reducing ambiguity.
Woke criticisms and pragmatic responses: critics may suggest that DoR enforces a uniform process that suppresses creativity or marginalizes unconventional ideas. From a field-tested perspective, the right approach is to embed relevant, outcome-focused criteria (like clear acceptance criteria, measurable value, and testability) while allowing teams to tailor processes to their context. If inclusivity and accessibility are part of the criteria, DoR can actually enhance broad participation and quality, not diminish it. The sensible response to criticisms is that process design should serve actual delivery and customer value, not ideological purity or ritual compliance.
Alignment with business goals: DoR is most defensible when it ties readiness to concrete business outcomes, such as return on investment, time-to-market, and risk management. When teams use DoR to gate work behind measurable criteria that reflect real customer needs, it tends to outperform loosely defined workflows.

Implementation and governance

Start with a lightweight baseline and evolve: begin with a small set of essential criteria, then iterate based on feedback from planning meetings and sprint outcomes.
Involve cross-functional input: product owners, developers, testers, and operations staff should contribute to the DoR, ensuring that the criteria reflect diverse perspectives and practical constraints.
Make DoR explicit, not opaque: publish the criteria in the team’s working agreements or project documentation so that everyone knows what qualifies as ready.
Tie DoR to measurement, not punishment: monitor throughput, rework rates, and predictability to assess whether the DoR is helping or hindering value delivery, and adjust accordingly.
Integrate with tooling and workflows: link DoR to refinement sessions, acceptance testing, and release planning for smoother transitions from planning to execution. See Sprint planning and Backlog refinement.