Definition of Done: The Most Expensive Document You're Not Writing

"Is it done?"

Three simple words that can trigger existential crises across your team. I've seen this innocent question derail entire program reviews, expose deep cross-functional misalignments, and retroactively reopen work everyone thought was complete.

In my current role leading a critical modernization initiative with a 20-person cross-functional team, I've learned that few documents impact your program's success more than a well-crafted Definition of Done (DoD). Yet it's often treated as a bureaucratic checkbox rather than the strategic alignment tool it actually is.

The Hidden Cost of Ambiguous Completion

Without a clear, shared Definition of Done, your program incurs massive hidden costs:

Rework Loops: Teams think they've completed a deliverable only to discover additional requirements later, forcing expensive revisits to "completed" work.

Dependency Failures: Downstream teams plan based on upstream deliverables being "done," only to discover they're missing critical elements needed for integration.

Quality Gaps: Without explicit quality criteria, teams optimize for what's measurable (usually speed) at the expense of what's important but less visible.

Decision Debt: Ambiguity about completion criteria leads to postponed decisions about what constitutes acceptable quality, accumulating the decision debt I've written about previously.

One Term, Many Meanings

The challenge with "done" is that it means different things to different functions:

To developers, done might mean "code merged to main and passing tests." To designers, done might mean "matches the approved mock-ups and design system." To product managers, done might mean "delivers the intended user value." To QA, done might mean "verified in all supported environments." To legal, done might mean "compliant with relevant regulations."

When these definitions remain implicit rather than explicit, misalignment is inevitable.

Crafting a Definition That Actually Works

Through trial and error, I'm exploring several approaches that help create effective Definitions of Done:

Tiered Definitions: Create nested definitions for different levels of work: story-level, feature-level, and release-level. Each has different completion criteria that build upon each other.

Cross-Functional Co-Creation: Facilitate sessions where representatives from all functions contribute to the definition, ensuring all perspectives are captured.

Explicit Trade-off Discussions: Surface and decide on quality vs. speed trade-offs explicitly rather than allowing them to happen implicitly.

Living Document Approach: Review and refine your Definition of Done regularly based on what you learn through delivery. It should evolve as your program matures.

From Document to Shared Understanding

The real value of a Definition of Done isn't the document itself but the shared understanding it creates. I've found that the process of creating and refining it often reveals more about team dynamics and implicit assumptions than any retrospective.

As program managers, we have a unique opportunity to facilitate this alignment across functions. By investing time upfront in a thoughtful Definition of Done, we can save countless hours of confusion, rework, and misalignment later.

What's in your Definition of Done? And more importantly, do all your cross-functional team members interpret it the same way? Perhaps the true definition of "done" is when everyone on your team can answer that question the same way, without hesitation.