When it comes to Scrum, quality takes center stage. But let’s face it, many of us have been in situations where the pressure to release something—anything—gets cranked up by a stakeholder who’s hungry for deliverables right now. Maybe it’s a rapidly approaching deadline or a big demo to a client. Whatever the reason, there’s always that temptation to cut a few corners and push unfinished work out the door. But should you ever give in? Is it ever okay to release incomplete Product Backlog Items (PBIs)?

At its core, Scrum is all about delivering value. And value is tightly coupled with quality. If you compromise quality, are you really delivering that much value to your customer? This is where the Definition of Done (DoD) becomes your guiding light. It’s the safety net that ensures the work you are shipping is genuinely ready for release. If a PBI doesn’t meet the DoD, releasing it goes against the entire premise of Scrum. Think of the DoD as a line in the sand—crossing it leads you down a path that’s riddled with potential risks, not only to the current release but the team’s long-term health.

Now, there’s nuance here. People might argue, “But we need to show progress!” And who can blame a Product Owner or stakeholder for wanting to see tangible results? The thing is, it’s the development team’s responsibility—not the customer’s or the PO’s—to ensure that what’s delivered meets quality standards. From a Scrum Master’s perspective, it’s critical to communicate that pushing unfinished work out may win a short-term battle but will come at a steep cost in the long run. That “win” could become a nightmare of hotfixes, bugs, and a tech debt that slows the team down for sprints to come.

And here’s where stakeholders need educating. You can’t always give people what they want when they want it. Developers aren’t just there to hack things together; they’re the gatekeepers of quality. If a stakeholder pushes to release something half-cooked, it’s on the Scrum Team to push back and explain why protecting quality is non-negotiable. Imagine giving your customer an unfinished product that breaks or behaves unpredictably. Sure, they might get it into their hands earlier, but what happens when they hit a bug that ruins their experience or, worse, causes data loss? That’s not value—it’s a problem you’ll have to fix later, and those fixes will always be more costly than doing it right the first time.

There’s a saying I often use: “Don’t trade long-term pain for short-term gain.” Releasing unfinished work might seem like a victory in the moment, but technical debt builds up faster than you’d think. Once you release something that doesn’t meet your quality bar, you’re effectively taking a loan. It’s a loan on your team’s time and future sprints because you’ll eventually have to come back, clean things up, and potentially undo all the damage that rushed decision caused.

I once worked with a team who felt intense pressure from a major client to release a half-baked feature ahead of schedule. Everyone, from the PO to the Scrum Master, was walking on eggshells—afraid to push back and let the client down. They released it in the sprint with the intention of “just fixing the bugs next time around.” Well, those bugs multiplied, and within a few weeks, what was supposed to be a quick fix devolved into a tangled mess that ate up an entire sprint. What made it worse was the client’s frustration. The rush to release something incomplete eroded their trust in the team’s ability to deliver quality work. That short-term “win” backfired spectacularly, creating much more pain than if they had just waited another sprint to release something solid.

So when you’re facing the urge to release something unfinished, weigh your options carefully. Long-term credibility and quality are worth the wait every time.
One scenario that often triggers the temptation to release unfinished work is when a looming deadline casts its shadow. Maybe you’re working toward a big product demo, or there’s a marketing campaign hinging on a specific release date. Pressure mounts, and it feels like delaying isn’t an option. In these moments, it’s easy for Product Owners or stakeholders to push the team, asking, “Can’t we just get something out the door?” And yes, delivering sooner may seem like a viable way to meet expectations in the moment, but the real question is: at what cost?

The thing is, Scrum gives you a framework for how to handle these situations through the Definition of Done (DoD). That’s the hard line that says, “This work is ship-ready.” It’s not a negotiable concept—it’s foundational to maintaining quality. If a PBI doesn’t meet your DoD, releasing it is like sending a plane off down the runway with parts still missing. You wouldn’t do it in aviation, and Scrum suggests you shouldn’t do it in software, either. The DoD is all about accountability to quality, ensuring consistency so that the team delivers not only what was promised but what won’t cause problems down the line.

And let’s be real, fixing an unfinished or buggy release almost always takes more effort than delaying it, completing it right, and then providing a solid build. Once something goes live with issues, you’re not just cleaning up—you’re dealing with escalations, quick patches, and potentially frustrated end users. Nobody wins in that situation.

But honestly, this topic can get a little philosophical. We can sit around talking about “doing the right thing” all day, but here’s the practical side of it: releasing unfinished work creates technical debt. Period. It builds up, and over time, that debt impacts your ability to deliver high-quality work consistently. Teams can quickly find themselves trapped in what I’ve jokingly heard referred to as the “bug debt quicksand.” The more you churn out incomplete features, the more fixing, refactoring, and testing you’re adding to your future sprints. That eats into velocity and slows overall progress—essentially hurting the very stakeholders that initially demanded speed in the first place.

I’ve seen teams burnt out, working through sprint after sprint full of technical debt repayment. The motivation drops, innovation stagnates, and morale takes a hit. Teams start focusing on survival rather than craftsmanship or improvement. Honestly, there’s no “quick fix” that balances stakeholder demands with consistent quality, but strong communication is the closest thing you’ll get.

A great Product Owner will act as a buffer between the business side and the development team. It’s their job to ensure that stakeholders appreciate the long-term implications of decisions made under pressure. When a PO can translate technical debt into something tangible for stakeholders—like slower future deliverables, mounting bugs, or unhappy customers—that’s when decision-making begins to improve.

It all comes back to transparency. If a sprint goal is at risk because something won’t meet the DoD, be upfront about it. Instead of bending to pressure, have an honest conversation during Sprint Reviews or Retrospectives about the risks associated with releasing incomplete work. Bring stakeholders into the dialogue early by laying out how their needs will ultimately be served better by ensuring the work meets proper quality standards. This positions the conversation around shared responsibility.

If you do find yourself in a non-ideal spot where a stakeholder is absolutely insistent on a release, and the alternative is untenable (we all know some exceptions exist), there are ways to mitigate the damage. You might choose to release behind a feature flag, soft-launch only to select markets, or move that work to a limited beta release—all ways to get something out without putting your entire user base at risk.

But here’s the thing: even those workarounds are a stopgap, not a solution. The best path is to reinforce quality over and over again. Scrum principles aren’t just guidelines—they’re there to protect your progress, your team, and, ultimately, the end-user experience. Customers don’t care if you cut corners to meet a deadline—they care about the value they’re getting over time. If you keep burning bridges by releasing half-baked features, they’ll notice, and you’ll eventually feel it in customer churn, poor reviews, or increased support tickets.

In Scrum, we aim for long-term sustainability. You can’t sustainably churn out quality work if your backlog is littered with unfinished tasks, bugs, and reworks. So while it might be tempting to give into pressure or the allure of releasing something quickly, step back, breathe, and consider what’s best for the product and the team in the long run.

Ultimately, releasing unfinished work in Scrum should be avoided whenever possible, because the tradeoff between satisfying immediate pressures and maintaining long-term quality is rarely worth it. Stick to your Definition of Done like it’s your North Star, keep open lines of communication with your stakeholders, and make thoughtful decisions that both protect your team’s future and deliver true value to your customers. It’s not just about getting releases out the door—it’s about getting the right releases out the door.