FoundStep

I have four half-built side projects in different repos and I finally realized the pattern: I start coding before I lock the scope. Two weeks in I am adding features that sound cool but were never part of the original idea. The project grows, I lose momentum, I start something new. Currently trying an experiment where I write down exactly what version one does before I write any code, then I do not let myself add anything until that version ships. Anyone else found a way to stop scope creep before it kills the project, or do you just accept that some ideas are meant to stay unfinished?

I keep abandoning side projects halfway through and I tracked the reason: I add features during development that were never in the original plan. The project balloons, I lose focus, I move on. Trying a new approach where I define the absolute minimum version before I start coding and treat any new idea as a separate post-launch task. Curious if others here have a method for deciding what actually goes in version one versus what you tell yourself to build later.

I have five unfinished projects and they all died the same way: I started coding before I locked scope. Two weeks in I am adding features that sound good but were never the plan. The project grows, I lose steam, I start over. Now trying a rule: write what v1 does, ship that, then decide what is next. Anyone else struggle with knowing when to stop adding before you launch?

Most developers do not finish projects because they build five features when they planned three. Scope creep is not a workflow problem, it is a decision problem. Lock what version one does before you write code. Treat every other idea as version two. One scope at a time.

I noticed your recent piece on building profitable side projects and thought your audience might find this useful: a breakdown of why technical founders abandon projects and a specific method for locking scope before development starts. I have been tracking the pattern across indie hackers who struggle to ship, and the common thread is adding features mid-build that were never part of the original plan. I would be happy to write a short piece on the forcing function approach developers are using to stop scope creep and actually launch. Let me know if that would fit your editorial direction.

I have been researching why developers with the skills to build still abandon most of their side projects, and the answer is not time or motivation, it is scope creep. Your episode on planning sprints touched on this, and I think your audience would benefit from a deeper conversation on the forcing functions indie hackers are using to lock scope before they start coding. I would love to come on and walk through the pattern I have seen across builders who ship versus those who restart, and the specific method that is working to stop feature creep before it kills momentum. Let me know if that would be a good fit for an upcoming episode.

I have been studying why solo developers abandon side projects even when they have the technical ability to finish, and the root cause is not what most people think. It is not time management or motivation, it is scope creep during development. Your show discusses the hurdles side project builders face, and I think your audience would connect with a conversation on the forcing functions indie hackers are using to lock scope before they write any code. I would be happy to walk through the research and the specific method that is helping developers stop adding features mid-build and actually ship. Let me know if that would work for an episode.

I noticed your podcast dives into the details of starting and growing side hustles, and I think your audience would find this useful: research on why technical founders abandon projects and a method for stopping scope creep before it derails momentum. The pattern I have been tracking shows that indie hackers with the skills to build still fail to ship because they add features during development that were never part of the original plan. I would love to come on and discuss the forcing functions developers are using to lock scope upfront and the results they are seeing. Let me know if that fits your show.

I kept starting projects and abandoning them halfway, and I finally identified the pattern: I would begin building before I had a clear boundary on what version one actually included. A few weeks in I would think of a feature that seemed necessary and I would add it, then another, then the project would grow beyond what I could finish alone. Currently testing an approach where I write the scope as a fixed list before any development starts and I treat every new idea as a separate decision after launch. Curious if others have a way to decide what goes in the first version versus what you build later, or if you just accept that some projects will not finish.