The Danger of 'Nice-to-Have' Features in Your Projects

The Trap That Costs Companies €500,000 Per Year

They seem innocent. Even beneficial. These little "nice" features that everyone asks for: "It would be nice if...", "We could also...", "Just a small button for..."

But behind this innocence hides the silent killer of projects: "nice-to-have" features.

Result? 84% of projects exceed their initial budget because of these "innocent" features. On average, they add 6 months of development and cost companies €500,000 per year.

"Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Anatomy of a "Nice-to-Have" Feature

How to recognize them? They always start with:

• "It would be nice if..."
• "We could also..."
• "While we're at it..."
• "Just a small improvement..."
• "Users will love..."

And they always end up exploding your budget, your schedule, and your team.

The 4 Types of "Nice-to-Have" Features

1. The Useless Gadget
"We could add animations when the user clicks"

2. Premature Generalization
"What if we let users customize everything?"

3. Fantasy Optimization
"We should plan for when we have 10 million users"

4. The Ego Feature
"I saw this at Apple, we should do the same"

Real Case: How 5 "Innocent" Features Sank a Startup

An EdTech startup with a functional MVP and 1000 satisfied users. Successful funding round, motivated team. Everything is going well.

Then come the "nice-to-have" features...

The 5 Fatal Features

1. "Dark Mode"
Initial request: 2 days
Reality: 3 weeks (rethink entire design)

2. "Personalized Push Notifications"
Initial request: 1 week
Reality: 2 months (complex system, GDPR, iOS bugs)

3. "Custom PDF Export"
Initial request: 3 days
Reality: 6 weeks (layout, fonts, compatibility)

4. "Calendar Integration"
Initial request: 1 week
Reality: 2 months (Google, Outlook, Apple, time zones)

5. "Advanced Dashboard"
Initial request: 2 weeks
Reality: 3 months (charts, filters, performance)

The Catastrophic Result

• ❌ 8 months delay on the main product
• ❌ Budget exceeded by 400%
• ❌ Exhausted team, 3 resignations
• ❌ Competitors taking the lead
• ❌ Startup closure 18 months later

The irony? None of these 5 features was used by more than 5% of users.

Why "Nice-to-Have" Features Are So Dangerous

Effect #1: Exponential Explosion

A "simple" feature always hides 10 others:

Effect #2: Decision Paralysis

The more options you add, the more your users are paralyzed. The paradox of choice in action.

Case study: An e-commerce site tests 2 versions:

• Version A: 5 delivery options → Conversion rate: 8%
• Version B: 15 delivery options → Conversion rate: 3%

Effect #3: Hidden Technical Debt

Each "nice-to-have" feature adds complexity:

• More code to maintain
• More potential bugs
• More tests to write
• More documentation to keep updated

The Anti-Nice-to-Have Framework: FOCUS

Here's how to say no to dangerous features:

F - Filter by Business Impact

Each feature must answer:

• What customer problem does it solve?
• How many customers are impacted?
• What's the impact on revenue?
• How to measure success?

O - Opportunity Cost

Always ask yourself: "If we do this, what don't we do?"

Time spent on a "nice-to-have" feature is time not devoted to:

• Improving core features
• Fixing critical bugs
• Acquiring new customers
• Developing new markets

C - Hidden Complexity

Always multiply the initial estimate by 3:

• Developer estimate: X
• Real complexity: 3X
• With tests and maintenance: 5X

U - Real Usage

Validate usage before developing:

• User survey
• A/B test with mockup
• Support request analysis
• Competitive study

S - Simplicity First

The best feature is the one you don't need to add.

Look first to:

• Simplify existing
• Remove friction
• Improve performance
• Clarify interface

The Prioritization Matrix: Must/Should/Could/Won't

Classify all your features:

MUST (Mandatory)

• Without this feature, the product doesn't work
• Critical business impact
• Requested by 80%+ of users

SHOULD (Important)

• Significantly improves experience
• Measurable impact on metrics
• Requested by 50%+ of users

COULD (Optional)

• Classic nice-to-have
• Low or unmeasurable impact
• Requested by less than 20% of users

WON'T (Never)

• Too high complexity
• No business impact
• Distraction from main objective

Techniques to Say No (Diplomatically)

Technique #1: The Parking Lot

"Excellent idea! I'll note it in our parking lot of ideas for the next roadmap."

Technique #2: Opportunity Cost

"If we develop this, we can't do X. What's more important for our users?"

Technique #3: Validation

"Great idea! Can you do a mini-survey with 10 customers to validate the need?"

Technique #4: Simplification

"How could we solve this problem without adding a new feature?"

Success Case: The Startup That Said No

A SaaS startup with the same issue. But this time, they apply the FOCUS framework.

Requests Received (in 6 months)

• 47 new feature requests
• 23 interface "improvements"
• 15 third-party integrations
• 8 customizations

Decisions Made

• ✅ 3 MUST features developed
• ⏸️ 5 SHOULD features in backlog
• ❌ 85 requests rejected or simplified

Results

• Deadlines respected
• Budget controlled
• Serene team
• Stable and performant product
• Rising customer satisfaction

Anti-Nice-to-Have Checklist

Before accepting a new feature:

Conclusion: The Art of No

Knowing how to say no to "nice-to-have" features is an art. An art that can save your project, your budget, and your team.

Remember: your users don't want more features. They want their problems solved.

Focus on the essential. Do it perfectly. Ignore the rest.

Your future self will thank you.