Dont release. Be transparent, flag the issues and try to buy time. If it really needs to happen then release only key features. Better to hold on than cry in production.

If it needs to be rushed then, if possible, limit features so you can test adequately and lower risk. Also have the team ready for possible hot fixes.

Rushed release with quality issues is not desirable. However, it may not be avoidable in some circumstances. Here are some ways to safeguard the quality: 1. Re-calibrate the scope to reduce risk exposure 2. Prioritize testing on potentially high impact features 3. Expand team capacity by involving more stakeholders during testing and UAT process 4. Communicate with stakeholders and set expectations around potential quality risk. Lastly, after the release, conduct a retro, collect feedback and put in place better processes to mitigate such risks in the future releases.

To safeguard the product quality in case of a rushed release I always ensure: - Have Incremental releases by breaking the rushed update into micro-updates. - Rely of test releasing the product on a small group of users and then incrementally release it to the wider user groups. - Leverage users who are a part of early release programme to check in real-time how the update works and if there are any errors. - Prioritization is very important to segregated the release modules based on criticality and urgency.

Product launch is one thing, the most important part is to make sure that everything is working well. In my experiences, there is no harm to have a product soft launch and invited a certain target groups to use the product while do some fixing if it's required and a rigorous QA in process, after confirming that there's no further issues with the product then it can be fully launch to the market (the key is to maintain a short gap between soft and full launch).

Prioritize critical fixes by conducting thorough risk assessments and addressing key issues. Implement rigorous testing, including automated and manual checks, to identify potential defects. Communicate openly with stakeholders about the risks of a rushed release, advocating for a realistic timeline if necessary. If release deadlines are non-negotiable, plan for rapid post-launch updates. Emphasize quality over speed to protect the product’s integrity and user trust.

For a product release, we either set the release date in stone or the # of features, but not both. If the release date is set in stone then the team should sacrifice the features. In this case, reduce the # of features and make sure there are zero priority 1 defects. On other hand, if the features are set in stone (dealing with competition, getting to market first, etc) then compromise on the release date by pushing it out.

Rushed releases can compromise product integrity, risking not just data inconsistencies but also a lack of user research and usability testing. In fast-paced environments, I recommend a two-pronged approach: Scope Reduction: Focus on core features that deliver maximum value and can be implemented quickly, ensuring a minimal viable product (MVP) that meets critical user needs. Scalable Design: Create a flexible architecture that accommodates future growth and features. At Fintranet , we mitigate risks through rapid user feedback, involving users early in the design process, and conducting rigorous testing to identify issues before release. This combination allows us to maintain high-quality products, even under tight deadlines.