Shared Acceptance and Done Criteria in Large Programs

Estimated reading: 8 minutes 7 views

Many teams assume that “definition of done” (DoD) at scale means a single, rigid checklist applied uniformly across all teams. That’s a common misconception. In reality, a one-size-fits-all DoD leads to friction, over-engineering, or compliance fatigue—especially when teams work in different domains, with different tech stacks, or under distinct operational constraints. I’ve seen this happen repeatedly in large programs, where a centralized DoD becomes a checklist of unnecessary steps, bogging down delivery without adding real value.

The truth is, the goal of DoD at scale isn’t uniformity—it’s alignment. It’s about creating a shared understanding of what “done” means across teams, while respecting that “done” can look different depending on context. My experience across 15+ enterprise transformations has taught me that the key lies in separating common standards from team-specific extensions. This chapter shows how to establish that balance through practical, field-tested methods.

You’ll learn how to define a baseline of shared acceptance criteria that every team must meet, while also allowing flexibility for team-specific quality gates. You’ll see how to avoid the trap of “DoD bloat” and instead build a lightweight, adaptable framework that actually supports faster flow and fewer reworks.

Why a Uniform DoD Fails in Large Programs

At scale, the same story may be implemented by a frontend team, a backend team, and a data analytics team, each with unique dependencies, testing needs, and deployment cycles. Applying a single DoD checklist to all three ignores these differences.

For example, a story involving a real-time dashboard might require automated UI testing and performance benchmarks for the frontend—but for the backend service, compliance with audit logging and error tracing might be the priority. Enforcing identical testing standards across both leads to wasted effort and confusion.

That’s why a rigid DoD doesn’t scale. It creates friction, slows teams down, and often results in compliance over correctness. As one engineering lead once put it: “We’re not failing because we don’t test enough—we’re failing because we’re testing the wrong things.”

Building a Shared Foundation: The Core DoD Checklist

Start with a minimal, shared DoD that every team must meet—regardless of context. This is your non-negotiable baseline. It’s not about what you want to test, but what must be true for a story to be considered complete from a programmatic and compliance perspective.

Here’s a proven core DoD that I’ve seen work consistently across multiple enterprise programs:

All acceptance criteria are verified and pass automated tests.
Code has passed peer review and meets team coding standards.
Story is integrated into the main branch and deployed to a staging environment.
Security scanning has passed (SAST/DAST) with no critical/high vulnerabilities.
Documentation (if required) is updated and linked to the story.
Story is linked to the correct feature or epic in the backlog.

This checklist is lean, focused on cross-cutting concerns, and designed to work across different tech stacks and domains. It ensures that every story, no matter the team, has met the minimum bar for quality and traceability.

Team-Extension DoD: Where Flexibility Begins

Now, each team adds their own extension DoD on top of the shared baseline. This is where team autonomy and ownership come into play. It’s not about throwing rules away—it’s about tailoring them to what matters for their specific work.

For example:

A frontend team might add: “All UI components are tested with Storybook and visual regression checks.”
A data team might add: “Data validation scripts are in place and tested on sample datasets.”
A DevOps team might add: “Deployment pipeline has been tested and logs are monitored via Prometheus.”

These extensions are not optional. They are part of the team’s own DoD—defined collaboratively, documented, and reviewed regularly. When a story is marked “done,” it must satisfy both the shared DoD and the team’s DoD extensions.

Shared Acceptance Agile: The Real Key to Flow

Acceptance criteria are where shared understanding becomes actionable. But in large programs, they often become a source of ambiguity or rework when teams interpret them differently.

My advice? Shift from individual acceptance criteria to shared acceptance criteria. This means that for cross-team stories—especially those involving multiple dependencies—acceptance criteria must be co-created and approved by all involved teams.

Instead of one team writing criteria and sending it downstream, use shared story workshops. Bring the frontend, backend, and QA leads together to define the scenario, success conditions, and validation paths—before development starts. This prevents assumption gaps and reduces rework by up to 40% in my experience.

Use this format for shared acceptance criteria:

Given the user is on the dashboard page,
When the real-time data update triggers,
Then the chart must reflect the new data within 2 seconds and no error messages appear.

This format, rooted in BDD, forces clarity and shared validation. It also integrates naturally with automated testing pipelines.

Shared Acceptance Agile: A Cross-Team Example

At a major financial institution, a story to “update customer profile data in real-time across systems” involved three teams: the customer data team, the frontend team, and the compliance team.

Instead of writing acceptance criteria in isolation, they held a joint story workshop. The outcome was a shared acceptance criteria set:

Given a customer updates their address in the portal,
When the change is submitted and validated,
Then the change must be reflected in the CRM and fraud detection system within 10 seconds.
And the audit log must capture the change with user ID, timestamp, and old/new values.

Now, all three teams were on the same page. The compliance team could verify logging, the frontend team could validate UI feedback, and the backend team could test integration. This is shared acceptance agile in action.

Definition of Ready Scaling: Avoiding the Bottleneck

Just as DoD ensures consistency at the end of a story, the definition of ready (DoR) ensures readiness at the start. At scale, teams often receive stories that are vague, poorly defined, or missing acceptance criteria—leading to delays and rework.

Here’s a proven DoR framework I’ve used in multiple programs to ensure stories are truly ready for sprint planning:

The story has a clear user perspective and value.
Acceptance criteria are written and agreed by all involved teams.
Dependencies with other teams or systems are identified and managed.
Estimate is provided (story points or t-shirt size).
It links to the correct feature or epic.
It passes the “So what?” test: What business value does this deliver?

For cross-team stories, I recommend a joint DoR review before the story is added to any team’s sprint backlog. This is not bureaucracy—it’s a guardrail that prevents stories from entering the pipeline with hidden risk.

This approach is what I’ve come to call definition of ready scaling. It’s not about imposing rules. It’s about ensuring that every story that enters a sprint is truly ready—not just from a planning perspective, but from a flow and risk perspective.

Guiding Principles for Success

Start small, scale smart: Begin with one or two shared DoD templates. Don’t force a full rollout. Let teams adapt and refine.
Co-create, don’t dictate: The DoD should be a team-driven artifact. Involve tech leads, QA, and DevOps in defining team-specific extensions.
Review quarterly: Reassess the shared DoD every quarter. What’s working? What’s becoming outdated?
Track compliance: Use dashboards to monitor DoD adherence. High variation might signal misalignment or poor understanding.

These principles aren’t theory. They’ve been tested in global systems, regulated environments, and multi-geographic deployments. The result? Faster delivery, fewer defects, and teams that actually understand what “done” means—across the board.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do we handle teams with different deployment cycles?

Teams with different deployment frequencies can still share the same DoD baseline. What changes is the timing of verification. For example, a team deploying weekly may validate acceptance criteria in staging, while a team deploying monthly may wait until production. The DoD isn’t about timing—it’s about completeness.

Can different teams have different DoD extensions for the same story?

Yes—but only if they’re part of the same shared acceptance criteria. For example, a frontend team might validate UI rendering, while a backend team validates API response. Both are valid extensions, but only if the shared acceptance criteria cover both aspects.

What if a team doesn’t follow the shared DoD?

First, investigate the root cause. Is it lack of understanding? Poor tooling? Or are they avoiding compliance due to speed pressure? Address the issue at the process level, not through punishment. Use retrospectives to improve alignment.

How often should we review the shared DoD?

At a minimum, review the shared DoD at every PI planning cycle. More frequent reviews are helpful if there are major changes in tech stack, compliance rules, or team composition.

Do we need a central DoD owner?

No. The DoD should be a collaborative artifact. However, designate a cross-team facilitator (e.g., a product owner or agile coach) to coordinate updates and ensure alignment across teams.

Can shared acceptance criteria be automated?

Absolutely. Shared acceptance criteria are ideal candidates for BDD automation. Use Gherkin syntax in tools like Cucumber or SpecFlow to define scenarios that can be tested automatically—ensuring consistency across teams.