21–30 of 73 posts
Another way to look at it is that there are three variables. Time, scope and velocity. If time and velocity are fixed variables then it follows that only scope can be changed to make a project fit into the time box.
> Bargain scope, not time I've started applying this and it's amazing how well this works. Of course sometimes it's just not possible to reduce the scope any further, but the key point is that the stakeholders just want something, anything and as soon as possible at that. You give them that and suddenly there's much less pressure and you can focus on delivering the rest, or sometimes dropping it entirely because in h…
Another way to look at it is that there are three variables. Time, scope and velocity. If time and velocity are fixed variables then it follows that only scope can be changed to make a project fit into the time box.
Scope is sometimes fixed too, ie through contractual obligations. Velocity can be increased by pulling more resources in - to a certain point.
Even more important is not letting your team get boxed into fixed scope and fixed time as you can increase velocity some but increases to velocity are usually the most over-estimated in my experience.
In my experience with internal dev teams there are very rarely any real deadlines. They do exist; fixed product cycles, government mandates, but most of the time its made up arbitrary marks in a calendar, sprint deadlines (yes, these are deadlines), quarterly goal deadlines, yearly objectives etc. Deadlines are just lazy management, we feel we need to set deadlines to motivate people and drive delivery, the problem i…
Peter) how long will it take to do "an action that you don't know how long it will take"
me) I don't know, at a complete guessminate X weeks
Peter) ok, you can do it in X/2 weeks then
me) I'll need to triage the request and understand the requirements then at a guess it "may" least Y days to investigate what's needed - that's if It can be done, assess the amount of work needed, governance to go through, assess the priorities and get back to you with the order of magnitude costs for you to sign off - How soon can you set up the triage with all the relevent SMEs to answer my questions?
> Bargain scope, not time I've started applying this and it's amazing how well this works. Of course sometimes it's just not possible to reduce the scope any further, but the key point is that the stakeholders just want something, anything and as soon as possible at that. You give them that and suddenly there's much less pressure and you can focus on delivering the rest, or sometimes dropping it entirely because in h…
In my experience, management digs its heels in on scope and time anyway by bringing in more people. Usually lots of them, and the cheapest people they could get.
I don't envy anyone put in such a situation.
The thing is most of the time these deadlines are totally artificial and simply a psychological trick to induce a sense of urgency. Moreover, PMs know that deadlines will slip and are prepared for this , they just want them to be slightly unrealistic so that you feel pressured (even better if you yourself suggested the deadline under their intent stare, then the pressure is higher).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It somewhat sinister, because what we're doing is essentially pitting the stakeholders' past priorities against the current ones. But it's effective and I wish they were aware of this more. One other trick I have up my sleeve is to do an, ahem, quick sort of tasks with the stakeholders. There's a degree of cunningness required to pull this off, but it works. Hilariously enough insertion sort is less effective, becaus…
Can you elaborate more on quick sort? What does that achieve? Why does insertion sort not work, and why does it require cunningness?
I usually do one comparison per meeting - regardless of the topic at hand.
It's taken me so long to realize that people just want to know you're on top of something. Simply saying "This was deprioritized this week/month/quarter in favor of other work, but I'm still on top of it" buys you a lot of trust.
My inclination is to deliver either good news or no news at all – I have to work to fight this.
I remember a pretty similar dialogue that I had with a PM once, it went like this: PM: so what is your estimate for this feature? Me: 4 weeks to prod. PM: hmmm, that looks like a lot for a small task that is also very important for us, maybe you can do it in 2 weeks? Me: no, considering the amount of additional commitments that we have, I’m pretty sure this will be done in 4 weeks. PM: well, I’ll provisionally set th…
A PM doing that would be a red flag for me.
Clearly the PM isn't trying to manage the project in a tranparent, sustainable manner. They're trying to politic, manipulate, and pull the wool over everyone's eyes. This will only erode trust on all sides over time.
I've seen this poison tech orgs in the past. It turns them into a soured marriage where nobody seems to understand the other side and feels like actual communication is impossible.
Fix the incentive for the PM to play the games. TFA somewhat addresses this (bargain scope, not time), but it doesn't really address the underlying political forces the PM is acting under.