Subscribe via RSS Feed

Tag: "teams"

How to Avoid Being Stalked By Scope Creep: The Project Charter

scope-300Scope Creep. Sometimes it’s politically motivated. Sometimes it’s intentional. Sometimes it’s a misunderstanding. But it’s always painful.

Silence is not agreement; Don’t let others hold their breath

speakup2It’s not often, but I believe we have all experienced the meeting that goes too smoothly.

There’s anywhere from four to eight people, trapped with each other for an hour, around our favorite conference table.

The 3 Great Interrupters: Meetings, Management and Drive-Bys

interruptors-300x199Recently, we’ve introduced Commitment Based Estimation  to a couple of our software teams. Typically, this helps a team provide highly-accurate estimates. These teams go on to deliver successfully by meeting these estimates.

Solutioners are from Mars, Supporters are from Venus

Solutioners-are-from-marsRecently, I was asked to facilitate a team-building session for a group of directors.

It started with the normal “storming”, “norming” and “forming” that takes place when teams form. But then I had a huge AHA – a major breakthrough that, for some reason, has eluded me for quite some time.

In this meeting, there were nine directors who collaborate with each other across projects.  One of the directors, let’s call her Mary, began to explain how her team members were struggling to get their deliverables done on time. One particular customer, she explained, was beginning to get a little frustrated with their inconsistencies.  As soon as Mary finished describing her challenge, one of the stronger directors on the team, we’ll call him Joe, responded with his idea: “Well, can’t you work around the issues this way?  Shouldn’t this solve the problem?”

Joe continued to explain his ideas and approach.  He was talking for about 45 or 60 seconds before Mary deftly interrupted him and started explaining to him why she was frustrated and continued to explain her challenge in more detail.

Mary and Joe started talking at each other in  an extremely painful conversation.  At some point other people in the room said, “Hey guys, do you see what’s happening?  You’re talking at each other.  You haven’t heard one word that the other person has said.”

I think we’ve all experienced that.  We’ve all faced a situation when we’ve seen two people talk at each other.  Until they feel heard, they can’t hear the other person.  This is not a new concept.

We asked Joe, “What did you hear Mary say? Did  you hear her?  Because she didn’t think you heard her.”  In response, he effectively repeated some of the words that Mary said.  “So you’re having quality issues, and you’re missing your commitment so you’re getting beat up.”

We then turned to Mary and asked, “Is that what you said?” And she said, “No, that’s not what I meant.”  This went back and forth a couple of times. We’ve all been there.

And then I had the AHA!

Look at what really happened here.  Mary was sharing her situation.  She accepted ownership for the situation, and even though she was struggling a little bit, she wanted to work through it.

Joe loves solving problems. He wanted to share a solution. That’s his job! He immediately tried to help Mary solve this problem by offering her solutions.  But Mary didn’t want him to solve it for her.  Rather, Mary was just looking for people to provide support. Mary wanted to hear, “That’s got to be painful. Is there something we can help you with?”

Supporting vs. Solutioning

Many times when a colleague (especially a peer or direct report)  first shares a challenging or frustrating situation, they are  looking for your support.  They don’t want to be perceived as “giving up”,” out of ideas”, or relinquishing ownership for the situation.

There are other times when the individual may truly be asking you to step in and help solve the problem. They may feel they are in over their head. They need your help to find a solution.

What Joe did was fail to ask, “Do you need help? How can I support you?” He assumed the way he could support Mary was to give her a solution.  This approach made Mary feel insecure because she felt like Joe was going to take control of the situation and undermine her authority. It may have even made her feel stupid.

I think back to two leaders within my own company, both of whom have an affinity for solution mode regardless of what you want to talk about.  If you approach them to talk about how bad traffic was on the way to work, they don’t say, “Oh yeah, I ran into bad traffic too.”  They will actually say, “Did you consider taking a different expressway so you don’t hit traffic?”  They’re actually giving you alternatives to which you might go, “You’ve got to be kidding!  I’m not looking for alternatives! I know how to get to work.”

If you take two people who live in solution mode and put them together, they may struggle to understand who owns what and how to collaborative more effectively.  They both assume they personally own and are accountable for solving the problem because that’s how they’re wired.  Although they might have good problem solving skills, solutioners can make others feel like they’re not as good at their job or they’re failing because the solutioner had to grab ownership of the problem and solve it.

Unlike solutioners, supporters are not pulling ownership and accountability away from someone, which makes it safe to interact.

My current thinking is that if you take a solution person and a support person and put them on the same team, then they tend to really complement each other. You have to be careful, though, about putting two strong solutioning individuals together, especially if they don’t know how to throttle it or are unaware of what they are doing.

Bottom line, when you interact with your team or a colleague, I’d be aware if they are asking for you to be in support mode, or actually solution mode. This can help you be more effective at setting the team up for success!

Mars vs. Venus

I recently shared these thoughts with several colleagues who validated my thinking. One of them chuckled and said I just  summed up the book, “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus.” (The bestselling the book that explains that sometimes all your partner really wants is for you to simply listen and be there for them.) This really made the concept hit home, and in fact, it helped me out at home too!

Do you have any solutioners on your team?

Change Control: Do You Own It or Does It Own You?

Change-ControlOver the last year, I have noticed a myriad of projects that begin to struggle once they begin the change control process. Doesn’t matter the type or size of project – they all appear to drop-the-ball when it comes to following the change control process. This pain surfaces not only in the schedule and budgets, but also in the lack of trust that builds between the business and technology teams.

I want to share some best practices than can help teams manage change control in a more disciplined format. In this first post, I discuss the key roles that should be involved in change control.

What is the typical change control process?

In a typical scenario, the business or project stakeholder comes to the table and says they want to change some functionality. This can be a change to something already built, or it could be a change to some requirements you have collected but haven’t implemented.

When asking for the change, the stakeholders typically want to understand any impact to cost or schedule before committing and asking you to “implement” or “deliver” the change.

What are the roles typically involved in change control?

In a typical change control process, the roles look something like this:

After a change request is submitted, someone is responsible for tracking and reviewing (think triage here) the change request. Acting as an editor, they review the change request and make sure the request is complete and without ambiguities. If there are any gaps or missing information, they go back to the “requester” or to the stakeholders to get the missing information. Obviously that’s pretty standard practice.

Next, one of the technology team members needs to assess the change request and determine what, if any, impact it will have on the current plans. By assessing, I mean sitting down and evaluating the impact of this change request against schedule, budget and staff. They may also identify questions for the stakeholders that need to be answered before they can complete their assessment.

This is where you typically have a “go to person” to do this initial assessing. This resource will typically be asking questions like:

  • Are we short on staff to handle this request?
  • What impact will there be to schedule?
  • What additional risk and/or dependencies does this add to our project?
  • Do I need any “specialists” or unique tools for this request?
  • And so on

The Changing Roles of Change Control

This is where I suggest including a larger team to do the change evaluation. Many of you may already use this approach. Kudos!

But for the rest of us, I suggest that we get a total view when assessing the impact of a change request. This means include a business analyst, quality analyst, etc. in the assessment.  I know there are some Agile teams that do this with all team members. Woohoo!

Why is this so important? Because one person probably can’t truly know the impact this change will have on other parts of the development or the development process.

For example the change may be trivial for the developer because it will take just two hours effort. However, the Quality Assurance team may have to rerun all of the regression tests, impacting the schedule by up to two days. A business analyst may actually look at the change and say, “Given the change, do we need to change three other things in the system so they’re all behaving consistently?” All of a sudden, the business analyst may have to modify other requirements. The dominoes may begin to tumble.

I suggest you make sure all roles on your team are included. It would be sufficient if a single team member plays multiple roles as long as this person knows they’re representing these other roles and thinks through the implication to other scheduling, staffing and costs.

Communicating Change

Make sure change requests are communicated across the entire team. Communication to and within the team is a discipline. Some of my experiences this year have reinforced that communicating changes isn’t optional.

Many team members think a trivial change (like a cosmetic change) doesn’t require informing the entire team. Again, this is NOT optional. It must be understood that we as a team are committed to each other and we’re not going to ”surprise” each other with changes requests. Once that is established, we need to educate the business, clients, and  stakeholders about our change control process and that they, too, must follow it.

Three Key Take-Aways:

  • If you don’t have a change control process, implement one quickly.
  • If you have one, but you’re not using the discipline to enforce it every single time a change comes through, you need to introduce that discipline to the team.
  • If you have a process and discipline, make sure that when you do the assessment all the roles are included (even if it’s one person representing the roles). Reinforce that the efforts of the QA, BA, etc.  have to be taken into consideration.

Do you have any other key best-practices for handling change control?

Eliminating the “Black Box Effect”

Eliminating-the-black-box1Regardless of whether you are doing iterative development or use waterfall methods, you may be struggling to get agreement on whether a delivery team is on track or falling off expectations. This blog covers techniques that can help business and technology teams agree on how to track progress of a technology project.

The Black Box: is any comparatively small, usually black, box containing a secret, mysterious, or complex mechanical or electronic device.

One of the key complaints of a pure waterfall development approach is the reality that a project may not show any results (or provide any feedback) until the software is completely finished.  In other words, the business really has no idea if the project will meet their needs or is on schedule until the software is delivered.

For example, we start a project in January.  It may take through February for initial business architecture and design to be completed.  It may take another month or two before software is actually being developed and delivered to the testing team.

The business may not get any visibility into working software for six months or more.

This is what I call the Black Box Effect. We need to find a way to eliminate this effect and have an agreed upon approach to determine whether a project is on track or not.

The benefits of an iterative approach

There are many reasons an organization may choose to move to an iterative development model such as Agile or Scrum.  One of the more important reasons is to gain more frequent feedback on whether what we are building meets the real business need.

Are you  tired of the business saying, “What did you do to me? I thought we were going to have this done.” And are you tired of hearing yourself say, “Well, I thought we were going to have THIS done!” If that’s the case, then you are obviously not in agreement and have a “visibility” problem.

Visibility isn’t a project plan!

Visibility isn’t a project plan that tracks progress. Visibility is agreeing that the business can get access to completed functionality. Visibility means the business can see how the software being developed will help them achieve their business objectives defined earlier in the process. If they can get visibility into that on a regular basis, then we can agree on whether we will be able to “high-five when the project is done.”

Not only do we need to provide the business visibility on progress, but we need to allow the business to re-evaluate their priorities based on the progress seen. Consider this a feedback loop, allowing development teams to constantly re-evaluate and tune their approach.

I use three key opportunities to provide visibility and get feedback from the business: QuickPeek, Showcase and Release.

QuickPeek

At the end of each iteration, the team should be able to show software that has been developed and completed through unit-testing. The software may not have been put through functional testing or even integration testing, but it has been completely unit tested. There may still be remaining defects.

We encourage the business to review each iteration’s results and make sure we are on track with their expectations – even if the code is not yet packaged for deployment or completely system tested. Remember, the QuickPeek  is typically informal and just to show the iteration progress.

Even in a Waterfall process, you should be able to start identifying key components being developed every two weeks that can be “viewed” by a business stakeholder for feedback.  Maybe some deliverables will take a week while others take up to three weeks.

I believe you can introduce a QuickPeek on a regular basis without too much intrusion into your current corporate process.

Showcase

When a release is going to take six or more months, there is value in planning a Showcase.  This  is a formal review of a set of features or system components.  Functional testing is typically complete and it shows complete business scenarios or processes at work.

However, it typically is not ready to be deployed like a release.

The purpose of the Showcase is to demonstrate the functionality of a complete component to a wider group of stakeholders. It is also used to celebrate progress and create a common vision around the new solution.

Even in an Agile world, you may not be deploying a release until Iteration 10 or 12.  Therefore, there probably is value in creating a Showcase around Iteration 4 and Iteration 8 to provide greater visibility and market the progress you have made.

Eliminating the Black Box creates Visibility

I hope these techniques can help even a waterfall shop create greater visibility and market the progress the team is making. Throughout the development process, it allows the business and I.T. to develop a common view of progress and decide whether adjustments need to be made to the final product.

Do you incorporate all of these techniques? If not, what are the obstacles?

Alignment: Antidote to Rework

Alignment-Antidote-to-Rework1In my last post, I introduced the Getting Predictable℠ Best Practices and explained  how they are designed to set project teams up for success “from the start”.  These practices cover three areas: Alignment, Commitment and Visibility.

Now I am going to dive deeper into the  concept of alignment and why it is critical to reducing rework and helping any team (not just IT) meet its  expectations, each and every time.

What is Alignment?

With technology initiatives, the goal of best practices around alignment looks like this: The business stakeholders all have a common answer to the question, “What is success for this project”?  In other words, they have agreement when the team can stop and everyone can  high-five because they all got what they needed.

At the other extreme (and this is the problem we are trying to solve), we don’t want the business to say to the team: “We have a really critical schedule, so you guys start and we’ll figure it out later”.

Why is it so important to focus on aligning the business stakeholders?  Isn’t it more important to focus on aligning the technology team to the business? No it is not more important – and this answer is of huge importance!

The technology team can’t align to the business goals if the business doesn’t agree on those goals! In other words, if the business isn’t in alignment, how can a technology team align?

What are they aligning to?

More importantly, a lack of alignment on the business side means there is almost certainly rework ahead for the technology team.  As the business goes through the process of coming into alignment, the IT team needs to make constant adjustments.  Sometimes in small ways, but other times the change can be significant and involve removing or changing an entire component of the solution.

When was the last time rework got extra schedule or budget?

This blog will cover those Getting Predictable℠ Best Practices that focus on helping the business get alignment on answering this question:  “What is the definition of success for this project?”.

Alignment is a great idea, but I don’t think it can work for me

Now you  might be thinking: “I can’t get my business folks to a single meeting, let alone get them to agree!” In future posts, I will share best practices that have worked for me. They don’t all work, and they don’t apply to all situations, but I have come to rely on these simple practices to get the results I am looking for.

And there is a huge side benefit.  By helping the business come into alignment on the key objectives of a project, I end up building a new level of trust in my relationship with the business team.  This truly was a pleasant surprise.

You will find some past posts, as well as future posts that focus on key areas such as:

  • Facilitation techniques
  • Aligning the business when they are geographically distributed
  • How to align interested parties that aren’t decision makers
  • Being adaptive to change and protecting alignment
  • When a lack of alignment is ok

So what do you think?

Do you believe this is a problem in your world?  How bad is it? I’d love to hear examples in the comments below.  If you don’t have this problem, why?  What do you believe you are doing right?

Getting Predictable℠ is a collection of best practices 
that set teams up for success from the start.

The Role Call: A New Practice to Set Your Team Up for Success

The-Role-Call-ChecklistLast post I wrote about how often we begin a project from a disadvantage right from the start. Usually it’s because the team doesn’t have the resources or the commitments it needs from outside of the team.

In this post, I want to talk about a new best practice I am experimenting with. This practice is  designed to help set teams up for success by focusing on the project team resources. I call this best practice: The Role Call Checklist.

Key Roles On a Project

First I need to  explain the common thinking on key project roles: Specifically, every project is made up of 4 key roles. In no particular order, these roles are:

  • The Architect: This is the person responsible for the technical solution. For example, “does it work or do you get 404 or blue screens of pain”?

 

If the final application doesn’t technically work, or if it doesn’t meet a non-functional requirement, such as scale, then the Architect is accountable. I am not going to follow up with the Project Manager. It’s the Architect’s responsibility.

  • The Senior Business Analyst: This role is about  understanding what business problem this project addresses and, from a business point of view, what is success. Business Analysts are the proxy for our business users.

 

If the final solution works technically, but doesn’t do what the business needs, and doesn’t allow the business to achieve their goals, then the Senior Business Analyst is responsible.

  • The Senior Quality Analyst: QAs are responsible for the quality of the solution. Before everyone jumps on me, I don’t want to get into the discussion of exactly what the QA role is and how encompassing it is. I am a true believer that the QA role is larger than a testing organization. Their job is not to simply test and place a sticker on the software saying “Inspected by #12”.

But for this post, I hold the Senior Quality Analyst accountable to identify what quality the system holds.  What are the defects and is the system compliant with the intent? If the system technically works, and if it was designed to meet the business needs, then the Senior Quality Analyst is accountable to say whether it is ready to ship.

Finally,

  • The Project Manager: The PM is responsible for overall transparency.  This person needs to have an accurate picture of where we are in relation to schedule, budget and meeting Business Objectives. Further, they are accountable to serve the team by helping to identify and, more importantly, facilitate removing obstacles that can prevent the team from being successful. They are the manager.

Although I believe every project, small or large, has the need for these four roles, they don’t necessarily need to be four separate individuals. On smaller projects, you may have a single individual playing the Project Manager and Business Analyst role.  Or you may have the Business Analyst playing a Quality Analyst role. It depends on your culture and the strengths of your team members.

But the need to define:

–        What you are building,

–        How you are building it,

–        Whether you built it properly, and

–        How you’re managing the process

is required on every project. When a smaller team doesn’t believe they need each of these roles, it can create a gap to successfully delivering a solution.

And this brings me to the new best practice I am experimenting with:

The Role Call Checklist

I create a mini-checklist for each these roles. Under each role, I write what the role is accountable for. While there probably will be a common list of  responsibilities across many of our checklists, each role will also have some unique views.

If you are assigned a new project, I recommend creating this checklist to determine who is playing each of these roles.  On a smaller project, you may have one person playing two or three roles.  On a larger project, you’ll want to  identify the key owner of each role.

Then, I recommend that you meet with your team and make sure you are all in agreement as to who is doing what, and what the team is relying on each person for. I believe this small exercise can help a team start more successfully, especially when resources are scarce.

If you have a checklist, I would love to hear from you and find out what works and what doesn’t.  Does it make a difference?  Are you willing to share yours?  Feel free to add a comment below.

IT as Great Facilitators Part 4

What Great Facilitators Know About Estimating

IT-Great-Facilitator-4Last post, I shared an exercise that helped teams understand how to develop a plan that is manageable and achievable. I call this “Commitment Based Estimation”.  Now, I will show how great facilitators can play a role in making their teams super confident about their estimates.

Who Should Facilitate an Estimation Session?

Before we talk about how to be effective at facilitating estimation sessions,  I’m going to discuss how to select the best person to facilitate these sessions.

I typically find that the team-lead drives estimation sessions. Project Managers and Architects are also fairly popular in this role. The key, however, is to find a person who can allow the team to own the estimate.

When a Project Manager leads the estimation, they usually drive a team to develop estimates that reflect the project plan. Once the Project Manager starts imposing schedules, or challenges the team to constantly optimize an estimate, then the team won’t feel ownership. This is not how to get a Commitment Based Estimate.

Similarly, when an architect drives the estimate, they typically assume a technical frame of reference and try to help the team understand the mechanics of the estimation. If they impose their vision for the complexity of certain tasks, once again, the team won’t feel ownership.

So who makes the best facilitator for estimation sessions? I’d say look for a person who is:

  • Part of the team and has skin in the game
  • Already a respected leader and trusted by the team not to impose their personal views
  • Is experienced in helping teams balance risks, contingencies and dependencies

One Rule You Should Never Break

There is one rule the facilitator must never break: Allow the team to come up with estimates they believe in. Unless the team is very junior or new to estimating, every team needs the freedom to come up with their own estimates. If the team asks for two weeks, never impose a shorter schedule and tell them to get the job done in one week.

Now, you may be thinking: Does this mean I can never challenge a team? It does not. What is does mean is that as a good facilitator, you ask the right questions and help them share and test their assumptions.

For example, ask the team: “What would you need to get this done in a week?” or “How much can you get done in a week?” By asking the right questions, the scope may get reduced. Now, you get the deliverable within a week because the estimation was not imposed on them. Again, the facilitator does not want to undermine the ability of the team to own the estimate.

Other Things Good Facilitators Can Do:

Some of the other approaches that have helped me personally manage some very strong groups include:

  • Make sure the team does not give an estimate that is simply unrealistic.  I talked about this in a past blog called “Attitude of Estimation”.  As a facilitator, you want to encourage the team to come up with an estimate that is workable.
  • Ask questions and create assumptions to make the team think of scenarios that might happen. This helps the team create more accurate estimates.
  • Make sure everyone has a voice. Business Analysts need to be able to articulate the business needs and clarify what is being delivered.  Project Managers can offer perspective on dependencies and resource availability.  The QA team needs to test not only to see if something works, but also to see if the product is in compliance with business needs. Developers, Architects, and the database team also need to weigh in.  Too many times an estimate does not include a full set of voices and results in inaccurate estimates and mediocre functionality.

Have you ever been in an estimation session where the facilitator was more of a hindrance than a help?

I hope you have enjoyed my 4-part series on facilitation. If you missed them, here are the links:
IT as Great Facilitators Part 1
IT as Great Facilitators Part 2
IT as Great Facilitators Part 3

In my opinion, there are way too many people who take the facilitator role for granted.

I think there are some jobs that are too important to perform any less than perfectly. Facilitation is one of them.  A poor facilitator can break the spirit of a super talented team while a great facilitator can lead a good team to surprise itself on what it is capable of.

IT as Great Facilitators Part 3

Commitment Based Estimation

IT-as-Great-Facilitators-Part-3I want to tie together two concepts I have blogged about in the past few months. Specifically, how proper facilitation can help a team confidently develop a plan that is realistic and manageable.  This is what I call Commitment Based Estimation.  As a quick review, Commitment Based Estimation is an estimation approach that helps a team:

  • Develop estimates they genuinely believe are achievable
  • Feel ownership for their estimates
  • Treat these estimates as commitments and therefore honor them by managing to their plan

You can find my previous posts on this topic here:

Experiencing Why Commitment Based Estimation Works

I’ve used the following facilitation exercise to help teams understand some of the flaws with our typical approach to estimation.  This activity also demonstrates why Commitment Based Estimation can lead to much higher quality results.

I always do this 2-part estimation exercise in person and always with a group of people. Important: If you do this with others, be sure to state the following rules:

  1. You cannot ask any questions. Do your best with the information I give you.
  2. Write down your answer. This is important (especially when doing this in groups).
  3. You cannot collaborate or look at your co-worker’s  answers.

I’d like you to choose a shopping mall or large shopping center that is a typical weekend shopping destination for folks near your office.  The key is that it shouldn’t be across the street from your office, but requires a planned trip to get to.  For example, where I work, there is a shopping center called Oakbrook Mall, which is about four miles from my office.

Now here is the first step.  I’d like you to personally estimate how long it will take to leave your office, go to the shopping center, and find a store that carries designer sunglasses.  Then, purchase a pair of glasses with mirrored lenses for your spouse or other family member.  Then drive back to your office and drop off the glasses.  Oh … and one other thing… On your way  back to the office, please pick up an ink cartridge for your inkjet printer.

Now, I challenge everyone to come up with the estimate above. They each get about 90 seconds to come up with their answers.

The First Readout…

I then go around the room and ask everyone to read exactly what they wrote down as their estimate. It is important they use the exact words they wrote down. 60 minutes is not the same as one hour.

If you do this with a group, you will get all different answers. Typically you will get:

  • Someone who is  optimistic and says a very short time. From my office, they might say 30 minutes.
  • A  few folks who give a pretty precise estimate. For example 53 minutes, or one hour and 12 minutes.
  • Someone who  might be swagging it at one hour or “an hour and a half”.

That Was the Setup. So Now You Change the Game…

After everyone has done their readouts, I then say “great job” and explain that I want them to estimate again. However, this time  they have something to lose. I pretend that I am giving away an iPad or some other prize to the three folks who provide actual estimates.

So, I want them to redo their estimates. Knowing there is a prize at stake, they now have something to lose!

And Then the Fun Begins…

I now give the group another 90 seconds to redo their estimates.

If you actually created an estimate while reading along, I’d like you to take the opportunity to make it “more accurate”.  Pretend you could win a real iPad if you create an estimate that you can deliver on.

I then go around the room and ask everyone to give both estimates.  So again, here are some typical results during the second readout:

  • The person who was optimistic at 30 minutes says: My original estimate was 30 minutes and my new estimate is 42 minutes.
  • The folks with the precise estimates of 53 minutes either stay the same, or they may go up a little to 61 minutes.
  • (This baffles me.) There’s always someone that will take their estimate and actually lower it. They may go from 80 minutes down to 70.
  • And every once in a while someone “pads” their estimate and says “one full day”.

Seriously – the Lessons We Can Learn …

This seems like a hokey exercise. Yes – I am a hokey person 🙂 .  But let’s look at the real takeaways:

  1. When we did our first estimate, we didn’t take it seriously. The goal of the entire activity is to realize that if we have something at stake, we will actually estimate differently, and try to come up with an estimate we can confidently deliver on.So when our project teams are estimating, are they approaching this as the first go around?  Are they saying “You want an estimate? 53 minutes.”  Or do they understand there is something at stake?  They should re-think and verify that they can deliver on their estimate. Do they understand there is much more than an iPad at stake?
  2. We assume that an estimate should be as low an estimate as possible, even if it creates risk to delivery.When we estimate, are we so afraid of estimating for real world contingency and risk that we always estimate optimistically?  We probably shouldn’t pad to a full day, but we aren’t asked to make the estimate the “best case scenario” either.It should be an estimate that we all believe is achievable and can be managed to!
  3. When I do this in group, everyone wants to ask questions.  Is there construction?  What time of day are they going? Do they know what store has the glasses?  But as part of the rules, I say no questions are allowed.When they do this exercise, they can even be frustrated that they are being asked to create an estimate without knowing these answers. They think “How am I supposed to estimate this”?And this is exactly what happens in real life with our project teams!  It is the nature of our world that teams will always have some questions that can be answered and many others that cannot be answered. Yet, we still ask them for estimates that we can plan and execute against.

Commitment Based Estimating

Commitment Based Estimating is about helping a team deal with all three of these challenges. In my next post, I will talk about how proper facilitation can help a team deal with these challenges and deliver a Commitment Based Estimate that everyone believes in and the team can manage to.

Can you think of any situations where it would have been worthwhile to try this exercise before delivering an estimate?