Looking for two very informative posts on estimating?  Check out one by Josh Nankivel of pmStudent and Glen Alleman of Herding Cats.  Both are discussing estimating techniques that work for them.

I wanted to take a moment to add my two cents. Though I certainly believe estimating should be more science than art, I look at estimates from a different perspective. As a disclosure, I’m not the one doing the estimating on this project, therefore I’m not going to say I agree or disagree with any one technique.  Depending on your situation, one estimating technique may provide more accurate results than the other.

What I would like to add, from my perspective, is the need for expert judgment. If you are an expert in a given estimating technique and it gives you the results you and your customer(s) need, does that not validate it as an acceptable estimating choice?

If the estimating technique does not produce the desired results, wouldn’t it fail the metaphorical sniff test?

Recently, I questioned a vendor’s estimate based on a different technique.  I used a parametric estimate to see if the vendor’s estimate would pass or fail my sniff test.

What exactly is a parametric estimate?

An estimating technique that uses a statistical relationship between historical data and other variables to calculate an estimate for activity parameters, such as scope, cost, budget, and duration.  Source: PMBOK Page 439

So, why did the vendor’s estimate not pass my sniff test?  As part of a standard estimating practice, software vendors should include time for fixing bugs. Upon review of a recent status report, I noticed the vendor reporting half as many bugs were discovered in a current build than had been estimated. When asked about this, the vendor was very excited to confirm that they indeed found half as many defects in the code they originally estimated and predicted a cost savings of several hundred thousand dollars to the project.  Going into the current build, I knew what the standard deviation was and considered the possible variance.  This fell way below that.

So, why were they discovering so few bugs?  At first glance, I would predict two possible reasons.  [1] Quality through development improved.  [2] Quality through testing worsened.  Either way, you get the same initial result of fewer defects identified.

We’ll know the true answer once initial user acceptance testing begins.  If there were no baselines to compare the actuals to, I might not have given it a second thought.

Graphic source via Flickr: pump

In celebration of my wife’s birthday, I figured I would make her a homemade birthday cake.  I haven’t done that since before we got married 5+ years ago.  This time, however, I actually asked her what she wanted.  That’s right.  The first birthday cake that I made for her, I didn’t even ask what she would like.  If you were the customer, wouldn’t that kind of tick you off?  Thanks for the cake but… I don’t like that kind.

Getting input (and listening) to your customer goes a long way.

Sure, I could have ordered a cake from the local (and now famous) Charm City Cakes but she didn’t ask for that.  She wanted a chocolate cake with butter cream frosting.  So, last night, our 4-year-old son and I made her a chocolate cake with butter cream frosting.  We even cleaned up the mess after!  But, it wasn’t completely uneventful.  All I can say is I’m glad there were well documented instructions.

Me: Are we a pair of knuckleheads or what?
My son:  I think we’re a pair of clowns, Daddy.

Here is my Project Management Spin

1. Find out what your customer wants.
2. Deliver what your customer wants, not what you want.
3. You’ll spend more money if you want a chef to bake and decorate your cake.
4. You’ll save more time if you want a chef to bake and decorate your cake.
5. Even a pair of clowns can bake and decorate a cake (if instructions are good).
6. You should expect lower quality from a pair of clowns.

Product Delivery

• Both cake and frosting passed unit testing. (Mmmmmm)
• We did a little beta testing last night before the final build.
• The final build was successful.
• We delivered on time.
• We delivered below budget.
• The good news is, I’m pretty sure we’ll pass user acceptance testing.

Happy Birthday to my beautiful and wonderful wife!

What’s a weekend without grilling steak?  I would say a weekend without a good blog post idea.  Some things in life are an art and some a science.  It doesn’t matter if it’s project management/leadership or grilling a steak.

So, what is a geeky way to write about grilling the perfect steak?  I would say compare it to the Deming cycle, or PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle to illustrate the point.  PDCA is a continuous quality improvement model consisting of a logical sequence of four repetitive steps for continuous improvement.

• Plan what you intend to do. In this step assess where you are, where you need to be, why it is important, and plan how to close the gap. Identify some potential solutions.
• Do try out or test the solutions.
• Check to see if the changes you tried had the effect you hoped for, and make sure that there are no negative consequences associated with them. Assess if you have accomplished your objective.
• Act on what you have learned. If you have accomplished your objective, put controls into place so the issue never happens again. If you have not accomplished your objective, go through the cycle again, starting with the Plan step.

PDCA applies to entrepreneurial ideas, application development, and anything that happens to do with my grill.  Realistically, you can apply it to anything where unknowns exist.  There are just so many variables, you need to be prepared to act and pivot.  I have grilled countless steaks and have refined my process to the point that it finally meets my quality standards.  On occasion, I do check to see if my process holds true and all I do is mess up a good steak.  I won’t go into specifics as to what my perfect grilled steak process is.  (Unless someone asks)  Rather, I’ll say I documented it and saved it in Evernote.

Now if only I could do the same with a hamburger.

This post is in response to a post written by Jennifer Bedell on the PMStudent blog about goldplating.

Goldplating is very common in application development and can be very expensive. If you’re dealing with Waterfall, it’s a little more obvious when it’s happening.  Some may argue, but I’ve seen it happen in Agile as well.  I’ve sat across the table from a vendor and asked, are you prepared to roll back every one of these changes?  Their eyes get big because why wouldn’t the client want these changes?  Well, too many times a developer is in the code and they think, while here, why not make this additional change we planned to do next month.  Or, now that I’m here, it makes a lot more sense if I do it like this versus what we originally thought.

In short, Jennifer wrote about goldplating caused by testers. She asked

why is it always the developers who get blamed for goldplating? When you consider the cost of change increases as the project timeline progresses, it becomes evident that, in addition to increasing scope, goldplating by a developer can also be costly. Goldplating by a tester can occur when a tester goes beyond the stated requirements in an effort to produce a “quality” product. A tester may feel that their suggestion would improve the customer experience so they log this in the defect log.  While their suggestion may do exactly what they envisioned, if it was not within the scope of the stated requirements, it becomes a form of goldplating or “feature creep”.   A tester’s job is to ensure that a quality product is delivered, but many testers rely on their own definition of quality rather than using the requirements to define quality…

I’ve seen team members at every stage of the Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) attempt to goldplate, with the best of intentions. Regardless of where you are in your development process, any time there is a requested change to the baseline, there should be a control mechanism.  I call that mechanism a triage. Be it the customer or a customer representative (Project Manager, Product Owner, or BA), someone needs to vet anything and everything which could impact the baseline.  These changes need to be prioritized and reviewed.  I’m not saying changes should not be made.  I’m saying they need to be properly vetted.  Changes impact the schedule, the budget, and in the end…customer satisfaction.

Without this control point, I think you’re guaranteed to see creep somewhere in your project and you will see it begin to bleed time, money, or both.

Yes, we certainly want to deliver the greatest value to the customer. But, creep increases risk and that’s not value.

Am I just a control freak or do you agree with me?

As I study the collection and reporting of metrics and project statuses, I find many reports just do not deliver what they should. I believe there should be a stand-alone deliverable that a project manager is able to provide to a stakeholder at any time, illustrating the total project status.  I created a report and used the name “TPS Report” from the movie Office Space.  I try to interject a little humor into a project, where I can, without raising too many eyebrows.  Because I do not think I should keep all of the good stuff for myself, I hope others will download my free template.  It captures everything from overall project status to schedule, budget, scope, and quality, including a RAG (Red, Amber or Green) status.  What milestones were planned and accomplished?  What is planned for the next period?  Though I believe a subjective narrative does have its place in project reporting, I like the more objective approach.  Give your stakeholders the facts!
Please enjoy this free copy of  my Total Project Status Report Template.