3 ms·

A co-worker and I were asked to write up an estimate for a new project. We sat down, walked through the components (best we could at the time) and came up with

A co-worker and I were asked to write up an estimate for a new project. We sat down, walked through the components (best we could at the time) and came up with an estimate (which was likely smaller than the actual given the unknowns). We provided the estimate to leadership. They decided not to do the project. Next, I hear from the head of engineering, "You can't go giving huge estimates to leadership. It makes us look bad." It was one of those moments that reinforced my belief that the "image game" and reality are in conflict and people who enable the "image game" are one of the biggest problems in software estimation.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
s_gourichon 7y ago
Yes. Let's rephrase the idea a little more formally. Few hypotheses are necessary for a thought experiment that reproduces the issue. Given a project: * some people/teams produce accurate estimates * some people/teams produce overly optimistic estimates If decision-maker is not aware, it can easily conflate optimistic estimate with a more efficient team (or just more enticing). If the possibility of overly optimistic estimates are not taken seriously, the more accurate team can seem just less efficient / lazy / trying to charge more for the same work / etc. For example if the decision-maker is actually a client comparing several suppliers. Extra risk if decision-making is diluted among many people (harder to get clear and consistent view). This puts the teams in a competition similar to the prisoner's dilemma. Honest estimates get punished, treacherous estimates are favored. No wonder so many projects are over-budget, when they are not too over-budget to complete at all. The only actual hypothesis here is: "decision-maker conflating optimistic estimates with better value". It seems very common. If decision-maker doesn't fall into this trap, the problem disappears, right? What can we do to shift the equilibrium? A manifesto?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

s_gourichon 7y ago

Yes. Let's rephrase the idea a little more formally. Few hypotheses are necessary for a thought experiment that reproduces the issue. Given a project: * some people/teams produce accurate estimates * some people/teams produce overly optimistic estimates If decision-maker is not aware, it can easily conflate optimistic estimate with a more efficient team (or just more enticing). If the possibility of overly optimistic estimates are not taken seriously, the more accurate team can seem just less efficient / lazy / trying to charge more for the same work / etc. For example if the decision-maker is actually a client comparing several suppliers. Extra risk if decision-making is diluted among many people (harder to get clear and consistent view). This puts the teams in a competition similar to the prisoner's dilemma. Honest estimates get punished, treacherous estimates are favored. No wonder so many projects are over-budget, when they are not too over-budget to complete at all. The only actual hypothesis here is: "decision-maker conflating optimistic estimates with better value". It seems very common. If decision-maker doesn't fall into this trap, the problem disappears, right? What can we do to shift the equilibrium? A manifesto?