- Nixon Waterman
With this post I conclude the series on scheduling and
estimating that started with the basics
of scheduling. I hope that this
series has successfully drilled into you that offering an informal estimate,
without including all of the elements for success and properly qualifying the
estimate with assumptions or risks, is an eventual path to damaging your
credibility and the credibility of the PM profession. Estimates should almost universally be presented
as ranges with statistical probabilities.
(It’s a real disgrace that our tools generally don’t provide this
capability.)
Estimates should always include estimating assumptions. This is not a CYA point, but rather the
estimating assumptions further clarify the scope and scope boundaries,
establishing basis for (project) change control. Change Management is a topic that I haven’t
developed yet and is a good one for a future series. Stay tuned for that one.
A well-formed schedule takes work to produce. When done well it has a rational basis and a
foundation in science. And despite all
that, it is still subject to failure.
That is no excuse, though, for us not to do the work that our profession
calls for. In fact, it is the reason
that we should be as rigorous as possible in our duties.
Starting with my next post, I’m going to cover a few miscellaneous
topics for a few posts before starting a new series.
What estimating and scheduling issues do you experience that
I have not addressed in this series?
© 2013 Chuck
Morton. All Rights Reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment