Project Management

The best approach to estimation is to use more than one technique!

From the Easy in theory, difficult in practice Blog
by
My musings on project management, project portfolio management and change management. I'm a firm believer that a pragmatic approach to organizational change that addresses process & technology, but primarily, people will maximize chances for success. This blog contains articles which I've previously written and published as well as new content.

About this Blog

RSS

Recent Posts

Leading Through Crisis Means Leading Through Context

"It's the end. But the moment has been prepared for." - retirement lessons from the Doctor

Just because they are non-critical, doesn't mean they are not risky!

Just because they are non-critical, doesn't mean they are not risky!

How will YOU avoid these AI-related cognitive biases?

Categories

Agile, Artificial Intelligence, Career Development, Change Management, Communications Management, Decision Making, Governance, Hiring, Kanban, Lessons Learned, Personal Development, PMO, Portfolio Management, Project Management, Resource Management, Risk Management, Risk Management, Schedule Management, Scheduling, Tools

Date

linkedin twitter facebook Request to reuse this  

Categories: Project Management


A logical question when approaching a new project is “What is the best technique to estimate project effort or costs?”.

Anyone who has taken a foundation course in project management will have been exposed to a large number of estimation methods including analogous, parametric and three-point estimates.

On most projects, particular techniques simply aren’t applicable. For example, on a highly unique project, parametric estimation may not be feasible since there would have been no past history to develop rules of thumb.

However, on most projects more than one estimation method is viable, especially once planning activities are well underway and scope definition and decomposition are substantially complete.

A common choice is to utilize a single, bottom-up estimation method. Occasionally, this bottom-up method is performed using three-point estimates for those activities with which the team has limited experience or confidence.

This is certainly a justifiable approach since the overall project estimates will be derived from the detailed activity-level estimates, but it can also result in these final totals appearing quite bloated, especially if team members have consciously built padding in to their individual estimates.

If such estimates are presented to sponsors or customers, once they get over their shock they may be inclined to arbitrarily cut estimates – this is a lose-lose response which needs to be avoided at all costs.

A safer approach is to sanity-check the estimates before they are presented by using a different estimation method.

For example, combine expert judgment with Delphi method to evaluate the aggregate effort totals by role and assess that against the overall work being done. The relative ratio of effort estimated to be spent between roles may help to identify variances to focus on – for example, if development estimates are more than triple testing estimates for a brand-new product, one or the other may need further review. Assumptions analysis may also help to reveal specific estimates which need some further refinement.

Although the effort spent on estimation like with any other project management practices needs to be commensurate with the scale and complexity of a given project, the benefits of using multiple estimation methods will provide more than one source of validation while still retaining team member commitment to the work.

(Note: this article was originally written and published by me in September 2013 on my personal blog, kbondale.wordpress.com)


Posted on: May 03, 2018 07:00 AM | Permalink

Comments (12)

Please login or join to subscribe to this item
avatar
Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD Senior Project Manager| Infosys Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Very true Kiron, we need a few estimation tricks up our sleeve to make the estimate more realistic.

avatar
Kiron Bondale Retired | Mentor| Retired Welland, Ontario, Canada
Thanks Sante - I just realized there was no title for the article... that's what I get for rushing a publication first thing in the morning!

avatar
Cibin Thomas Reston, Va, United States
Agree with your points Kiron, very important.

avatar
Kiron Bondale Retired | Mentor| Retired Welland, Ontario, Canada
Thanks Cibin!

avatar
Eduin Fernando Valdes Alvarado Project Manager| F y F Fabricamos Futuro Villavicencio, Meta, Colombia
Thanks for sharing

avatar
Anish Abraham Privacy Program Manager| University of Washington Auburn, Wa, United States
Informative article, Kiron and thanks for sharing this.

avatar
Kiron Bondale Retired | Mentor| Retired Welland, Ontario, Canada
Thanks Eduin & Anish!

avatar
Arash Bayazian Sarkandi CEO| Eizat Alhayat project management Services Dubai, United Arab Emirates
thanks, I always take more than one estimation technique

avatar
Tamer Zeyad Sadiq Assistant Cost Manager| Turner & Townsend Riyadh, Ar Riyad, Saudi Arabia
Nice!!! Most of people used analogous estimating. Although it's less accurate but it's quickly and population with engineers!!!!

avatar
Tamer Zeyad Sadiq Assistant Cost Manager| Turner & Townsend Riyadh, Ar Riyad, Saudi Arabia
Nice!!! Most of people used analogous estimating. Although it's less accurate but it's quickly and population with engineers!!!!

avatar
Kiron Bondale Retired | Mentor| Retired Welland, Ontario, Canada
Thanks Tamer!

avatar
Kevin Drake Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Great article Kiron, Thanks a lot.
PERT has been my favourite in combination with another method for cross-checking.

Please Login/Register to leave a comment.

ADVERTISEMENTS

"I never thought much of the courage of a lion-tamer. Inside the cage he is at least safe from people."

- George Bernard Shaw

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsors