Jessica ThornIT Project Manager| MINDEXBuffalo, Ny, United States
Our initial timeline had a Sept delivery date but was incredibly preliminary and given at a point where we didn't know what we didn't know. I was not with the company when it was communicated out to upper management and the stakeholders. Now that the project is moving along and a LOT more info is known, we need to move the MVP delivery to November, and a everyone is freaking out. I'm wondering how we can mitigate this situation. Saving Changes...
It is usually a good practice whenever estimates are provided to provide the level of confidence or a range of outcomes related to those. It sounds like either those were not done or were forgotten by the senior stakeholders. In such cases, it is best to remind them of the difference between a rough order of magnitude estimate and a high confidence one and give them options. If they are truly date-bound, would they accept something less?
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Jessica, it is common for preliminary estimates to change as more becomes known and upper management should expect a revision (not a significant one) to the dates but as Kiron said, it is important to communicate from the start the level of confidence in your initial estimates in order for upper management to set their expectations (not sure if your predecessor did that or not).
If it was me, I would acknowledge the situation, provide solid reasons to the management as to why the timeline needs to be adjusted and present a revised plan with the level of confidence that you have about this plan. Upper management do appreciate transparency and if you make your case with solid reasons, I am sure they will understand! Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
Start at kick off time making all people understand what does mean a schedule and what is involved on change it. Take a closer look to Barry Bohem´s Cone of Uncertainty. Take a closer look to risk and issues management. You need people to be prepare in advance. If not , you are lost. Saving Changes...
Try to find why exactly why everybody's freaking out. There must be a reason for it, an important business / market dependency? Just promises to upper management? A key technical component running out of life? Also, what was the situation when the original date was announced? And why a preliminary delivery date is being taken as a must now? Once you find out, try to have the core MVP delivered or explain how the components should fit the best way possible, to keep as much people happy as possible. If it can't be done, I'd spend sufficient and convenient time explaining the pros of spending the extra 2 months, whatever factors those are. Finally, if you can, go Agile and deliver the chunks people considers more important or are more nervous about going first, then the rest in further sprints. Just rainstorming here. Saving Changes...
William M Hayden JrAdjunct Assistant Professor| University at Buffalo, School of Management, Operations Management & StrategyBuffalo, Ny, United States
Hi Jessica!
Re: "Now that the project is moving along and a LOT more info is known, we need to move the MVP delivery to November, and a everyone is freaking out. I'm wondering how we can mitigate this situation."
1st, call for a "Phase Gate Review" by stopping the work.
2nd, facilitate this process with the functional tech-leads and others as needed.
3rd, Re-issue the plan going forward.
Cheers,
Bill Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Jessica,
If the “freaking out” is on the side of your executive sponsor or key stakeholders, then there’s likely a corporate-political element in play that you are not aware of.
Let’s consider a couple of different scenarios:
[1] Budget-based concern:
Maybe the executive sponsor and some of the key stakeholders “signed up” for a headcount reduction timed to the “stabilization of the product” at year-end (if efficiency-based). On the counter side, maybe they “signed up” and have “locked in” a particular sales budget for the new year based on a stable product/service deployment in January, which is now pushed out, yet they are still responsible for making those budgeted sales.
It is a common practice for executives to lock in budgets based on project projections. Without this practice, we would see a demise of the “project economy.”
[2] Reputation-based concern:
Maybe the executive sponsor placed more political capital on the table to close the deal (i.e., make the initiative/project occur) than they had booked into their account. If that’s the case, then there are, what I may say, interesting and unique opportunities to soothe this type of pain.
For instance, although this is an MVP and, by definition, already a minimalistic deliverable. Suppose you can split a portion of that deliverable into a “beta form” and provide it to a “limited and controlled group of users” to get “knowledge of value” for the initiative in the original time frame. In that case, you may have a value-based ethical way to purchase capital for those who are “freaking out.”
--------------
If it’s none of the above, then you should “tap into” the political stream of the organization to see what type of debris is floating downstream.
Community Champion
