I have been asked to audit the project management quality on one in-house software project in a company. Initially it was supposed to be 5 months (with approximately 20 people onboard). At the moment I'm talking about (September 2016) it was allready 14 months, still no working product (a huge ammount of code but no features accepted yet). After the audit IT director offered me to become a new PM on that project. I helped the project team reestimate all requirements and created new schedule. It showed that we need additional 18 months to finish all tasks. The IT director told me to create a schedule that will finish in 3.5 months(!) and ask for additional resourses. I refused (I knew that there are not enough needed speciatists avaliable and the communications will be too complex, so additional developers will slower the team). After tha they found other PM, who agreed to sign off that 3.5 months schedule.
That new PM did not succeeded (actually that project still in progress, and now they are trying co finist it till July 2017). But I know that there are several big IT projects scheduled in the same way (crasy schedule with "virtual" staff, project being late and rescheduled, and again and again).
So I'm thinking if I was right? I followed PMI code of ethics (one should not sign for a project that he believes to be unfeasible). But maybe I got the ethics wrong?
What would you do (or suddest to do) in my situation (and why)? Saving Changes...
