When Realistic Estimates and 

Aggressive Goals Collide 

By Gary Hinkle

I'd be surprised if anyone reading this hasn't witnessed this problem: estimates from the experts doing the work don't align with management's expectations. Why? Because management, committed to ambitious business goals, has dictated an unachievable schedule. Or they've made premature commitments to customers. The experts' estimates are often realistic, but the reality isn't acceptable to management.

Sound familiar?

Ducking reality should be a punishable crime!

Estimating project work accurately is a big challenge, even under the best of circumstances--as when senior management supports realistic estimates. In 2004, technology management expert Dr. Michael Cusumano studied software projects and found that 75% to 80% of them ran late or over budget. Recent studies that look at many types of projects--conducted by organizations such as The Standish Group, Dr. Dobbs, and several universities--all reach the same conclusion: project success rates remain dismal. Only about one third of projects are successful--i.e., completed on time, within budget and fulfilling the requirements. Another third are late, over budget, or fail to meet the requirements, while the remaining third are cancelled altogether or not implemented because the failure was so severe!  Read more.

When we set goals for a new product development project, we often strive to make improvements by factors of two. For example:

• Twice the bandwidth
• Half the manufacturing cost
• Twice the number of pixels
• Half the weight
• Twice the processing power

As engineers, we strive to make these kinds of improvements, and it feels good when we succeed.

The story of how the internal combustion engine took over from battery-powered cars is a study of factors-of-two goal-setting.

In 1903, there were more all-electric, battery-powered automobiles on the road than there were cars powered by internal combustion engines. Thousands of battery-powered cars were made each year. Cars powered by steam were actually their biggest competitors in 1903.

By 1913, automobiles powered by internal combustion engines had achieved many factors-of-two improvements in horsepower, durability, top driving speed, operating range, and sales price. The Ford Motor Company alone produced 168,220 Model T's in 1913 (and 308,162 in 1914). 

The technology that went into the battery-powered vehicles of the day did not achieve comparable factors of two in the performance elements that counted. Some of the problems:

Problem #1: Batteries cost too much (too much per watt).

Problem #2: Batteries were too heavy (not enough watts per kilogram).

Problem #3: Batteries were too big (not enough watts per cubic centimeter).

Read more.