Plan for Success ... Be Aware of Reality!

I run hard! My teams run hard!  We’ve got a lot on our plates and the pipeline is overflowing.  As soon as something is done, there are 5 more things waiting in the wings that need attention.  That’s a good thing – it tells me that the business values the services that my teams deliver on and that we can continue to be a difference maker within the organization.

As we go about our business – we plan for success.  Delivering product and services that our Financial Institutions can use to succeed in the market and make a difference with their customers.  Over the last several years, we have built a process around activity that ensures that we know why we are building something, we know the success factors around what it is we are building and that we then can design, build and QA the stuff we are moving into our production environments.

The teams have done a great job of reducing the number of iterations built before code can move into production.  Translation, they’ve reduce the number of critical errors found during testing that requires additional iterations prior to implementation!  They’ve also significantly reduced the number of issues that require after hours support.  Our teams have worked together to reduce the overall amount of time needed to regression test our products.  We are doing automated nightly builds on our code and are well on our way to having a full suite of regression tests run along with the automated builds.

So why am I talking about all of this?  Well, to put it all in perspective, it doesn’t seem to matter how well we refine the processes and manage the activity, we still have things go wrong!

1. Requirements identified after development is under way. 
2. Designs between teams that sometimes conflict. 
3. Estimates of project activity that end up being woefully incorrect. 
4. Resource constraints across teams just based on the sheer volume of activity. 
5. Data issues within our test environments. 
6. Validation exercises that end up taking longer than planned.

You know the drill.  You’ve all seen similar stuff happen to your projects.  So what’s a team to do?  Well as much as we want to keep our rose colored glasses in place and see sunshine and rainbows, it’s our job as leaders and technical experts to measure and apply a dose of reality within our projects.  The organization is looking to us to deliver new features/functions into the production environment.  They don’t really care to hear about how we make the sausage or why it might be taking longer.  What they do want is a semi-reasonable date as to when the features/functions will be available and what it means to our Financial Institutions and our Acquirers.

So, translating back to our internal teams, that means we need to make reasonable estimates along the way and refine as we move through the process.  As technicians, looking at and identifying the tasks needed to complete the activity – you can’t assume everything will go the way you want and your estimates need to include the breathing room you’ll need when something unexpected pops its head up.  As project managers, you can’t believe everything you’re being told – you need to validate what is being said and ensure people are on track.  Depending on the complexity of the project, you may need to put in some buffer time between the various activities to ensure that the teams have time to stay on track and recover from unknown issues.  This may not be needed on smaller less complex projects, but as the complexity gets bigger, you’d better start thinking seriously about buffer space.

I am not advocating that you needlessly pad time into your projects to make a 6 week effort end up taking 10 weeks.  What I am advocating for is that project resources accurately evaluate their tasks in a realistic fashion and feed those numbers back up to the project manager – that includes identifying the riskiest tasks and ensuring that you’re not being overly optimistic on the estimates.  Additionally, the project manager needs to review those estimates coming in and ensure that the numbers are ‘good’ and make judgements on where additional time may be needed to address parts of the process that look to be difficult.

I’ll give you a perfect example within my own organization.  With our large enterprise wide projects, we perform an integration test within development prior to moving the code into our formal QA and Parallel environments.  We began this formal ‘integration’ test effort probably a year and a half ago.  This testing required us to ensure mock data was setup across various platforms and application silos that would allow us to take transactions across the entire ecosystem.  This was initiated to ensure that by the time the code hit QA that we had successfully tested input/outputs and application handoffs between the various silos.

When we initiated this new step in our overall lifecycle – we were extremely aggressive in how long we thought it would take us to build the environment, populate the environment with the correct data and then execute the integration test plan.  I kept pushing the team to get all this activity done within a short time window so that we could then get into the ‘real’ testing and move the project forward.  Whether planned or not – the time associated with this integration testing took longer than planned and we eventually had to account for that within our planning.  Now that we’ve been through several iterations, we are beginning to automate various pieces of the environment and data setup/configuration – this should help us draw the time back down

Our goals were right, this helped us implement code into production that had a higher level of quality, however, I created a set of false expectations within the teams on the durations associated with this activity and they needed to give me feedback to reset my expectations and identify the correct timeline within the overall project activity. 

If you'd like more information on my background: LinkedIn Profile