> This flaw presents itself in a number of ways. The most frequent is in time estimates. Almost every engineer I know chronically underestimates how long it will take to complete a task or series of tasks. Only the very best are able to give and meet accurate time estimates while the rest are sometimes off by a factor of two or more.
What is interesting is that we seem to be _much_ more accurate when estimating how much time a colleague will need to finish the task. So the solution is simple: when deciding on an estimate for yourself, try picturing someone else (less skilled preferably) doing the job. The result is surprisingly accurate, at least in my experience. :)
Most engineers who have been doing it for more than 5 years generally can give estimates that are bang on.
The problem is that management NEVER accepts that estimate. Ever.
They want to "negotiate". The problem is that they don't want to adjust features or scope--they don't really want to negotiate. What they want is a better number without changing anything--they're playing "schedule chicken" instead or negotiating.
Sadly, most engineers will feed into "schedule chicken" because they can almost always identify a group that will take longer than they will and so will get the blame for the schedule. And allowing another group to take the blame for the schedule is easier than arguing with your direct manager. The only engineers who won't play "schedule chicken" are the ones in the group that is going to take the longest. Those engineers know that they're going to get the blame and they're going to fight like crazy up front.
(Side note: Nothing is more satisfying than being in the group that is supposed to take the blame and instead delivers on time. It causes complete political pandemonium. You still want to have your resume already being circulated outside the company, but it is incredibly satisfying to watch all the people who have been hassling you for months all turn on each other to shift blame.)
I have only had one manager who listened because his job was on the line, too. When he said: "Look, the deadline isn't negotiable. We have something completed by date X or we're ALL basically fired." he actually listened when I said "This is the list of features and how I prioritize them. Here is the line for what we can get done by date X. You can have a feature below that line by swapping it for one above that line--but you have to make that swap TODAY. If you want that swap in 3 months, it costs you two features above that line."
We delivered a week ahead of time. Funny how schedules work out just fine when management is actually on the hook, too.
Ugh, this drives me absolutely mad. My work has some very defined timelines because I have 3rd parties making stuff for me. Yet the conversation about schedule is exactly the same every project like they don't believe me that an injection molding tool takes 6 weeks and that I need the schedule for two rounds of modifications because something unforeseen will come up.
What is interesting is that we seem to be _much_ more accurate when estimating how much time a colleague will need to finish the task. So the solution is simple: when deciding on an estimate for yourself, try picturing someone else (less skilled preferably) doing the job. The result is surprisingly accurate, at least in my experience. :)