Hacker News Reader

Comment by marcus_holmes | Hacker News Reader

Early in my career I had this. I was given a task and a deadline, and told to prepare a plan. I estimated the plan, and it came out to longer than the deadline. I presented this, only to be told "but that's longer than the deadline! go fix it!". So I shortened all the estimates and it fit the deadline. When I presented this I was shouted at for shortening all the estimates, and told to go back and do it properly.

Around this point the penny finally dropped that software estimation is a political process, not a technical process.

View on HN

That's really tough, and I'm sorry you had to deal with it.

I was lucky in that I was dealing (in both cases where I've run similar flows to this) with above-board exec teams who wanted the best quality information I could give them - even assuming that estimates are just assumptions - even if it meant having some tough conversations about scope or headcount.

Like I said, it was early in my career. I now know how to handle this - ask more questions and work out what the real objective is. Also refuse to let people shout at me ;)

Unfortunate; most of us have had experienced such situations separately, it sucks when they come together in a "rock and hard place" situation.

Good managers / business leads/ execs / champions CAN be reasoned with, as long as you find common language, think and understand their priorities, provide alternatives that meet their underlying goals (all of which frequently falls on the presenters). E.g. in your situation, it may be that unspoken expectation was to cut scope or increase resource contour or find another way to meet deadline rather than just changing estimates; or something completely different.

Occasionally though, you're as you say stuck between other people's indecipherable politics. I find in such situations, I'm most comfortable speaking the most honest truth and working hard, openly and explicitly, to understand/ask/bring to surface everybody's actual critical goals.

> understand/ask/bring to surface everybody's actual critical goals

This, exactly. Now I'd be working out what the actual objective is and how I can achieve that.

> CAN be reasoned with

Sort of. What you really end up doing is making enemies and burning bridges to defend a software estimate that ends up being completely unrealistic anyway. Sure you can "win" an argument with a "stakeholder" if you fight hard enough, but you'll pay for it later. They want to hear what they want to hear.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com