:julianbrowne

Menu

Walking the Walk

Look at the size of that thing

By on May 05, 2009. Filed Under: delivery, gadget, requirements

This short series started with Planning the Plan, an article that tried to put into context some of the roadmap and planning activities that take place before projects get approved and started.

I suggested using the McFarlan Matrix as a way of categorising potential projects so that they might be more likely to deliver benefits in line with whatever the business strategy is for that year. There are plenty of good ways of doing this, but the McFarlan Matrix is simple and quick, and forces conversations about what good looks like for the coming 12 months of financial spend. I began the series because, in my experience, most companies adopt one of two extremes: they either don’t plan at all, funding projects as they get thought up or by the rule of who-shouts-loudest, or, they get so caught up in planning and strategising for its own sake that they forget what the point of it all is: a portfolio of work that does what the business wants, can be clearly communicated to staff and motivates those who work on it by providing a transparent link from day-to-day technology choices to oil-tanker-steering business strategy.

The important final step in signing off a portfolio though is knowing how long each project is likely to take, which draws us into estimation territory, so I added a side article looking at Tactical vs. Strategic decision making, because many projects don’t need estimation - they already have a ‘needed-by’ date due to some (often rash) business deadline imposed from outside. My point is that it’s never worth getting hung up on a tactical-first, strategic-later design because there will never be time to do anything other than what you do.

The follow-up article to Planning the Plan was The Estimation Game which itemised inherent contradictions in the estimation process that, like planning, can find us immersed in a bizarre world of involved processes that produces nothing but an illusory accuracy, the result of which is we look incompetent and unprofessional in front of the business when we don’t deliver. The one glimmer of hope in all this is that we do know one thing with 100% accuracy and that is how long it took us to deliver projects in the past.

There is no silver bullet - all features of a project (skills, availability, scope, legacy foundation, priority) continually shift until the code is live and further change falls below the financial radar into that bucket we call business-as-usual - but I wanted to end the series with a look at how historical data modelling might provide a basis for reasonably reliable estimation, at least at the portfolio stage.

A few years ago, when this notion originally occurred to me, I went looking for research work on portfolio planning and came across an article entitled Software Cost Estimating Methods for Large Projects by Capers Jones of Software Productivity Research in “Crosstalk”, the Journal of Defence Software Engineering. Usually I give topics like that a wide berth because whatever estimating “model” is being put forward often dehumanises the process, putting the needs and processes of the modellers above getting on and doing the work. Precisely the kind of end-in-itself I’ve mentioned before and precisely the sort of thing to be avoided when all you want is a bit of a roadmap and some confidence in what it says.

But Capers Jones wasn’t pitching a specific model and the paper contains some very interesting facts. Jones and his colleagues examined 12,000 completed projects and noticed all sorts of things: how different project types affect the amount of documentation per function point, likelihood of defects, change rate of requirements, etc. But table 1 contains a percentage breakdown of the typical effort expended against various activities by project type. I’ve transcribed this data here.

Percentage of Work Effort by Software Development Activity for Different Project Types

Data is copyright 2005 Capers Jones. Software Productivity Research.

ID Phase Web MIS Outsource Commercial System Military
1 Requirements 5% 7.5% 9% 4% 4% 7%
2 Prototyping 10% 2% 2.5% 1% 2% 2%
3 Architecture 0.5% 1% 2% 1.5% 1%
4 Project Plans 1% 1.5% 1% 2% 1%
5 Initial Design 8% 7% 6% 7% 6%
6 Detailed Design 7% 8% 5% 6% 7%
7 Design Review 0.5% 1.5% 2.5% 1%
8 Coding 30% 20% 16% 23% 20% 16%
9 Component Reuse 5% 2% 2% 2% 2%
10 Package Purchase 1% 1% 1% 1%
11 Code Inspection 1.5% 1.5% 1%
12 Independent Verification 1%
13 Config. Management 3% 3% 1% 1% 1.5%
14 Formal Integration 2% 2% 1.5% 2% 1.5%
15 User Documentation 10% 7% 9% 12% 10% 10%
16 Unit Testing 30% 4% 3.5% 2.5% 5% 3%
17 Functional Testing 6% 5% 6% 5% 5%
18 Integration Test 5% 5% 4% 5% 5%
19 System Test 7% 5% 7% 5% 6%
20 Field Test 6% 1.5% 3%
21 Acceptance Test 5% 3% 1% 3%
22 Independent Test 1%
23 Quality Assurance 1% 2% 2% 1%
24 Installation Training 2% 3% 1% 1%
25 Project Management 10% 12% 12% 11% 12% 13%

Manual vs. Automated Estimating

Additionally he compares the accuracy of manual vs. automated estimates on 100 completed projects, each of which had a reasonable complexity (5000 function points equivalent to around 600,000 lines of C code). Not surprisingly the manual estimates were more optimistic than the automated ones. What was surprising was by how much: 92% of the manual estimates gave delivery dates that were unrealistically early, compared to only 2% of the automated estimates. Where the manual estimates fell apart was in their inability to provide enough time for “support” activity like project management, documentation and testing. But here’s the thing: both were pretty spot-on at estimating code development time.

Perhaps none of that is surprising at all. Given a set of business problems I think most people who can code to a decent standard aren’t too bad at guessing how long it will take them to deliver them. I also think, if we’re honest, most of us underestimate all that other stuff that is necessary to make a project happen either because we don’t like it, don’t understand it, or simply don’t put much of a value on it.

Anyway, I took this data and turned it into a very simple estimating tool, which I have found to be pretty accurate in the early stages of planning. I say pretty accurate because of course whatever comes out of the tool can be radically changed when any requirement bargaining starts.

My theory is this: if we’re pretty good at estimating code time and we can see that, over 12,000 projects, project management accounts for 10-13% of project effort, and we’re running a web project where that coding estimate represents 30% of the effort then it’s not rocket science to work out how much effort the whole project will require and, ultimately, how long it will take. If my development time estimate is a bit sketchy (because I’m not in full possession of the facts) I can caveat it with a percentage confidence.

Example

Let’s say I have a requirement to build a new web site. Based on the scope document I think it will take three good developers three months just to write the code. At 20 working days per month (roughly) that’s 3 x 3 x 20 = 180 days of effort.

If 180 days account for just the development effort, and that’s 30% of the overall effort (from the table above), then this piece of work already requires 600 days of effort. An 80% confidence level means finding funding for around 750 days. At an average rate of 500 GBP per day we’re asking the board to agree to 375,000 GBP in resource costs alone.

Add hardware, software licenses, travel, provision for operational costs, and so on, and this starts to become a sizeable endeavour. I know many financial planners who work on the rule of thumb that resource costs account for about a third of enterprise project costs. On that basis this would be a 1.2m commitment. Add in availability of people, task sequencing and delays like sickness and you can start to see where the end date might fall. Plus a confidence level of 80% would, I suspect, be unusually high at this stage.

Fancy a try?

Project Details

Project Type :
Effort to code : Man-days

Results

Requirements Prototyping
Architecture Project plans
Initial Design Detailed Design
Design Reviews Coding
Reuse Acquisition Package purchase
Code Inspection Independent Verification
Configuration Management Formal Integration
User Documentation Unit Testing
Functional Testing Integration Testing
System Testing Field Testing
Acceptance Testing Independent Testing
Quality Assurance Installation/Training
Project Management Project Total Man-days

Criticisms/Further Work

So would I stake my life on this? No. But then I’m not saying this is an accurate estimating model for project managers. I’m saying that given 50 projects vying for attention in the portfolio you can quickly come up with some figures that help knock out the no-go options and target the maybes for elaboration. I can say that I’ve used this approach, after tailoring the percentages to the particular organisation, with consistently good results.

The table Capers Jones produced is based on a lot of raw data, which makes the data good for an average project and potentially way off for a niche project. The principle that people are more or less as good as automated tools at estimating code effort though is unlikely to change unless there are some special cases such as using untested libraries where massive workaround requirements may suddenly appear out of nowhere. But then you could spend thousands on a modelling tool which would still fail at that.

I have a more sophisticated version of this in a spreadsheet where I can assign different day rates to roles, add capital costs etc. All based on the premise that if you know enough about one activity the others generally follow a pattern. The model works for Agile too - if you know the iteration length and team size you already know your available total effort and you can work backward to the percentage that represents the coding effort available.

Notes