The other day I was toying with a hypothetical idea. Suppose a project is estimated at 18 person-months effort. Now, there are 2 options for you. The delivery can be done in 3 months time frame with 6 resources or it can be done in a 6 month time frame with 3 resources. Agreed that most of the time, in the real world that we operate in, the option 2 is not there. But for the sake of our discussion, let us assume that we have the 2 options. Now if you were to execute this project, which of the 2 options would you prefer. One of my team members says that the 6 person, 3 months would be a better choice. The logic being, since the time frame is short, number of changes introduced by business will also be less and hence less complicacy. This may not be true always. Most teams already have a system in place to handle the requirement changes in the project. There was another justification to his choice also. A team of 6 members will command more attention than a 3 member team. And may be people like to handle larger teams.
But, actually we should take the decision by looking at various fact in hand. Say, we introduce one factor here saying that 80% of the team will consist of freshers or with people less that 1 year experience. Would you still be taking the option 1 i.e 3 months, 6 resources or would you move to option 2? My friend’s decision changed with this new fact. Of course, with freshers, there will be time required to train them and make them productive. So a longer timeframe helps. Similarly, assume that you get experienced resources to staff the project, but the project is something which the organization has never attempted in the past. So, do you still go with 3 month x 6 resources or 6 month x 3 resources? Here again the learning factor is critical.
No comments:
Post a Comment