#UX and #design friends, we need to talk about estimating. I'd like to share some advice that's come up 3 times this week, in hopes it's useful. And it's echoed, by the way, in the BUSINESS OF UX course @EliNatoli and I are teaching at my UX 365 Academy (link at the end).

(1/12)

Avoiding wars with clients is a matter of how you structure your engagements, along with how you spell out what you're doing in your proposals/contracts. That starts with estimating.

The biggest 2 rules I follow are these:

(2/12)
1. I do not EVER estimate a project in full from start-to-finish.

2. Once we're past initial Discovery (see below), I estimate in small chunks, e.g. "here's what will take us to the next iteration/review."

(3/12)
NEVER estimate past the point where you may get new information based on a build/test cycle.

Believe me when I say that you'll be wrong every time. Ask me how I know ;-)

(4/12)
So instead, first, I estimate a Consult/Discovery part that details what I think we need to do to get a handle on what's actually wrong here, and how long that will take.

For example...

(5/12)
...every client I have agrees to a time span, either me working directly with their team or me evaluating what they have and speaking with them. That is all pure fact-finding, nothing more. Getting the lay of the land (including politically).

(6/12)
There are no deliverables other than a summary of

(1) What I think is wrong, and

(2) What I suggest they do next, with or without me.

There's no scope for them to adjust, in other words. Nothing to change their minds about.

(7/12)
"I'm giving you X days/weeks, and at the end of that I'll tell you what I see."

Once I get past that, if they need me to advise on design/dev for an iteration, I chunk that out as a timeframe as well. X weeks with X review points, and those reviews are specified.

(8/12)
1 full day onsite, a 3-hour ZOOM session, etc. I don't ever estimate past a single iteration cycle or sprint, because there are too many unknowns, too many opportunities for them to second guess and change their minds about what they want to do.

(9/12)
This keeps the emphasis on the span of time instead of the tactical work at hand. If I give them a cost for 3 weeks, that figure reflects the distinct possibility that I may or may not spend 8 hours a day every day of those 3 weeks.

(10/12)
Whether I do or don't is irrelevant; I'm saying to them, "if you want my undivided attention for X weeks, here's what that costs."
You have to base your estimates on the only thing you can CONTROL, which is the TIME you spend.

Estimating tasks is a losing proposition.

(11/12)
You limit your risk by charging appropriately for that time — all of it. And you're also not inviting debates about how long something should or shouldn't take.

I hope that's helpful, and again — there's a LOT more where that came from here: https://t.co/s5JuUZnIEo

(12/12)

More from Tech

You May Also Like

@franciscodeasis https://t.co/OuQaBRFPu7
Unfortunately the "This work includes the identification of viral sequences in bat samples, and has resulted in the isolation of three bat SARS-related coronaviruses that are now used as reagents to test therapeutics and vaccines." were BEFORE the


chimeric infectious clone grants were there.https://t.co/DAArwFkz6v is in 2017, Rs4231.
https://t.co/UgXygDjYbW is in 2016, RsSHC014 and RsWIV16.
https://t.co/krO69CsJ94 is in 2013, RsWIV1. notice that this is before the beginning of the project

starting in 2016. Also remember that they told about only 3 isolates/live viruses. RsSHC014 is a live infectious clone that is just as alive as those other "Isolates".

P.D. somehow is able to use funds that he have yet recieved yet, and send results and sequences from late 2019 back in time into 2015,2013 and 2016!

https://t.co/4wC7k1Lh54 Ref 3: Why ALL your pangolin samples were PCR negative? to avoid deep sequencing and accidentally reveal Paguma Larvata and Oryctolagus Cuniculus?