In case you’re in Melbourne early September and happen to attend the Australian PMI Conference don’t forget to look me up. I will be presenting a session on “Transform yourself from traditional to Agile project manager”.

Here’s my submitted abstract:

For many ‘traditional’ project managers the encounter with agile and agility is a confrontational one. While many project managers have been trained in the art of project management based on a set of governance principles grounded in command-and-control related management techniques; managing projects in the 21st Century is developing in an environment in which agility, collaboration, exploration and adaptation are the key. This session will highlight the key issues facing project managers wishing to engage in this transition, explore the key dimensions – behavioural, conceptual and psychological – associated with this transformational change and provide a road map and a range of helpful tips for a successful incorporation of agile principles into any mode of project management, irrespective of the environment in which it will be executed.

I am hoping that by the end of the session the participants will:
1. Understand the conceptual differences between traditional project management methodologies and agile management principles
2. Be equipped with a set of tips for the incorporation of Lean and Agile principles, values and techniques in your project management activities – irrespective of the type of project management methodology you use for your projects.
3. Have a better understanding of Agile project management terminology.

Let me know if you’re going to attend and please come and introduce yourself.

I come across many people that call themselves ‘coaches’.

I come across ‘coaches’ that certainly ‘talk the talk’ but have no real experience to back that up.

And here’s my dilemma:

Should I take such coaches seriously?

Can one become a coach by knowing the domain (as opposed to ‘doing’ in the domain)?

Am I just too damn closed minded?

Think about it!

If there is anything we can and have learned from the Global Financial Crisis is that what we were taught at university in the 80s was blatantly wrong. The over reliance on mathematically elegant Macro Economic models at the expense of the necessary immersion in what makes the REAL world work. I can recall with some sense of apprehension the aesthetically beautiful graphical models showing how market forces will emerge to push markets into an efficient equilibrium. No one considered, let alone elaborated, on the impact of behavior, attitudes and – most importantly – the very lessons we can learn from observing and interpreting past events.

Reflecting on our very own domain – project management – we can, and indeed should – ponder the possibility that perhaps the way we train and educate aspiring project managers is partially or totally flawed.

Unlike some other professions (and ignoring for a moment the potential discussion around whether or not project management is a profession), one can become a project manager having taken a number of alternative paths. I, for instance, have started my professional life as an economist, have then become a software programmer, a systems analyst, a business analyst and then a project manager. My project management knowledge and experience evolved through observation, on-the-job and formal training and, at some point in time, through the codification of that journey using the PMBOK / PMP accreditation process.

What troubles me in the path I have taken is the fact that it is superficially tilted towards the application of processes and the reliance on ‘best practices’. The PMBOK, for instance, is rampant with linear processes coupled with supporting tools and techniques. It does not force you to use them all or follow them dogmatically but it certainly suggests that in the application or execution of an average project many of these processes, tools and techniques would be a useful thing to consider.

And here’s what is wrong with this approach:

It lacks explicit and direct attention to the body of evidence and case studies researching the reasons for failed projects. It makes no explicit attempt (except for the superficial incorporation of ‘Organizational Process Assets’) to formalise a body of knowledge for practitioners to explore, evaluate and learn from other people’s successes and failures. It totally lacks any retrospection and constant self-evaluation.

Furthermore it lacks context or any appreciation of situational circumstances. Think Cynefin, for example, and you will immediately see that the execution of projects in any one of the four Cynefin quadrants would be completely different and require different skills, different approaches and different tools and techniques. If you approach project management as a linear process you will fail before you even started your journey.

So the next questions we need to look at are:

What steps do professional organizations (like the PMI, and others) take to make sure that certification is indeed relevant and takes into account the proper parameters necessary to be an effective and well-informed project manager (incorporating such knowledge areas as ethics, history of project management, behavioral economics, etc)?


What role do universities and other educational institutions play in ensuring the correct knowledge is taught?

Only a collaborative approach between education providers and accreditation institutions can close this gap.Universities and other institutions need to make sure that project management is being taught not as an engineering course but as the new economics ought to be taught, taking into account the various disciplines necessary to produce a ‘ready to go’ project manager. Accreditation organizations need to reciprocate and adapt by insisting on having these parameters reflected in their accreditation curriculum.

Not implementing the above approach will not be disastrous it will just mean that as a collective we will continue to be mediocre.

Think about it!

Couple of months ago I was approached by Geoff Crane, a blogger and a Professor of project management at Durham College, to assist with the following request:

I teach project management at Durham College in Ontario. My first batch of students will graduate next month and as a gift I’m looking at putting together an eBook for them…

What advice do you have for project management students fresh out of school who want to break into the discipline?

This is a burning issue for most of them–they’re really looking for advice. As someone with a vested interest in the field, I know your insights will be valuable.

The fruit of my (and other 51 contributors) labor has been collated into a fantastic eBook titled 52 Tips to Break Into Project Management (see also on Slideshare). You can also read my own response below:

Project managers are usually seen by society, and unfortunately by themselves, as being the delivery arm of the organization. As such, one might conclude, their role is not dissimilar to that played by the hand in the human body. The head is where the scope and the vision are being formulated and these sets of governing concepts and rules are then being transmitted to the hand to carry them out. The hand, in this crude analogy, has no room – nor any capacity – to play a devil’s advocate and challenge the brain for the validity of its decisions and as such is expected to blindly follow the instructions received and carry out prescribed mission.

Being a project manager requires one to deliver, to meet objectives, to produce the results, to follow the path chartered for it by its stakeholders. An aspiring project manager might think, not unexpectedly, that he or she has no role to play in validating the morality – in the widest possible sense of this term – of the actions it is asked to lead. Regardless of the domain in which you will find yourself, you will always come across (provided you keep your eyes opened to such situations) where you will need to validate your actions against your moral compass. These might be internal to your project – like, for example, the way you tread your team, the way you respond to pressure and the way and methods you use to communicate with peers and subordinates – or external – where you might turn a blind eye to the impact of the project you are managing on the environment, on people and on society as a whole.

Having been in this game for some time now I lament the fact that in my earlier days no one introduced me to the need to evaluate my actions, all my actions, against my value system. Had I been alerted to this possibility I might have, and quite likely would have reacted differently to some earlier circumstances where I was not yet fully aware of my options and assumed, incorrectly, that my job is to deliver – no matter what.

Think about it!

The Cynefin framework identifies five domains within which systems and environments can co-exist. In summary the five domains are:

  • The ‘Simple‘ Domain – characterized by clear cause-and-effect relationships, with well-defined rules of engagement that call for the use of best practice approaches.
  • The ‘Complicated’ domain – where the relationships between cause-and-effect are not straight forward but are discernible subject to some level of analysis or investigation with the application of expert knowledge.
  •  The ‘Complex‘ domain – where the relationship between cause-and-effect can only be perceived in retrospect
  • The ‘Chaos‘ domain – where uncertainty is abound and no discernible cause-and-effect relationship are known to exist.
  • Disorder‘ – when no clear realization exists regarding the state at which the situation is and where no clear action can be taken due to conflicting views and complete lack of leadership.

When tying the concept of software development estimation with the Cynefin framework one has to consider (or rather ‘sense’) in which domain the system and the environment are and, based on that assessment, tailor the estimation process to account to that situation. The situations most likely to be present at the outset of the estimation process are as follows: Cynefin combinations Some of the objections to carrying out estimates touch on the variability (or rather uncertainty) associated with the state of either the System or the Environment. The Cynefin Framework recognizes the difficulty associated with managing complex situations and suggests an approach to effectively get them managed. Tackling complexity requires resident knowledge about the system and its environment and, more importantly, requires adaptation and openness to learn about them. Experimentation management is the key to overcome the fear of tackling the unknown. Rather than adopting an attitude of ‘it cannot be done’ I would suggest that an attitude of ‘let’s put in a place a process of experimentation so we can tackle the unknown’ would better serve the needs of both those delivering the estimates and those requiring them for business decision-making. Think about it!                       aaa

Greetings from Melbourne, Australia.

I can’t prove it but I believe that the way we execute the precepts of project management is, at least to some degree, determined and influenced by our cultural surroundings.

Melbourne is, by all accounts, a fantastic cosmopolitan city. It is a place where people of diverse and different backgrounds, cultures and nationalities have come together and call this place ‘home’.

While the ‘hard’ aspects of project management (in which I mean to include the core techniques used by most project management methodologies) are fairly universally implemented, it is in the ‘soft’ aspects that people of differing backgrounds will differ from one another.

Using a bit of an extrapolation from my experience in the Southern Hemisphere (both in New Zealand and Australia) I would be happy to suggest that the management style exhibited in these countries is by far different than the one illustrated in American based movies and TV series. This is equally manifested in the area of project management where the need to deliver is complemented by a ‘fair go’ approach.

On a different front, just like the rest of the world, Australia is always quick to adopt current and innovative management ideas. In recent years the ‘migration’ to agile and agility is taking hold in many organizations. And just like other countries, Australia too is undergoing a transition from a bottom-up to a top-down drive for implementing agility across the organization. This, however, is not a seamless or easy journey and many companies are in the process of finding their own way and inventing their own path in that transformation effort.

 While I live and work in Melbourne, I have access to the vast knowledge base, experience and stories produced on a regular basis around the world. The ability to listen, read and collaborate with people from all over the world makes the geographical separation that much less important. The use of social media tools enables me to connect with other like minded individuals at any time and in any place and I can’t wait to see what other technologies will come our way in years to come to make such interactions and collaborations even easier.

About “#PMFlashBlog – Project Management Around the World”: This post is part of the second round of the #PMFlashBlog where over 50 project management bloggers will release a post about their view of project management in their part of the world. 

Cynefin - 0Introduction

Despite our best endeavors in codifying many aspects of project management, a lot of what we do in project management is still ‘situational’ and ‘variable’. That is, in project management we need to react to various situations and these situations are a result of any number of variables, the impact of which cannot be fully predictable, understood or comprehended in advance (and occasionally not even while or after they occur).

In this post I want to elaborate on the applicability of a common framework that project managers can use in order to map various situations in their project landscapes. The framework I would use for this discussion is called Cynefin (pronounced cenevin).


Cynefin, the details of which will be elaborated on below, provides a conceptual framework for making sense of the different landscapes faced within and by projects. In ‘faced within and by projects’ I mean to say that this framework can be used by the project manager to understand the various landscapes faced by the project (for example the stakeholders’ landscape, vs the development team landscape – and don’t worry if you can’t understand it now, all will be clear by the time you complete reading this post) or the landscape of the entire project, compared with other projects (for example, a web development project vs an R&D project).

The Cynefin framework recognizes that the situations and challenges we face can belong to one of four domains:

The ‘Simple’ (‘known’) domain

The ‘Simple’ domain is characterized by the following attributes:

  • There are known Cause and Effect relationships and these relationships are repeatable, perceivable, predictable and can be determined in advance
  • Challenges can be addressed using Best Practice approaches
  • Activities can be usually codified and documented into Standard Operating Procedures and Work Instructions
  • Best suited for Command and Control style of management

In the context of project management, projects that operate in this space would be ones where the domain of execution is known, regular, predictable and with very low risk. For example, a software house specializing in the delivery of basic small business web-sites, where these web-sites are subject to a regular delivery routine and are subject to similar terms and conditions.

The way to deal with ‘simple’ problems (i.e. the way to make decisions) is by applying the sequence of sense-categorize-respond. That is, you start by assessing (or analyzing) the facts of the situation, followed by categorizing them (i.e. determining what best practice is relevant to deal with the situation) and then implement and execute this practice.

The ‘Complicated’ (‘knowable’) domain

The ‘Complicated’ (‘knowable’) domain is characterized by the following attributes:

  • The links between Cause and Effect are less apparent and not self-evident; but are able to be uncovered
  • No clear ‘Best Practices’ but there are known ‘Good Practices’

In the context of project management, projects that operate in this space would be ones where the domain of execution can be determined by utilizing existing expertise and the project’s risk can be assessed and managed. Less than trivial software development projects (i.e. projects where the level of uncertainty is not insurmountable) would fall into this space.

The way to make decisions in the ‘complicated’ domain is by applying the sequence of sense-analyse-respond. That is, you determine what possible practices would be appropriate for dealing with the situation and then, having selected one (based, perhaps, on the availability of experts in that particular domain) you then implement and execute this practice.

The ‘Complex’ (‘Unknowable’) domain

The ‘Complex’ (‘unknowable’) domain is characterized by the following attributes:

  • The links between Cause and Effect are only clear in retrospect
  • No obvious ‘best practices’ or even ‘good practices’ but a possible practice can emerge as a result of controlled experimentation where quick learning can be achieved.

In the context of project management, projects that operate in this space would be ones with high level of uncertainty but where low-cost-of-failure experiments can be used to narrow down the uncertainty and suggest an acceptable path forward. The type of projects that fall into this space will be innovation or R&D projects.

The way to make decisions in the ‘complex’ domain is by applying the sequence of probe-sense-respond. That is, you start by probing (i.e. trialing out various options using experimentation), then identifying the methods that succeeded and can be used as future patterns of operations for the future.

The ‘Chaotic’ (‘Unknowable’) domain

The ‘Chaotic’ (‘unknowable’) domain is characterized by the following attributes:

  • The are no Cause and Effect relationships
  • No point in looking for the right answers (as no right answer exists)

In the context of project management, project that operate in this space would be ones with high levels of uncertainty through and through. This could include projects with lack of agreement on the project’s scope, business value, mode of execution in a technologically shifting environment.

The way to make decisions in the ‘chaotic’ domain is by applying the sequence of act-sense-respond. The first thing that needs to be done is to take some action (which may or may not work) in an attempt to stabilize the environment and reduce the chaotic nature of the project. One example for a possible action would be to simply stop the project but other options are certainly possible.

Some final notes

There is much more to the Cynefin framework than described above and you are encouraged to explore it further here.

Determining your position in the project’s organizational landscape is important not only because it can prompt you to take the appropriate corrective-actions but also because it could prevent you from applying the wrong solutions.

In the context of recent #NoEstimates discussions it seems to me that the application (or rather the suitability) of the #NoEstmates argument is really only applicable to the ‘Unknowable’ domains. There is no valid reason to suggest that within the ‘Known’ and ‘Knowable’ domains estimates could not be provided (as a matter of fact in the ‘Simple’ domain and with some expert advice in the ‘Complicated’ domain).

Think about it!


The raging debate surrounding the #NoEstimates concept has left me with a sense of frustration one usually feels when coming across an unfinished business. While a number of individuals on both sides of the debate have attempted to address the key differences of opinion, the question still seems to be unresolved with each side sticking to their guns, unable to agree on a common ground or a framework of understanding in which all parties can feel vindicated. In this post I will attempt to outline the key arguments for and against #NoEstimates. When possible and if appropriate I will quote these arguments verbatim, sourcing them from a number of blogs where this topic has been discussed (sometimes indirectly) extensively. I will provide links to these quotes but do my utmost to ensure I do not take these quotes out of context.

The format I plan to adopt for this post is as follows. Each argument, in favor or against the #NoEstimates proposition, will be listed and a statement in support and against the proposition will be provided. whenever appropriate I will add further commentary where I will attempt to narrow  the gap and articulate the assumptions arising from each or both arguments.

As the end of this post I hope you will have a better appreciation of the arguments and you will gain the ability to articulate your own answer to the following questions:

  1. Are cost estimates required in order to manage software projects?
  2. Are cost estimates an effective tool for controlling costs?
  3. Do estimates stifle creativity and kill innovation?
  4. Do people need estimates? And if so, why?
  5. Is the very act of estimation results in the creation of uncertainty?
  6. Is estimation a practice still hanging over from the Waterfall era?
  7. Is No Estimation better than Bad Estimation?
  8. Is  Estimation really just a form of Guessing?
  9. Are estimates necessary for Governance? Is it reasonable to require estimates for the purpose of pacifying governance needs?
  10. Is there any point in providing estimates when it is known that many projects fail due to lack of credible estimates? And aren’t estimates a tool used to apportion blame afterwards anyway?
  11. Is costing a necessary tool for determining business value?
  12. Does the scope drive the budget or does the budget drive the cost?
  13. If estimates are required in order to support decisions, can decisions be made without estimates?

We have a lot to cover so let’s make a start!


1. Making software development decisions based on estimates are counter intuitive

#NE – There is a tendency in software development to, counter intuitively, take a reverse approach to budgeting we would employ when we make purchasing decisions in our lives. Instead of deciding our budget based on how much we have available, or are willing to spend – as we would personally do – we decide it using an estimate from the supplier of how much they tell us the software that we want will cost. So, while we have a pretty good appreciation of how much much we have, want or willing to spend, we are unnecessarily engaged in a bidding process with the view to find the cheapest bidder in order to save money and squeeze as much as we can for our real budget. In such case, would we not gain a better outcome if we work iteratively and collaboratively with the supplier based on our budgetary and / or time constraints? (link).

#E – The claim that iterative and collaborative work can be used as a substitute for up-front estimation of cost is challenged by Mike Cottmeyer in “Should You Use Agile to Build Your Next Home?“. The gist of his argument is that most people when they are spending their own money, want to have some idea of what they are going to get when the time and money run out. They want some assurance that they’ll have enough of the product they have ordered to make the whole investment worthwhile. Suggesting an incremental delivery, while appealing in theory, is not necessarily a practical outcome as even a fully functional software, when lacking the greater context might be unusable (just like having a fully functional kitchen might not be usable unless the bedrooms and the other amenities have also been complete).

The other factor worth mentioning here is the behavioral aspect driven through our understanding of economic theories. The concepts of Scarcity, Opportunity Costs and Cost Benefit Analysis dictate that people, intuitively, would look to determine future value before they make an investment decision. This determination is done, among other methods, by comparing one perceived outcome against other alternatives, and selecting the one that maximizes the perceived value (or Return on Investment).

2. Estimates are seldom correct so why use them?

#NE – A casual search on Google will reveal that faulty or wrong estimation is seen as one of the leading reasons for projects’ failures. Proponents of  the #NoEstimates proposition raise the following arguments regarding the lack of credibility associated with the provision of estimates:

  • Estimates are often gamed, and for various reasons (link)
  • They are often based on zero to low knowledge (link)
  • They are often being plucked out of thin air (link)
  • Time and cost estimates are based on an up-front estimate of scope (i.e. a guess) and as such are guesses at best, leading to obvious dysfunctions like death-marches, low quality, etc. (link)
  • Asking teams to estimate how long their work will take has connotations that their output is being measured by an external party (management), creating an environment of fear and massaging figures to reflect what is desired rather than what i predicted (link)
  • We should’t be defining all our scope up-front, meaning we shouldn’t estimate all our scope up-front, meaning we shouldn’t be defining our delivery date based on our scope (link)
  • It seems like we keep failing at getting good at estimates, even though we are working hard at becoming better at doing so, then maybe we are expecting estimates to do something for us that just can’t be done. (link)
  • Estimates, quite often, are a result of a a wild guess, aimed at providing some numbers that seem plausible and will allow the decision makers to approve the start of a project with a clear conscience. That is, when things sour later on, they can always blame the developers for giving them inaccurate estimates. And the developers can always blame the ‘requirements people’ for giving them unclear, incorrect, or incomplete requirements. And the requirements people can always blame the stakeholders for providing bad direction about what was important. And so on. Regardless of who is part of this process, it is one big happy circle of blame that lets us all do the wrong thing and still keep our jobs… (link)
  • When estimating a date or cost you are creating uncertainty around those things, because you are guessing. You are saying “we’ll deliver somewhere between here and here”. However, if your delivery date and/or cost is set by a real constraint, as advocated by the #NoEstimates approach, you have created certainty around those things. (link)
  • And see also Jens Schauder’s ‘8 Reasons why Estimates are too low‘ and Glen Alleman’s specific response.

#E – The arguments against estimates can be classified into two categories; practical and behavioral.

Lets’ start with the practical considerations first:

‘Doing’ estimates right (though not necessarily correct) requires effort. While we are all accustomed to performing estimates in most facets of our lives (when we drive our car, rush to the station to catch the train, do our shopping at the supermarket, etc) there are instances or circumstances in which making the wrong estimate can have more severe consequences. If we try to cross the street and misjudge the distance and speed of an approaching car we could be involved in a fatal accident. If we misjudge the effort required to develop a software feature we could end up being responsible for a business loss that could affect our very livelihood.

When we make an estimate we always take a risk. When we buy one bottle of milk for our daily morning coffee we base our purchasing decision on past experience coupled with some probability assessment regarding the likelihood of past patterns breaking up in the future. While we don’t explicitly enunciate that level of uncertainty, we subconsciously are aware of it. We know, intuitively, that it is never 100% but are happy to concede that there is X% probability (perhaps 90%) that one bottle of milk would be sufficient to meet our needs for the next few days.  Had the probability been low, we would most likely buy two bottles.

While making decisions (based on estimates) come naturally to us when we cross the road, the reason why we are comfortable making these probability assessments is because we have learned to execute them based on past experience. From an early childhood our parents have taken our hand and instilled in us the need to accumulate experience and knowledge we could utilize at a later age, without giving it much thought. Statisticians and Economists would call this process Reference Class Forecasting (and see Kailash Awati’s elaboration on this topic in Improving Project Forecasts).

In the world of software development we are asked to exhibit the same assessment skills with the appreciation that our reference class might not be obvious up front – i.e we might be having a Reference Class Problem. In a nutshell, this problem “…arises when we want to assign a probability to a proposition (or sentence, or event) X, which may be classified in various ways, yet its probability can change depending on how it is classified ” (from The Reference Class Problem is Your Problem Too, in Kailash Awati’s The reference class problem and its implications for project management).

At the practical level, being dismissive of the validity of estimation could be an attempt at avoiding the need to establish a reference class. If you don’t have a reference class on which to base your estimates then (as often argued by Glen Alleman) build one, run a pilot project, execute an experimental iteration, ask others who’ve done something similar. Do something to reduce the uncertainty and increase the certainty. There should be no excuses for not trying to establish some level of reference class baseline and progressing based on that starting point.

And now to the behavioral considerations…

The notions of gaming the estimates, plucking figures out of thin air, perceiving estimates as a mean to establish a management control and associating estimates with future apportioning of blame are all symptoms of a dysfunctional organizations. The business dilemma we need to address is whether the elimination of estimates would turn the organization into a functional one or would that just be a way of dealing with the symptom while ignoring the real problem. A better proposition should be to suggest methods to change the organizational behavior such that these attitudes are transformed into more suitable ones. Implementing the practical practices established for the delivery of estimates can go someway towards ‘fixing’ the organization. If you are a strong and vocal proponent of #NoEstimates you could equally be in a position to strongly support calls for taking the necessary steps needed to change the organizational attitude such that developers would not feel under siege every time an estimate is required (and see also the discussion here re. dysfunctional organizations).

3. Estimation = Waterfall

#NE – Estimation is seemingly one of the few remaining immutable practices hanging over from the waterfall era (link). Waterfall and predictions are harmful (link).

#E – See Mike Cottmeyer in “Should You Use Agile to Build Your Next Home?“. Tying estimates with Waterfall is not a solid argument and it seems to appeal to those with emotional associations tied to the Agile vs Waterfall metaphorical divide.

4. Why do customers need estimates?

#NE – The main reason we do estimates is because people need to make decisions. This means that the key requirement is for people to be able to make decisions. It is true that estimates are often used to help us make decisions. But estimates are not the only way and for many of the decisions we need to make they are likely not the best way to go. One good way to make decisions is by adopting the “lean approach”, by learning from our mistakes and by frequently taking corrective action (link).

#E – There is no disagreement about the conjecture that estimates are required to make decisions. As highlighted earlier, whether or not we are engaged in formal and conscious estimation process – we are still estimating sub-consciously.  And we do it because this is how we intuitively engage in risk management. We are always on the look for signals of danger and for opportunities. And while we are engaged in this type of behavior in every facet of our lives, we should more inclined to exhibit such behavior when spending other people’s money. The type of decisions we need to be able to ethically make are about whether we ‘buy’ this software or ‘make’ it.  Do we invest the money in this product or in any one of a number of other opportunities.

The decision regarding the investment path to be taken cannot be solely based on the perceived business value, as while a number of development opportunities might present a value proposition, the value differentiation might not be so clear as to determining the one we ought to pick for further development. And this is where cost becomes a deciding factor. It is called cost-benefit-analysis and it is a sensible risk management strategy.

Some final notes

The discussion surrounding the #NoEstimates proposition is one we need to have. The issues highlighted here are not raised with the intention to keep people from exploring and challenging established assumptions but rather as a concern against applying judgement without considering the context and landscape within which these judgments ought to be made.

No doubt #NoEstimates could work in environments where such a proposition will be accepted by the stakeholders who’s money is put on the line.  While I have not yet had the opportunity to operate in such an environment does not mean that such environment does not exist. And this is exactly the point where context need to be injected into the discourse around this issue. It is about establishing known boundaries or parameters within which #NoEstimates can (and perhaps also ought to) work. Some mention areas of R&D as suitable for this and perhaps this is correct. Establish a budget you are willing to use for experimentation (based on your risk appetite) and let the team iterate until such time that you either run out of money, run out of risk appetite or hit the bull eye. Other areas could be small developments with low risk. The domain is known and the time taken to produce formal estimates is better get used on actual development. There is, however, a need to avoid broad categorizations that add little to no credibility to the argument and add a sense of religious ideology to a domain that requires no such similarities.

Think about it!

%d bloggers like this: