The Reality Check That Separates Fantasy from Feasibility
Why Most Resource and Timeline Estimates Are Fiction
The amateur consultant approach:
“This project will take 8 weeks with 2 people working part-time. Should be straightforward.”
Client reaction (internal, 3 weeks later):
- “Why is this taking so long?”
- “Why do we need more people?”
- “You said 8 weeks, it’s been 12.”
- “The budget is blown.”
- “You clearly had no idea what you were doing.”
Result: Blown timeline. Blown budget. Blown credibility. Failed project.
The professional consultant approach:
“Here’s the detailed resource plan: We need Michael (Senior Developer) at 75% allocation—that’s 30 hours per week for 6 weeks, totaling 180 hours. We’ve confirmed his availability with the CTO and documented his backup. We also need Sarah from QA at 50% for weeks 4-6. Here’s the activity-level breakdown showing why we need these hours. Timeline is 8 weeks assuming these resources are protected—but we’ve built in 2-week buffer for the inevitable resource contention. Here’s our risk analysis showing the 3 scenarios where timeline extends and exactly what triggers each.”
Client reaction:
- “These estimates are thoughtful and realistic.”
- “I can see exactly what resources we need.”
- “The timeline accounts for our constraints.”
- “I trust this plan.”
Result: Realistic expectations. Managed execution. Successful delivery.
What “Resource Requirements and Timeline Estimates” Actually Means
Resource Requirements and Timeline Estimates are the detailed specification of:
- WHAT resources are needed (people, tools, budget, facilities)
- HOW MUCH of each resource (hours, quantity, capacity)
- WHEN resources are needed (specific weeks, phases, activities)
- WHO specifically (named individuals, not generic “developer”)
- WHY these estimates (methodology, assumptions, validation)
- WHAT could change them (risks, dependencies, scenarios)
This is NOT:
- ❌ A rough guess padded by 50% to cover your ass
- ❌ An optimistic “best case” scenario
- ❌ Generic role names without specific people
- ❌ A Gantt chart with dates but no hours
This IS:
- ✅ A bottom-up estimate built from specific activities
- ✅ Validated against historical data and benchmarks
- ✅ Tied to specific, named, available individuals
- ✅ Documented with methodology and assumptions
- ✅ Risk-adjusted with scenarios and buffers
- ✅ Reconciled with organizational constraints
The goal: Provide estimates that are achievable, defensible, and adjustable.
The Resource Requirements Framework
Layer 1: Resource Categories
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ RESOURCE CATEGORIES │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
1. HUMAN RESOURCES (Labor)
├─ Internal Staff
│ ├─ Full-time allocation
│ ├─ Part-time allocation
│ └─ Specific skills required
├─ External Consultants
│ ├─ Your firm resources
│ ├─ Specialized contractors
│ └─ Vendor professional services
└─ Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)
└─ Episodic involvement
2. TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
├─ Software licenses
├─ Development tools
├─ Testing environments
├─ Integration platforms
└─ Infrastructure (cloud, servers)
3. FINANCIAL RESOURCES
├─ Labor costs (internal and external)
├─ Software/tool procurement
├─ Contractor fees
├─ Training and travel
└─ Contingency budget
4. FACILITIES & EQUIPMENT
├─ Meeting/workshop space
├─ Collaboration tools
├─ Workstations/equipment
└─ Remote work infrastructure
5. INFORMATION RESOURCES
├─ Documentation and data
├─ System access and credentials
├─ Historical records
└─ Vendor documentation
Each category requires detailed planning and validation.
Layer 2: Human Resource Planning – The Work Breakdown
Start with activities, estimate effort, allocate people.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ACTIVITY-BASED RESOURCE ESTIMATION
Project: Salesforce Integration
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
METHODOLOGY: Bottom-Up Estimation
Step 1: Decompose project into activities
Step 2: Estimate effort per activity (hours)
Step 3: Assign roles to activities
Step 4: Aggregate by role and phase
Step 5: Map to specific individuals
Step 6: Validate against capacity constraints
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
PHASE 1: DESIGN & PLANNING (Week 1-2)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ACTIVITY 1.1: Project Kickoff and Planning
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Tasks:
• Kickoff meeting preparation 2 hours
• Kickoff meeting facilitation 2 hours
• Project plan finalization 4 hours
• Stakeholder communication 2 hours
Total Activity Effort: 10 hours
Assigned to: Project Manager
Timing: Week 1, Days 1-2
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
ACTIVITY 1.2: Salesforce Environment Assessment
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Tasks:
• Audit existing Salesforce configuration 4 hours
• Document custom fields and objects 3 hours
• Test API access and authentication 2 hours
• Identify integration hooks 3 hours
Total Activity Effort: 12 hours
Assigned to: Technical Lead (Senior Developer)
Support from: Sales Operations Manager (2 hours)
Timing: Week 1, Days 1-3
Estimation rationale:
- Similar audit on previous project took 10 hours
- This org has moderate complexity (15 custom fields)
- Adding 20% buffer for unknown custom objects
- Validated with Salesforce Administrator
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
ACTIVITY 1.3: Integration Architecture Design
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Tasks:
• Research integration options 4 hours
• Design integration architecture 8 hours
• Create architecture diagrams 3 hours
• Security and authentication design 4 hours
• Peer review and refinement 3 hours
Total Activity Effort: 22 hours
Assigned to: Technical Lead (Senior Developer)
Review by: CTO (2 hours), Security Architect (2 hours)
Timing: Week 1-2, Days 3-8
Estimation rationale:
- Comparable architecture design: 18 hours (prior project)
- This integration more complex (bi-directional sync)
- Adding 20% for complexity
- Peer review time based on org standards
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
ACTIVITY 1.4: Field Mapping Specification
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Tasks:
• Inventory Salesforce fields 2 hours
• Workshop with Sales Ops on mapping 3 hours
• Workshop with CS team on requirements 3 hours
• Document field mapping spec 4 hours
• Create test scenarios for each field 3 hours
• Review and validation 2 hours
Total Activity Effort: 17 hours
Assigned to: Project Manager (primary)
Support from:
- Sales Operations Manager (6 hours)
- CS Representatives (6 hours, 2 people × 3 hours each)
- Technical Lead (review, 2 hours)
Timing: Week 1-2, Days 2-7
Estimation rationale:
- 22 fields to map
- Prior similar mapping: 12 fields took 10 hours
- Scaling: 22/12 × 10 = 18 hours
- Rounding down to 17 (efficiency from experience)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
ACTIVITY 1.5: Development Environment Setup
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Tasks:
• Provision Salesforce sandbox 1 hour
• Configure workflow platform sandbox 2 hours
• Set up version control repository 1 hour
• Configure development tools 2 hours
• Test end-to-end connectivity 2 hours
Total Activity Effort: 8 hours
Assigned to: Technical Lead
Support from: IT Operations (2 hours)
Timing: Week 1-2, Days 4-6
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
PHASE 1 SUMMARY:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Total Effort by Role:
┌────────────────────────────┬────────┬──────────┐
│ Role │ Hours │ FTE % │
├────────────────────────────┼────────┼──────────┤
│ Project Manager │ 27 │ 34% │
│ Technical Lead (Sr Dev) │ 42 │ 53% │
│ Sales Operations Mgr │ 8 │ 10% │
│ CS Representatives (2) │ 6 │ 8% │
│ CTO (Review) │ 2 │ 3% │
│ Security Architect │ 2 │ 3% │
│ IT Operations │ 2 │ 3% │
└────────────────────────────┴────────┴──────────┘
Total Phase 1 Effort: 89 hours over 2 weeks (80 productive hours/week)
Critical Resource: Technical Lead at 53% (21 hrs/week)
├─ Availability confirmed with CTO
├─ Backup: Junior Developer (if needed)
└─ Risk: Tech Lead called to production emergency
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
PHASE 2: DEVELOPMENT & BUILD (Week 3-4)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ACTIVITY 2.1: Salesforce Trigger Development
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Tasks:
• Design trigger logic 4 hours
• Develop Apex trigger code 12 hours
• Write unit tests 6 hours
• Code review and refinement 4 hours
Total Activity Effort: 26 hours
Assigned to: Technical Lead
Timing: Week 3, Days 1-4
Estimation rationale:
- Trigger complexity: Medium (conditional logic, 22 fields)
- Prior Salesforce trigger work: ~20 hours for similar
- Unit test requirement: 80% code coverage
- Adding 30% for testing time (industry standard)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
ACTIVITY 2.2: Data Extraction & Transformation
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Tasks:
• Develop data extraction logic 8 hours
• Implement field transformations 6 hours
• Handle data type conversions 4 hours
• Implement validation rules 4 hours
• Unit testing 6 hours
Total Activity Effort: 28 hours
Assigned to: Technical Lead
Timing: Week 3, Days 3-5
Estimation rationale:
- 22 fields × 15 min avg = 5.5 hours (optimistic)
- Complexity multiplier 2.5× (edge cases, validation)
- = 14 hours development
- Testing = 1:1 ratio = 14 hours
- Total = 28 hours
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
ACTIVITY 2.3: Workflow Platform API Integration
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Tasks:
• Study workflow platform API docs 3 hours
• Develop API authentication module 5 hours
• Develop project creation logic 8 hours
• Implement CSR assignment logic 4 hours
• Error handling for API failures 5 hours
• Unit testing 7 hours
Total Activity Effort: 32 hours
Assigned to: Technical Lead
Timing: Week 3-4, Days 5-8
Estimation rationale:
- New API (unfamiliar) adds 30% learning curve
- Core API integration: typically 20 hours
- With learning curve: 20 × 1.3 = 26 hours
- Error handling adds 20%: 26 × 1.2 = 31 hours
- Rounded to 32 hours
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
ACTIVITY 2.4: Error Handling & Retry Logic
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Tasks:
• Design error handling strategy 3 hours
• Implement try-catch and logging 4 hours
• Develop retry mechanism (exponential backoff) 5 hours
• Implement error notifications 3 hours
• Testing error scenarios 5 hours
Total Activity Effort: 20 hours
Assigned to: Technical Lead
Timing: Week 4, Days 1-3
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
ACTIVITY 2.5: Logging & Monitoring Infrastructure
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Tasks:
• Set up logging database/system 4 hours
• Implement logging throughout codebase 6 hours
• Create monitoring dashboard (basic) 8 hours
• Set up alert notifications 4 hours
• Testing monitoring system 3 hours
Total Activity Effort: 25 hours
Assigned to: Technical Lead (18 hours)
Support from: IT Operations (7 hours - infrastructure setup)
Timing: Week 4, Days 2-5
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
ACTIVITY 2.6: Integration Testing Setup
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Tasks:
• Create test data in Salesforce sandbox 3 hours
• Develop test scenarios (10 scenarios) 5 hours
• Set up test automation framework 4 hours
• Create test documentation 2 hours
Total Activity Effort: 14 hours
Assigned to: QA Engineer (10 hours)
Support from: Technical Lead (4 hours)
Timing: Week 4, Days 4-5
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
PHASE 2 SUMMARY:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Total Effort by Role:
┌────────────────────────────┬────────┬──────────┐
│ Role │ Hours │ FTE % │
├────────────────────────────┼────────┼──────────┤
│ Technical Lead (Sr Dev) │ 131 │ 82% │
│ QA Engineer │ 10 │ 13% │
│ IT Operations │ 7 │ 9% │
│ Project Manager │ 12 │ 15% │
└────────────────────────────┴────────┴──────────┘
Total Phase 2 Effort: 160 hours over 2 weeks
Critical Resource: Technical Lead at 82% (33 hrs/week)
├─ This is HEAVY utilization
├─ Risk: Unsustainable if extended beyond 2 weeks
└─ Mitigation: Strict scope control, no additions
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
[Continue for Phases 3, 4, 5 with same level of detail...]
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
COMPLETE PROJECT SUMMARY:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
TOTAL EFFORT BY ROLE (All Phases):
┌─────────────────────────────┬────────┬─────────┬──────────┐
│ Role │ Hours │ Avg % │ Cost │
├─────────────────────────────┼────────┼─────────┼──────────┤
│ Project Manager (External) │ 90 │ 38% │ $15,750 │
│ Technical Lead (Internal) │ 180 │ 75% │ $15,300 │
│ QA Engineer (Internal) │ 40 │ 17% │ $3,000 │
│ Sales Operations Mgr │ 18 │ 8% │ $1,620 │
│ CS Representatives (2 × 9) │ 18 │ 8% │ $1,350 │
│ Change Manager (External) │ 30 │ 13% │ $3,750 │
│ IT Operations │ 12 │ 5% │ $1,140 │
│ CTO (Review/Approval) │ 4 │ 2% │ $800 │
│ Vendor Support (Platform) │ 20 │ 8% │ $4,000 │
├─────────────────────────────┼────────┼─────────┼──────────┤
│ TOTAL │ 412 │ │ $46,710 │
└─────────────────────────────┴────────┴─────────┴──────────┘
Note: Internal costs shown as "cost to business" (loaded rate)
Actual cash outlay: $23,500 (external resources only)
DURATION: 6 weeks
PEAK RESOURCES: Week 3-4 (Development phase)
CRITICAL PATH: Technical Lead availability
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Layer 3: Estimation Methodology – How We Got These Numbers
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
We don't pull numbers from thin air. Here's how we estimate:
METHOD 1: ANALOGOUS ESTIMATING (Top-Down)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Use historical data from similar projects.
Example:
Prior Project: Salesforce → CRM integration (Client B)
- Complexity: Similar (20 fields vs. our 22)
- Duration: 7 weeks actual
- Effort: 195 hours total
- Team: 1 developer, 1 PM, 1 QA
Our Project Adjustment:
- Slightly more complex (+10%): 195 × 1.1 = 214 hours
- More mature platform (-5%): 214 × 0.95 = 203 hours
- Estimated: ~200 hours
Confidence: MEDIUM (depends on similarity of projects)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
METHOD 2: PARAMETRIC ESTIMATING
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Use statistical relationships and parameters.
Example:
Industry benchmark: Salesforce API integrations
- Simple (5-10 fields): 80-120 hours
- Medium (10-25 fields): 150-250 hours
- Complex (25+ fields): 300-500 hours
Our project: 22 fields = Medium complexity
- Midpoint: 200 hours
- Adjustment for bi-directional: +20% = 240 hours
- Adjustment for experienced team: -15% = 204 hours
- Estimated: ~200 hours
Confidence: MEDIUM (industry averages vary widely)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
METHOD 3: BOTTOM-UP ESTIMATING (Most Accurate)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Decompose into activities, estimate each, aggregate.
Process:
1. Break project into 30-50 detailed activities
2. Estimate each activity (hours)
3. Use Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)
4. Aggregate up to project level
Example Activity Estimation:
Activity: "Develop data transformation logic for 22 fields"
Micro-tasks:
- Understand each field requirement: 22 × 5 min = 1.8 hours
- Design transformation logic: 3 hours
- Code transformation for simple fields (15): 15 × 12 min = 3 hours
- Code transformation for complex fields (7): 7 × 25 min = 2.9 hours
- Write unit tests: 3 hours
- Debug and refine: 2 hours
TOTAL: 15.7 hours → Round to 16 hours
Confidence: HIGH (detailed breakdown)
Our Approach: We used Bottom-Up for this estimate
Result: 412 hours total
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
METHOD 4: THREE-POINT ESTIMATING (PERT)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Estimate Optimistic, Most Likely, Pessimistic scenarios.
Formula: Expected = (Optimistic + 4×Most Likely + Pessimistic) / 6
Example:
Activity: "Salesforce Trigger Development"
Optimistic (everything goes perfectly): 18 hours
Most Likely (normal challenges): 26 hours
Pessimistic (significant obstacles): 40 hours
Expected = (18 + 4×26 + 40) / 6 = 162 / 6 = 27 hours
Standard Deviation = (Pessimistic - Optimistic) / 6
= (40 - 18) / 6 = 3.7 hours
This tells us:
- Expected effort: 27 hours
- Uncertainty: ±3.7 hours (68% confidence interval)
- Range: 23-31 hours (1 standard deviation)
Confidence: HIGH (accounts for uncertainty)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
METHOD 5: EXPERT JUDGMENT
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Consult people who've done similar work.
Process:
1. Identify experts (internal devs, vendor, consultants)
2. Present scope and requirements
3. Get independent estimates
4. Discuss differences and reconcile
5. Document assumptions behind estimates
Example:
Asked 3 experts to estimate "Workflow Platform API Integration"
Expert A (Senior Dev, Internal): 28 hours
└─ Assumption: Familiar with platform APIs
Expert B (Consultant, Your Firm): 35 hours
└─ Assumption: Learning curve for platform
Expert C (Vendor Support): 25 hours
└─ Assumption: Platform is "easy to integrate"
Analysis:
- Range: 25-35 hours (10-hour spread)
- Vendor optimistic (selling their platform)
- Internal dev realistic (knows team capability)
- Consultant conservative (risk-averse)
Reconciled Estimate: 32 hours
└─ Rationale: Between internal and consultant, closer to
consultant (team unfamiliar with platform)
Confidence: MEDIUM-HIGH (validated by multiple experts)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
OUR ESTIMATION APPROACH FOR THIS PROJECT:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
We used a HYBRID methodology:
1. BOTTOM-UP for detailed activities (30+ activities identified)
2. THREE-POINT for high-uncertainty activities (new platform)
3. ANALOGOUS for validation (compared to prior projects)
4. EXPERT JUDGMENT for calibration (consulted 4 experts)
Result: 412 hours base estimate
Then applied:
• COMPLEXITY FACTOR: +10% for bi-directional sync complexity
└─ 412 × 1.10 = 453 hours
• EFFICIENCY FACTOR: -5% for experienced team
└─ 453 × 0.95 = 430 hours
• CONTINGENCY: +15% for unknowns (integrated into timeline buffer)
└─ Not added to base estimate, but timeline includes 1-week buffer
FINAL ESTIMATE: 430 hours (rounded to 412 in detailed breakdown)
CONFIDENCE LEVEL: MEDIUM-HIGH (75-85% confidence)
├─ High confidence: Development activities (measured before)
├─ Medium confidence: Testing duration (variable by bugs found)
└─ Lower confidence: Workflow platform integration (new to team)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Layer 4: Resource Allocation and Named Individuals
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN
Project: Salesforce Integration
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
CRITICAL PRINCIPLE: Name actual people, not generic roles.
"We need a developer" = USELESS
"We need Michael Torres (Sr Dev) 30 hrs/week" = ACTIONABLE
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
RESOURCE #1: TECHNICAL LEAD (CRITICAL PATH ROLE)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ROLE: Technical Lead / Senior Developer
NAMED INDIVIDUAL: Michael Torres
├─ Title: Senior Software Developer
├─ Department: IT Development
├─ Tenure: 3 years with company
├─ Skills: Salesforce (2 years), APIs (5 years), Integration (3 years)
├─ Current utilization: 90% (overallocated)
└─ Reports to: James Park, CTO
ALLOCATION REQUIRED:
┌──────────┬───────────┬──────────┬──────────┐
│ Week │ Hours │ FTE % │ Activities│
├──────────┼───────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│ Week 1 │ 21 │ 53% │ Design │
│ Week 2 │ 21 │ 53% │ Design │
│ Week 3 │ 33 │ 82% │ Dev │
│ Week 4 │ 33 │ 82% │ Dev │
│ Week 5 │ 24 │ 60% │ Testing │
│ Week 6 │ 12 │ 30% │ Go-live │
├──────────┼───────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│ TOTAL │ 144 │ 60% │ │
└──────────┴───────────┴──────────┴──────────┘
Average: 24 hours/week (60% allocation)
Peak: 33 hours/week Weeks 3-4 (82% allocation)
AVAILABILITY CONFIRMATION:
✓ CTO James Park confirmed allocation via email 11/15
✓ Michael's other projects:
- Project A: Wrapping up Week 2 (frees capacity)
- Project B: Can shift to Junior Dev
✓ Backup plan: If Michael unavailable, Sarah Kim (Mid-level Dev)
+ consultant support from your firm
CONSTRAINTS:
⚠ Michael cannot work >35 hrs/week (burnout risk per CTO)
⚠ Michael has 1-week vacation planned (Month+3) - NOT during project
⚠ Michael on-call rotation: Week 4 (may have interruptions)
COST:
├─ Salary: $95K/year
├─ Loaded rate: $85/hour (includes benefits, overhead)
├─ Total cost: 144 hours × $85 = $12,240
└─ Note: Opportunity cost (not cash outlay for project)
RISK MITIGATION:
• Pre-commitment secured from CTO (in writing)
• Weekly check-ins with Michael (capacity/blockers)
• Backup developer identified (Sarah Kim)
• Consultant available for overflow work ($175/hr, budget permitting)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
RESOURCE #2: PROJECT MANAGER
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ROLE: Project Manager
NAMED INDIVIDUAL: [Your Name], [Your Consulting Firm]
├─ Title: Senior Consultant
├─ Experience: 8 years, 15 similar projects
├─ Skills: Integration projects, Salesforce, Project Management
└─ Availability: Confirmed by firm resource manager
ALLOCATION REQUIRED:
┌──────────┬───────────┬──────────┬──────────┐
│ Week │ Hours │ FTE % │ Activities│
├──────────┼───────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│ Week 1 │ 25 │ 63% │ Planning │
│ Week 2 │ 20 │ 50% │ Design │
│ Week 3 │ 18 │ 45% │ Monitor │
│ Week 4 │ 18 │ 45% │ Monitor │
│ Week 5 │ 25 │ 63% │ UAT Coord│
│ Week 6 │ 20 │ 50% │ Go-live │
├──────────┼───────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│ TOTAL │ 126 │ 53% │ │
└──────────┴───────────┴──────────┴──────────┘
COST:
├─ Rate: $175/hour (external consulting)
├─ Total cost: 126 hours × $175 = $22,050
└─ Cash outlay: Yes (external resource)
RESPONSIBILITIES:
• Overall project coordination
• Stakeholder communication
• Risk and issue management
• Status reporting
• Scope and change control
• UAT coordination
• Documentation
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
RESOURCE #3: QA ENGINEER
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
NAMED INDIVIDUAL: Lisa Anderson
├─ Title: QA Engineer
├─ Department: IT Quality Assurance
├─ Tenure: 2 years with company
├─ Skills: Integration testing, Test automation, UAT facilitation
├─ Current utilization: 70%
└─ Reports to: James Park, CTO
ALLOCATION REQUIRED:
┌──────────┬───────────┬──────────┬──────────┐
│ Week │ Hours │ FTE % │ Activities│
├──────────┼───────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│ Week 1 │ 2 │ 5% │ Planning │
│ Week 2 │ 2 │ 5% │ Planning │
│ Week 3 │ 8 │ 20% │ Test prep│
│ Week 4 │ 12 │ 30% │ Testing │
│ Week 5 │ 15 │ 38% │ UAT │
│ Week 6 │ 4 │ 10% │ Go-live │
├──────────┼───────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│ TOTAL │ 43 │ 18% │ │
└──────────┴───────────┴──────────┴──────────┘
COST: 43 hours × $75/hour = $3,225 (opportunity cost)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
[Continue for all resources...]
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
RESOURCE SUMMARY: ALL ROLES
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
┌────────────────────────┬──────┬────────┬──────────┬─────────┐
│ Resource (Named) │ Hrs │ Avg % │ Type │ Cost │
├────────────────────────┼──────┼────────┼──────────┼─────────┤
│ Michael Torres │ 144 │ 60% │ Internal │ $12,240 │
│ [Your Name] (PM) │ 126 │ 53% │ External │ $22,050 │
│ Lisa Anderson (QA) │ 43 │ 18% │ Internal │ $3,225 │
│ Jennifer Kim (Sales Op)│ 18 │ 8% │ Internal │ $1,620 │
│ Alex Johnson (CS) │ 9 │ 4% │ Internal │ $450 │
│ Maria Garcia (CS) │ 9 │ 4% │ Internal │ $450 │
│ [Change Mgr] (Ext) │ 30 │ 13% │ External │ $3,750 │
│ David Park (IT Ops) │ 12 │ 5% │ Internal │ $1,140 │
│ James Park (CTO) │ 4 │ 2% │ Internal │ $800 │
│ Platform Vendor Support│ 20 │ 8% │ External │ $4,000 │
├────────────────────────┼──────┼────────┼──────────┼─────────┤
│ TOTAL │ 415 │ │ │ $49,725 │
└────────────────────────┴──────┴────────┴──────────┴─────────┘
INTERNAL COST (Opportunity): $19,925
EXTERNAL COST (Cash Outlay): $29,800
TOTAL PROJECT COST: $49,725
Note: This exceeds budget estimate of $45K
Action: Reduce scope or extend timeline to reduce peak utilization
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
RESOURCE CONTENTION ANALYSIS
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
CONFLICT 1: Michael Torres Week 3-4 at 82%
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Current commitments:
- This project: 33 hrs/week
- Project A (legacy): 8 hrs/week (planned completion Week 2)
- On-call rotation: 5 hrs/week (Week 4)
- Meetings/overhead: 5 hrs/week
TOTAL: 46-51 hrs/week (OVERALLOCATED)
Resolution options:
A. Extend development phase 1 week (reduce to 60% allocation)
└─ Impact: Timeline +1 week, budget +$1,000
B. Bring in Sarah Kim (mid-level) for 10 hrs/week support
└─ Impact: Budget +$750, quality risk (less experienced)
C. Consultant overflow support from your firm
└─ Impact: Budget +$1,750 (10 hours × $175)
RECOMMENDATION: Option A (extend 1 week)
Rationale: Least risky, modest cost increase, sustainable pace
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
CONFLICT 2: Jennifer Kim (Sales Ops) vacation Week 5
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Jennifer needed for UAT Week 5 but has planned vacation.
Resolution:
- Reschedule UAT to Week 6 (1-week delay) OR
- Use Sales Operations backup person (Tom Chen) for UAT
└─ Tom less familiar but can be briefed
RECOMMENDATION: Use Tom Chen as backup
Impact: Minimal (UAT support role, can brief Tom in 1 hour)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
CAPACITY VALIDATION
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Do we have enough capacity across the team?
Michael Torres:
└─ Required: 24 hrs/week average (60%)
└─ Available: 30 hrs/week (current project wrapping up)
└─ Status: ✓ ADEQUATE (with close monitoring)
Project Manager:
└─ Required: 21 hrs/week average (53%)
└─ Available: 40 hrs/week (dedicated to this client)
└─ Status: ✓ ADEQUATE
QA Engineer:
└─ Required: 7 hrs/week average (18%)
└─ Available: 12 hrs/week (30% of capacity)
└─ Status: ✓ ADEQUATE
SMEs (Sales Ops, CS Reps):
└─ Required: <5 hrs/week each
└─ Available: Yes (episodic involvement)
└─ Status: ✓ ADEQUATE
OVERALL CAPACITY: ADEQUATE with Week 3-4 concern (Michael)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Layer 5: Timeline Estimation with Dependencies
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
TIMELINE ESTIMATION
Project: Salesforce Integration
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
METHODOLOGY: Critical Path Method (CPM)
Step 1: Identify all activities
Step 2: Determine dependencies
Step 3: Estimate duration for each
Step 4: Map critical path
Step 5: Calculate project duration
Step 6: Add buffers
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ACTIVITY NETWORK WITH DEPENDENCIES
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
[Legend]
→ Dependency (must complete before next starts)
║ Parallel activities (can happen simultaneously)
⚠ Critical path activity
WEEK 1:
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
⚠ A1: Project Kickoff (2 days)
→ A2: Salesforce Environment Assessment (3 days)
║ A3: Field Mapping Workshops (3 days) [parallel]
→ A4: Integration Architecture Design (5 days)
║ A5: Field Mapping Specification (3 days) [parallel]
→ A6: Architecture Review & Approval (1 day)
Critical Path Week 1: A1 → A2 → A4 → A6 = 11 days (2.2 weeks)
Actual Week 1: 5 days (1 week) - activities overlap
Note: Week 1 takes full 2 weeks due to sequential dependencies
WEEK 2:
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Continuing from Week 1...
→ A7: Development Environment Setup (2 days)
║ A8: Finalize Field Mapping (2 days) [parallel]
→ MILESTONE: Design Complete
Critical Path Week 1-2: 13 days total (2.6 weeks calendar)
Buffer applied: Using full 2 weeks
WEEK 3-4: DEVELOPMENT PHASE
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
⚠ B1: Salesforce Trigger Development (4 days)
→ ⚠ B2: Data Extraction & Transformation (3 days)
→ ⚠ B3: Workflow API Integration (4 days)
→ ⚠ B4: Error Handling Development (2 days)
║ B5: Monitoring Dashboard (3 days) [parallel]
→ MILESTONE: Development Complete
Critical Path Week 3-4: 4+3+4+2 = 13 days (2.6 weeks calendar)
Actual allocation: 2 weeks (10 work days)
Issue: Critical path is 13 days but only 10 available
RESOLUTION:
- Overlap B3 and B4 (start error handling in Day 6, not Day 8)
- Requires developer careful planning (manage dependencies)
- Risk: Rework if B3 changes affect B4
- Buffer: Week 4 Friday as catch-up day
WEEK 5: TESTING & UAT
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
C1: Integration Testing Setup (1 day)
→ C2: Integration Testing Execution (2 days)
→ C3: Bug Fixes (2 days)
→ C4: UAT Preparation (1 day)
→ C5: UAT Execution (3 days)
→ C6: Final Bug Fixes (1 day)
→ MILESTONE: Testing Complete
Sequential duration: 10 days (2 weeks)
Issue: C5 (UAT) requires 3 full days but scheduled mid-week
RESOLUTION:
- Schedule UAT Mon-Wed Week 5
- Final bug fixes Thu-Fri Week 5
- Requires UAT participants (Sales Ops, CS Reps) confirm availability
WEEK 6: GO-LIVE
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
D1: Production Deployment (4 hours)
→ D2: Smoke Testing (4 hours)
→ D3: Controlled Launch (1 day)
→ D4: Full Production Launch (1 day)
→ D5: Monitoring & Support (3 days)
→ MILESTONE: Project Complete
Duration: 5 days (1 week)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
CRITICAL PATH ANALYSIS
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
CRITICAL PATH (Longest sequence of dependent activities):
Week 1-2: Design
A1 (2d) → A2 (3d) → A4 (5d) → A6 (1d) → A7 (2d) = 13 days
Week 3-4: Development
B1 (4d) → B2 (3d) → B3 (4d) → B4 (2d) = 13 days
Week 5: Testing
C1 (1d) → C2 (2d) → C3 (2d) → C4 (1d) → C5 (3d) → C6 (1d) = 10 days
Week 6: Launch
D1-D5 = 5 days
TOTAL CRITICAL PATH: 41 days = 8.2 weeks
AVAILABLE TIME: 6 weeks = 30 work days
PROBLEM: Critical path (41 days) > Available time (30 days)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
TIMELINE COMPRESSION STRATEGIES
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STRATEGY 1: FAST-TRACKING (Overlap activities)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Start dependent activities before predecessors 100% complete.
Example:
- Start B2 (Data Extraction) when B1 (Trigger) is 80% complete
- Saves: 1 day
- Risk: Rework if B1 changes
Opportunities:
• Design → Development: Start dev environment setup during design
└─ Save: 1 day
• Development activities: Overlap where possible
└─ Save: 2 days
• Testing: Begin test case writing during development
└─ Save: 1 day
Total saved: 4 days
STRATEGY 2: CRASHING (Add resources to compress duration)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Add more people to critical path activities.
Example:
- Add junior developer to help with B2 (Data Extraction)
- Duration: 3 days → 2 days
- Cost: +$1,000 (16 hours × $60/hr)
Limited applicability (Brooks's Law: "Adding people to late
project makes it later" - but we're adding at START)
Opportunities:
• B3 (Workflow API): Add consultant support
└─ Save: 1 day, Cost: +$1,400
• C2 (Integration Testing): Add QA resource
└─ Save: 0.5 days, Cost: +$600
Total saved: 1.5 days
Total cost: +$2,000
STRATEGY 3: SCOPE REDUCTION
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Remove non-critical scope items.
Example:
- Defer monitoring dashboard to Phase 3
- Save: 3 days
- Impact: Launch with basic logging, add dashboard later
- Acceptable? Requires client approval
STRATEGY 4: ACCEPT LONGER TIMELINE
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Extend project duration to match critical path.
Critical path: 41 days = 8.2 weeks
Proposed: 8 weeks (round up)
Impact:
- Timeline: 6 weeks → 8 weeks (+2 weeks, +33%)
- Cost: Minimal (resources already allocated)
- Benefit: Realistic, achievable, lower risk
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
RECOMMENDED TIMELINE
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
APPROACH: Combination Strategy
├─ Fast-tracking where safe (save 3 days)
├─ Limited crashing (save 1 day, cost $1,000)
├─ Accept some extension (6 weeks → 7 weeks)
└─ Build in explicit buffer (7 weeks → 8 weeks timeline)
FINAL TIMELINE: 8 WEEKS (6 weeks critical path + 2 weeks buffer)
Week 1-2: Design & Planning
Week 3-4: Development
Week 5: Testing & UAT
Week 6: Final prep & training
Week 7: Go-live & stabilization
Week 8: BUFFER (catch-up, unplanned issues)
This is REALISTIC and ACHIEVABLE.
CONFIDENCE LEVEL: HIGH (80-90% confidence in 8-week timeline)
├─ Low risk: Design and testing (done before, understood)
├─ Medium risk: Development (new platform but experienced team)
└─ Buffer: 2-week contingency for unknowns
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
TIMELINE SCENARIOS
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
OPTIMISTIC SCENARIO (20% probability):
Everything goes smoothly, no major obstacles.
Duration: 6 weeks (no buffer needed)
BASE CASE (50% probability):
Normal challenges, minor issues resolved quickly.
Duration: 7 weeks (1 week buffer used)
PESSIMISTIC SCENARIO (25% probability):
Significant obstacles: platform limitations discovered, resource
pulled to emergency, major bugs in UAT.
Duration: 9 weeks (full buffer + 1 week)
DISASTER SCENARIO (5% probability):
Major issues: platform doesn't support requirements, key person
leaves, Salesforce major version upgrade mid-project.
Duration: 12+ weeks (project pause/redesign)
EXPECTED DURATION (probability-weighted):
(0.20 × 6) + (0.50 × 7) + (0.25 × 9) + (0.05 × 12)
= 1.2 + 3.5 + 2.25 + 0.6 = 7.55 weeks
Round to: 8 WEEKS (matches our recommendation)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
The Meta-Principle: Under-Promise, Over-Deliver
The amateur consultant mindset: “I’ll give them an aggressive timeline to win the work, then renegotiate later if needed.”
Result: Blown timeline. Blown credibility. Client distrust. Failed project.
The professional consultant mindset: “I’ll give them a realistic timeline with visible contingency. If we finish early, I’m a hero. If we use the buffer, I set proper expectations.”
Result: Met timeline. Exceeded expectations. Client trust. Successful project. Repeat business.
Key principles for resource and timeline estimates:
- Be ruthlessly realistic (not optimistic, not padded, realistic)
- Show your work (methodology, assumptions, validation)
- Name actual people (not generic roles)
- Account for constraints (capacity, dependencies, risks)
- Build in explicit buffers (visible contingency, not hidden)
- Provide scenarios (optimistic, base, pessimistic)
- Update regularly (estimates aren’t set in stone)
The best estimates are:
- ✅ Detailed enough to be credible
- ✅ Realistic enough to be achievable
- ✅ Flexible enough to adapt
- ✅ Transparent enough to defend
Create bottom-up estimates. Validate with multiple methods. Name specific people. Account for dependencies. Add visible buffers. Communicate scenarios.
That’s how projects succeed.
What concerns you most about resource and timeline estimation? Getting accurate effort estimates? Securing resource commitments? Building buffers without looking padded? Handling dependencies? Estimating unfamiliar technology? Dealing with resource contention? Updating estimates when things change?