In every software development team, setting realistic timelines and defining task complexity play a critical role in delivering quality work without burning out the developers. Recently, I found myself in a discussion with fellow team leads on how we currently handle project timelines. What followed was a reflection on how subjective and, at times, unrealistic our processes can be. Here’s what I observed, what I proposed, and what I learned.
Blurring the Lines Between Complexity Levels
Our current task complexity scale includes:
- Very Easy
- Easy
- Moderate
- Complex
- Highly Complex
One of my initial suggestions was to merge “Very Easy” and “Easy” into one category. Why?
Because assigning labels like “Very Easy” can mislead stakeholders into expecting delivery within 1–2 days, regardless of context or dependencies. This opens the door to scope creep, last-minute changes, or underappreciation of testing and review time.
By managing expectations under a single “Easy” label, we could introduce much-needed buffer time that respects real-world development nuances — like unforeseen bugs, environment setup, or waiting on other teams.
Unfortunately, this proposal was met with resistance, and the current structure remained.
Buffer Time vs. Team Performance Metrics
Another proposal I raised was to avoid using range-based day estimates for each complexity. Instead of saying “1–3 days” for an “Easy” task, why not just declare “3 days” as the estimate?
The goal here is not to slack — it’s to build in buffer time. Developers often encounter unexpected blockers, and having this safeguard allows them to work without unnecessary pressure or rush. If the task is completed early, that’s a bonus.
This was also declined. The counterargument was that we wouldn’t be able to measure developer performance accurately.
From my perspective, performance can still be measured — not by how close someone gets to the shortest time possible, but by looking at long-term trends, consistency, and ability to deliver reliably.
Buffer time is not the enemy of performance. It’s a shield against unrealistic expectations.
Overlooking External Time Drains
One major oversight in our current estimation process is that project timelines are often assessed without considering the external responsibilities that take up developers’ time — such as:
- Supporting production issues
- Assisting QA or business teams
- Helping onboard new developers
- Attending meetings or cross-functional huddles
These aren’t edge cases — they’re part of the job. Ignoring them in time estimates sets developers up for failure before they even start.
I believe timelines should be holistic, accounting not just for the coding task, but for everything else that comes with working on a project in a real team environment.
The Subjectivity in Task Complexity Assessment
A critical pain point that surfaced was how task complexity itself is assessed. Right now, it varies significantly depending on who evaluates the task. That kind of subjectivity can cause misaligned expectations, unfair pressure on developers, or timeline misfires.
Since no formal change was made during our discussion, I decided to apply a simple, fair principle moving forward: I assess task complexity from the point of view of our newest team member.
This ensures a more inclusive and realistic estimate that doesn’t overburden the less experienced members. It also creates room for learning, collaboration, and support.
A Gap in Project Management Thinking
These conversations also highlighted something deeper — there seems to be a gap in project management practices among some of our team leads.
While technical leadership is strong, skills like project planning, risk assessment, stakeholder communication, and task estimation are still evolving. True project management isn’t just about tracking tasks. It’s about protecting the team, setting the right expectations, and mitigating risks before they derail delivery.
Without this, teams may meet deadlines — but at the cost of burnout, reduced quality, or broken trust.
Conclusion: It’s Not About Doing Less. It’s About Planning Smarter.
What I proposed wasn’t about reducing output or lowering standards — it was about protecting the team and ensuring sustainable productivity. If a task takes less time than estimated, great — we deliver early. If it doesn’t, we’re still safe.
At the end of the day, complexity and time estimation should empower teams, not stress them. And that begins by acknowledging the human element in software development.
Call to Action:
If you’re a project lead, developer, or manager, take a step back and ask:
- Are our estimates realistic or aspirational?
- Are we being fair to our junior team members?
- Are we protecting the long-term health of our team?
Rethinking the basics — complexity and time — can go a long way.
Comments
Post a Comment