Software Project Management
Tutorial 3
LIKHITHA HK
1NT23IS110
1. Multi-Constraint Project Planning
• The client insists on a fixed delivery date, but requirements are still evolving.
a) Trade-offs between Predictive (Waterfall) vs. Adaptive (Agile)
Predictive (Waterfall) Approach:
- Pros: Clear structure, fixed milestones, easier to track against contractual obligations.
- Cons: Inflexible to changing requirements, high risk of late discovery of mismatches.
Adaptive (Agile) Approach:
- Pros: Embraces evolving requirements, iterative feedback reduces rework, improves client
satisfaction.
- Cons: Difficult to commit to fixed deadlines, scope creep may affect delivery timelines.
Trade-off: Waterfall ensures predictability but struggles with evolving requirements, while
Agile allows flexibility but may cause tension with fixed deadlines.
b) Hybrid Approach and Gantt Chart Flexibility
In a hybrid approach, major project milestones and delivery date are fixed (Waterfall),
while iterative Agile sprints are used within phases to accommodate evolving requirements.
To reflect flexibility in a Gantt chart:
- Use fixed milestone bars for contractual obligations.
- Show Agile sprints as iterative loops or rolling waves between milestones.
- Include buffers and contingency tasks to absorb requirement volatility.
This way, the chart reflects both commitment to deadlines and adaptability.
2. Cross-Cultural Resource Allocation
• The project requires 24/7 development cycles by leveraging different time zones.
a) Task Allocation Across Regions
- Divide work based on modularity: independent tasks assigned to each region.
- Use a ‘follow-the-sun’ model: Region A finishes work, Region B picks up where A left off,
minimizing idle time.
- Overlap critical handovers with short sync meetings to reduce delays.
- Assign regions with higher expertise to handle complex modules while others manage
routine tasks.
b) Re-balancing After Attrition
- Redistribute workload to other regions with cross-trained teams.
- Temporarily prioritize critical tasks to avoid bottlenecks.
- Leverage remote contractors/freelancers as a short-term measure.
- Prevent cost inflation by shifting non-critical tasks to lower-cost regions.
This ensures continuity while keeping costs under control.
3. Effort Estimation under Uncertainty
• Initial COCOMO-II estimates suggest 85,000 person-hours. However, stakeholders believe
it is overestimated.
a) Adjustments to Effort Estimation Models
- Apply parametric adjustments: reduce scale factors for well-understood components.
- Use analogy-based estimation for AI modules where historical data is scarce.
- Introduce risk multipliers for volatile requirements.
- Perform Monte Carlo simulations to capture uncertainty ranges.
- Adopt incremental estimation, refining numbers as clarity improves.
b) Risk Mitigation with Downward Estimates
- Build contingency buffers into schedule and resources.
- Track progress using Earned Value Management (EVM) for early warning.
- Prioritize scope with MoSCoW (Must, Should, Could, Won’t) to manage slippages.
- Maintain Agile iterations for high-risk AI features to detect overruns early.
- Implement continuous integration/testing to avoid late surprises.