Pranabendu

Experience
Predictability in
Software Project
Delivery
2013
TCS
6/18/2013
Pranabendu Bhattacharyya, CFPS, PMP
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd
Plot C, Sector V. Salt lake Electronics
Complex, Kolkata - 700091
+91-33 6636 6068
pranabendu.bhattacharyya@tcs.com
Parag Saha
+91-33 6636 6248
parag.saha@tcs.com
Sanghamitra Ghoshbasu
+91-33 6636 6064
sanghamitra.ghoshbasu@tcs.com
Sudipta Mohan Ghosh
+91-33 6636 6309
Sayantan Roy
+91-33 6636 6066

CONTENTS
1. ABSTRACT...............................................................................................................................................................................................3
2. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................................................3
3. POTENTIAL RISKS IN ABSENCE OF A STANDARD ESTIMATION PROCESS...............................................................................................3
4. ESTIMATION APPROACH .........................................................................................................................................................................4
5. ESTIMATION FRAMEWORK DRIVING STANDARDIZATION ........................................................................................................................5
5.1 Size Estimator ......................................................................................................................................................................................5
5.2 Effort Estimator.....................................................................................................................................................................................5
5.3 Schedule Calculator ..............................................................................................................................................................................6
5.4 Phase-Wise Distributor ..........................................................................................................................................................................6
5.5 FTE Calculator......................................................................................................................................................................................6
5.6 Cost Calculator .....................................................................................................................................................................................6
5.7 Feedback Adaptor.................................................................................................................................................................................6
5.8 Governance Umbrella............................................................................................................................................................................6
6. MODEL SELECTION DRIVING ACCURACY................................................................................................................................................7
7. CONTINUOUS FEEDBACK DRIVING IMPROVEMENT.................................................................................................................................8
8. CASE STUDY............................................................................................................................................................................................8
8.1 Determine ............................................................................................................................................................................................9
8.2 Design & Develop ............................................................................................................................................................................... 10
8.3 Deploy ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
8.4 Deliver ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
9. CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
10. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS............................................................................................................................................................................ 15
11. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 15
12. AUTHORS’ PROFILE............................................................................................................................................................................... 15
KEY WORDS
Software Estimation, Predictability, Estimation Framework, Standardization, Decision Matrix, Estimation Model, Productivity,
Estimation Metrics, Estimation Effectiveness, Process Deployment

1. ABSTRACT
Unrealistic expectations based on inaccurate
estimates have been identified as the single largest
root-cause of software project failures. Going by the
average yearly spend of $3.76 trillion (source:
Gartner, March-2013) by the IT customers worldwide
it is essential to eliminate the impediments of
delivery uncertainty and non-predictability.
Estimation is the binding force of all project metrics
related to scope of work, effort, schedule, resource-
budget and quality. Thus if collective estimation
accuracy can be increased even by a minimal
percentage, it will translate to savings of multi-billion
dollars for the worldwide IT business.
The objective of this paper is to present the risks
that mostly occur in absence of standard and
scientific estimation processes and then outline the
key requirements to minimise uncertainties if not
fully eliminate them.
The scope includes defining estimation approach of
multiple IT project-types which has been discussed
here with focus on the following broad categories:
Estimation framework driving standardisation
- Size/productivity/effort/schedule/cost and
their dynamic behavior
Model selection driving accuracy
- Project-type based estimation model
selection and configuring it based on
organisation, geography, industry/domain
and technologies
Measurement and continuous feedback driving
improvement
- Measuring productivity, refinement based on
effectiveness/data currency/lessons learnt
Adapting to such a streamlined arrangement has
resulted in the much sought after predictability and
repeatability of estimates that eliminates the worry of
incurring huge monetary loss. This provides a
paradigm shift from the traditional methods of
estimation having very little bearing with the actuals.
The case-studies presented at the end will of this
document reinforce this fact.
2. INTRODUCTION
The single most important task of a project is setting
up realistic expectations. This is possible through
use of a well-crafted, scientific, logical and self-
refining Estimation Framework which can help
predict cost/schedule and control envisaged risk.
Most organisations today face multiple challenges
while estimating software projects. These can
include lack of standardised rules/guidelines for
estimation, dearth of governance around estimation
process, limited reuse of past organisational
experience in estimation and unavailability of
organisational baselined productivity (resulting in
absence of benchmarking and improvement
measurement). Over and above these, software
projects can be of multiple ‘types’ such as bespoke
application development, large functional
enhancement, minor technical enhancement,
testing, package implementation and so on. The
methodologies of estimation for these project types
are varied.
All these challenges in turn, result in issues either at
a project level (like incorrect budgeting, incorrect
resource loading, issues in tracking/monitoring) or at
an organisation level (like increased ‘scrap-value’ of
projects, incorrect forecasting of IT budgets and
incorrect build-buy decisions).
One of the key requirements in overcoming these
challenges is the availability of a robust, standard
yet flexible framework of estimation. This in turn can
aid project managers to select a best fit estimation
approach depending on project characteristics and
achieve predictability in estimates.
3. POTENTIAL RISKS IN ABSENCE OF A
STANDARD ESTIMATION PROCESS
Effective software project estimation is one of the
most challenging and important activities in project
execution. Proper project planning and control is not

possible without a sound and reliable estimate. The
risks associated with incorrect estimation are:
Underestimating a project leads to under-staffing
it resulting in staff burnout
Under-scoping the quality assurance effort leads
to the risk of low quality of deliverables.
Setting too short a schedule due to
underestimation leads to loss of credibility as
deadlines are missed.
Overestimating a project leads to a project being
allocated more resources than it really needs,
without sufficient scope controls. The project is
then likely to cost more than it should and have
a negative impact on the bottom line
Overestimating also causes a project to take
longer than necessary to deliver resulting in lost
opportunities, and delayed use of resources on
other projects.
Non-availability of standard estimation
techniques across the organisation for a given
type of project type results in incorrect
comparison among projects, inaccurate
productivity measurements and inaccurate
person-dependent estimates.
All these risks, in turn result in lack of
predictability in estimates and impact
downstream activities like planning, staffing,
monitoring and tracking.
4. ESTIMATION APPROACH
Figure 1: Estimation Approach

At the outset, a comprehensive estimation approach
has the following levers:
1. A standard Estimation Framework – consists of
standard estimation techniques for sizing, effort
estimation, schedule estimation, Full Time
Equivalent (FTE) determination and cost
derivation. It also has the necessary guidelines,
checklists and so on.
2. A defined decision matrix – helps to determine
the suitable estimation techniques based on
different parameters like technology,
engagement type, estimation stage, SDLC
model and so on.
Based on strong foundation of a standard Estimation
Framework and decision matrix, appropriate
estimation models, guideline and processes can be
obtained. These models can be utilised on the
selected projects to obtain a valid estimate. Different
KPIs should be defined to enable measurement
techniques and also understand the current situation
of the organisation so that necessary plans and
roadmap can be formed to achieve desired
organisational goals. During this entire process
feedback, lessons learnt and other relevant inputs
are recorded and utilised to refine the Estimation
Framework as well as the decision matrix for more
predictable results. Thus, the entire process is a self-
sustaining and an evolving ecosystem.
5. ESTIMATION FRAMEWORK DRIVING
STANDARDIZATION
There are four major facets of any estimate – size,
effort, schedule and cost. Apart from these, the
Estimation Framework must be scalable to estimate
for projects of different sizes and types.
The estimation framework being proposed broadly
consists of the components described in the
following sections.
5.1 Size Estimator
In general, estimation is associated with deriving the
number of person-hours or dollars required to deliver
a project. Most of the times, it is not apparent that
the effort or cost do not indicate the ‘work-volume’
that the project entails. The Size Estimator
component defines the ‘work-volume’ in terms of a
size unit. There are multiple techniques for
estimating size, both deterministic and probabilistic.
A few such techniques are listed as follows:
Function Point Analysis
Use Case Point
Story Point
Lines of Code Approach
Feature Points
Technical Components
COSMIC
FISMA
NESMA
5.2 Effort Estimator
Estimation of effort is one of the most important
aspects of project management because, unlike
software and hardware resources, staffing resources
are very difficult to manage. Effort has a direct
relationship with staffing cost. The Effort Estimator
component comprised of the following two distinct
components
Base Effort Estimator Component: This
component derives the effort that is required
to perform the activities of the given
software life cycle. The method of deriving
this effort could be parametric or heuristic.
Some of the parametric techniques include:
Productivity Based Effort Estimation:
COCOMO
Some of the heuristic techniques include:
o Wideband Delphi
o Monte Carlo Simulation
o Estimation by Analogy
a. Effort Adjustor: Over and above the effort
needed to perform the Software Life Cycle

activities, additional effort may be required in a
project to cater to other activities. The effort
adjustor component adjusts the base effort with
other effort which can either be expressed as a
percentage of the base effort (this may increase
or reduce the overall effort) or be expressed as
a static value. Some examples of other factors
are as follows:
Project Specific Factors like availability of
reusable components or availability of
documentation
Geography and Domain Specific factors like
confirmation to regulatory compliances
Organisation Specific factors
Team Specific factors like niche skill
availability or SME availability
Risks
5.3 Schedule Calculator
The project schedule is dependent on the effort
estimates for the project. It can be calculated using
the following:
a. COCOMO II
b. Gantt charts
c. Critical Path Method (CPM) technique
d. PERT
Adjustments to schedule can be done manually to
ensure compliance to client mandated schedules.
5.4 Phase-Wise Distributor
The overall effort and schedule derived can be
distributed across phases of a project. The phases
of a project may vary depending on Software Life
Cycle considered, like Waterfall or RUP. Guidance
for effort and schedule distribution is provided by the
framework for multiple SDLC types.
5.5 FTE Calculator
The FTE Calculator has two variants:
For Maintenance/Support Projects : This component
calculates the number of FTEs required for support
functions including incident management, outage
management, release management and
administration depending on the effort required to
resolve incidents and perform minor enhancements
to the application(s) under support. The FTE
calculator component takes into account whether the
application under consideration is in steady state or
transient state, the working hours of FTEs, shift
requirements and so on.
a. For other types of Projects: Once the effort and
schedule have been distributed across phases,
manpower loading for each phase is derived by
the FTE Calculator.
5.6 Cost Calculator
The Cost Calculator component derives overall cost
for a project based on overall effort and schedule
needed for the project. The cost can be broadly
classified into the following two components:
a. Staffing (Consultancy) Cost: This cost is derived
based on inputs from the FTE Calculator
regarding the number of resources required for
each phase. Factors like role/designation of the
resource for each phase, location and effort
spent by the resource in each phase determine
the staffing cost.
b. Other Cost: This category includes the
estimated cost for hardware, travel,
communication and other miscellaneous items
5.7 Feedback Adaptor
The feedback adaptor component uses the actual
effort utilized, the actual size delivered at project end
and best practices and lessons learnt from projects
and feeds it to the ‘Continuous Improvement Cycle’
for continued refinement of the Estimation
Framework.
5.8 Governance Umbrella

The Governance Umbrella ensures that every
estimate from the framework is reviewed and vetted
by a competent authority. The roles defined within
the Estimation Framework to enable this are:
Initiator: This role initiates the process of
estimation and owns the entire estimation.
Estimator: Estimates size, effort, schedule and
cost.
Reviewer: Is a certified authority who can review
estimates.
Approver: Signs-off on the bottom-line and vets
the estimate before it is submitted.
The overall framework can be digitised as a tool and
utilised to perform estimates.
6. MODEL SELECTION DRIVING ACCURACY
The concept of ‘estimation model’ is closely linked to
the Estimation Framework. For different project
types, there are different techniques that could be
adopted to estimate Size, Effort, Schedule and Cost.
A combination of these methodologies/techniques
constitutes a model. A single estimation model can
be used to estimate multiple project types. The real
crux lies in selection of the right model to ensure the
much required predictability in estimation
The TCS estimation framework is accessorised by a
“Decision Matrix” which enables the process of
“FIRST TIME RIGHT” model selection.
To effectively use the framework one should utilize
the “Decision Matrix” enabler which consists of the
following four dimensions
Estimation Stage: This could be concept/Early
stage – where requirements are not formulated
and only a concept of the project is available,
proposal stage- where some requirements are
available or project stage- where entire gamut of
requirements are available.
Technology area and platform: These could
range from mainframes using COBOL/DB2 to
Web based applications using JAVA/.NET to
package implementation using SAP/Oracle
Apps.
Project Type: Projects can be of different types
viz. Bespoke Development, Maintenance,
Support, Assurance (Testing), Package
development /customization/upgrade etc.
Software Life Cycle Used: The life cycle
methodology used in delivering these projects
may range from Waterfall, RUP to Iterative/
Agile.
Based on the matrix formed from any combination of
the decision matrix dimensions, the framework
performs the following:
a. Determines which components of the framework
(Size estimator, Effort estimator, Schedule
Calculator and so on) are applicable to the
specific case and which components may not be
relevant. For example, “Size Estimator”
component may not be relevant for “Package
Upgrade” projects.
b. Determines which specific methodology/
technique would be applicable to each
framework component such as, “Function Point”
from Size Estimator, “COCOMO” from Effort
Estimator for “project stage” estimation of a
bespoke “Development” project using
“Java/J2EE” technology and adopting “Waterfall”
project execution method.
c. Suggests the estimator which estimation
model(s) can be used. Depending on project
types, more than one model can be suggested.
d. Suggests, the best fit model based on the
organisational history of success (less variance)
for the given input matrix.
Based on the model chosen the framework selects
the organisational baseline productivity for given
technology area/ platform and helps the estimator in
arriving at the Effort, Schedule and Cost estimation.

7. CONTINUOUS FEEDBACK DRIVING IMPROVEMENT
Figure 2: Continuous Improvement
The estimation framework is completed with the
closed feedback loop which helps integrate the best
practices and lessons learnt back into the framework
thus enabling further refinement and maturity of the
same with increased utilisation.
The Feedback Adaptor of the framework is the
inception point of the ‘Closed Feedback Loop’ or the
Continuous Improvement Cycle. This takes the
actual effort utilised, actual size delivered, and
schedule with cost at project end and best practices
and lessons learnt from projects as its inputs and
returns the same to the loop. The Closed Feedback
Loop operates in Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle (as
depicted in Figure 2) and pumps worthwhile data
back to the Framework for advancement of the
following inherent aspects thereby establishing a
self-evolving Framework.
a. Estimation Effectiveness of Models: Fine tuning
of the estimation process to ensure that size and
effort variance is within control limits.
b. Productivity: Deriving and base lining
productivity, productivity benchmarking and
identification of levers to improve productivity.
c. Core reference repository: Building and
enriching the historical estimation repository of
the organisation to perform better estimates.
8. CASE STUDY
For demonstration of the successful implementation
of the proven and predictable “Estimation
Framework, the case study for a North America
based Financial Institution has been described here.
Estimation Framework Implementation – Our
Approach and Results

Premise: TCS was one of the vendor partners for
this financial organisation which was a leader in
financial planning with more than 110 years of
history. It was the largest mutual fund advisory
program provider in terms of assets, with more than
$400 billion in assets. After a recent spin-off from the
main conglomerate, the organisation was teeming
with lots of challenges in the IT space for which it
sought TCS’s expertise and help. The key problems
were as follows:
Regular cost and effort overrun in most of the
projects (~150%-200%)
 Increased project management efforts (>40%)
due to poor estimates/re-estimates
 Recurring losses (amounting to millions of
dollars) due to scrapping of projects
 Huge expenditure due to induction of resources
at higher rates at later stages of the projects to
complete them on time
The outcome of these problems led to the following:
 Poor Return On Investments (ROI)
 Low productivity in projects as evident from Due
Diligence exercise
 Unsatisfied clients
 No vendor performance comparison to augment
outsourcing
 Difficult decision-making for the right investment
opportunities, which requires a reasonable
assessment of cost early on in the life cycle.
 No scope of validation of the estimates prepared
by project teams, who in turn depended upon
vendors and subcontractors
TCS applied a four phased approach for process
improvement, described as follows:
a. Determine: Identify the gaps and plan
accordingly.
b. Design and Develop: Tailor, pilot and setup an
Estimation Framework to establish processes
and estimation techniques aligned to the needs.
Configure estimation repository.
c. Deploy: Integrate with organisational processes.
d. Deliver: Demonstrate estimation effectiveness
using metrics.
8.1 Determine
Our first step was to determine the gaps and
understand the project portfolio. A two weeks long
Due Diligence programme was conducted to
understand the current operational mode. One-on-
one interactions with business process owners were
conducted to understand their current processes
and key business drivers. A standard checklist
embedded with TCS project management
experience was used to assess the gaps and
portfolio.
Gap Analysis:
The gaps identified were as follows:
Only effort, cost and/or schedule estimation was
performed. No “Volume of work” identification
No presence of framework for productivity
measurement and improvement/initiatives to
drive ‘cost saves’
Inconsistent project estimation practices across
the IT organisation. No standard models for
estimation.
During “Early/Concept” stage only ball park
figures provided without any formal technique
Cost drivers, such as infrastructure unavailability
and cross-commits, which impacted a project’s
total cost, were also not tracked or taken into
consideration
No periodic risk monitoring and identification of
risks. Flat 20% contingency reserve was kept
constant for all projects irrespective of
characteristics
Actual effort data classification not realisable
and effort consumption pattern not captured
Portfolio Analysis:
The portfolio analysis of the customer organisation
projects brought into light the following spectrum of
parameters needed for the Estimation Framework
customisation
Engagement Types
 Development and Small Initiative Path
 Conversion
 Assurance

 Project Support
 Package Customisation
 Package Upgrade
Stage
 Qualify
 Requirements
 Design
 Final/Actual
Technology
 Web
 Mainframe
 COTS Products
SDLC: Waterfall, Agile, Spiral/Iterative
Based on the analysis, the TCS consultants
concluded that the deployment of a befitting
“Estimation Framework” will be the answer to the
entire gamut of organisation’s issues. The well
proven and predictable “Estimation Framework” was
recommended for deployment, with adequate
tailoring as per customer organisation’s needs.
8.2 Design & Develop
When an organisation wants to adopt the Estimation
Framework first there is a need to understand what
services of the framework it will need. A due
diligence is required to understand the services
already present which can be accommodated within
the framework, components which will have to be
newly built and the overall digitisation requirements.
That was accomplished through a fit gap analysis
exercise, a sample snapshot of which is described in
the following table.
Sl No. Identified Gaps Framework Segments used for
solution
1 Only effort, cost and/or schedule estimation was performed.
No “Volume of work” identification
Size Estimator Component
2 No presence of framework for productivity measurement and
improvement/initiatives to drive ‘cost saves’
Feedback Adaptor Component
3 Inconsistent project estimation practices across the IT
organisation. No standard models for estimation
Multi-dimensional Decision Matrix
4 During “Early/Concept” stage only ball park figures provided
without any formal technique
Multi-dimensional Decision Matrix
5 Cost drivers, such as infrastructure unavailability and cross-
commits, which impacted a project’s total cost, were also not
tracked or taken into consideration
Cost Estimator Component
7 No Periodic risk monitoring and identification of risks. Flat
20% contingency reserve was kept constant for all projects
irrespective of characteristics
Effort Estimator Component
8 Actual effort data classification not realizable and effort
consumption pattern not captured
Feedback Adaptor Component

Table 1: Fit Gap Analysis
Uncertainty management and feedback of learning
is significant for any estimation framework. The
Estimation Framework in question was enabled to
manage uncertainty, calibrate and configure models
based on history, accommodate past learning and
bring prediction with respect to size, effort, schedule
and cost estimation. The Estimation Framework was
replete with a complete set of documents, tools,
methods and best practices that addressed the
customer’s need on the basis of current “types” of
projects, technology/platforms and “stage” of
estimation.
In line with the primary objectives of standardisation,
accuracy and continuous improvement, the following
activities were performed in each of the areas to
establish the Estimation Framework in collaborative
mode.
FRAMEWORK ADOPTION
Identify Estimation framework components
which need to be adopted for the organisation
as per Decision Matrix (guided by the framework
itself)
Adopt the Size Estimator Component, Schedule
Component, Schedule Calculator Component,
Phase Distributor Component and FTE
Calculator Component for defining the models
o The Size Estimator Component helped
in providing a fact-based input to
support the comparison of vendor bids
o The Size Estimator Component
provided a foundation for measuring
productivity to track improvement
o The Effort Adjustor Component allowed
to accommodate risks in estimation to
account for contingency
Adopt the “ Feedback Adaptor” component to
establish a mechanism for Actual Data
collection, reporting and sizing to enable
productivity baselining and estimation
effectiveness computation
Adopt the historical repository of guidelines and
best practices embedded in the framework to
publish estimation guidelines for all types of
projects
o The Estimation Framework with its
collection of models (with in-built help),
extensive guidelines and tailored
training programmes conducted by the
consultants minimised the degree of
changes required by user community
and helped in providing best in class
estimation capabilities
Digitise the framework thus enabling creation of
central repository
Adopt “Governance Umbrella” through
digitisation mode
MODEL SELECTION
Based on the Decision Matrix utilisation, the
“Size Estimator” framework component was
preferentially adopted to instantiate size
estimation models for relevant project types. For
Development, COTS Implementation,
Conversion project types standard techniques
like Function Point, Package Points and
customised techniques (like extensions to
Function Point approach, early stage FP,
COCOTS, and so on) were adopted to create
the models.

Figure 3: Sample Decision Matrix
For effort and schedule estimation, COCOMO,
COCOTS, Productivity- and Resource-based
approaches were fed into the Decision matrix
and best-fitted ones deployed for each type of
project. Alternative paths were also provided for
performing “What If “ analysis
MEASUREMENT AND CONTINUOUS FEEDBACK
• Metrics identified based on goals/objectives
(for example, estimation effectiveness,
process compliance, SLA compliance,
productivity improvement)
• Mechanism of performing root-cause
analysis implemented to determine the
drivers behind estimation variance and to
gain insights on productivity “influencers”
• Improvement drivers identification
mechanism implemented through
amalgamation of “Lessons learnt” and “Best
Practices” documents ( supported by central
repository of framework)
• Established mechanism of metrics collection
and reporting analysis results through the
“Feedback Adopter” digitised enablers.
Process to compare periodically with
industry benchmarks was also established
8.3 Deploy
After the processes and techniques were finalised,
the focus shifted on deploying the same at an
organisation level and handle the associated change

management effectively. Following were some of the
challenges faced while deploying:
It was difficult to convince PMs and other
stakeholders to shift from their existing ways
of non-standard estimation
Since most of the benefits were in long term,
short duration projects were not ready to
comply
Initial infrastructural issues were faced to
establish governance mechanism in
absence of any tool
The following steps were taken to deploy the
developed processes and overcome the challenges:
Identified the business units and analysed
the project profiles of each. Easy to deploy
set of projects identified as low hanging
fruits
Key point of contacts identified for business
units and projects.
Multiple model awareness sessions
conducted (Brown Bag sessions, Town Halls
, and so on) for similar nature projects
(which will use the same model and
guidelines) along with live estimation
performance
Prioritised projects with challenges in
adopting the Estimation Framework.
Conducted hand holding sessions with the
project teams
Created case studies on high impact
projects which successfully adopted the
framework (termed as ‘Golden Samples’)
and showcased them to the next set of
identified projects
Arranged for experience sharing sessions
(and circulated the content later) with target
PMs where the speakers were from
deployed projects. Focus was on articulation
of benefits
Trainings designed for various levels of
executives (CIO, PMs, DMs, TMs, and so
on) and conducted with custom content and
duration
Showcased and recognised the early
adopters
Institutionalised the estimation deployment
approach for continuous adoption of newer
projects whenever they start.
8.4 Deliver
The deployment of this predictable Estimation
Framework brought about the desired results within
a few quarters. The potential of the framework was
best highlighted through the following:
Best-in-class estimation capabilities
Improved predictability of project costs and
schedules.
Measured and base-lined productivity levels
Improvement in business – IT Estimation
alignment.
Reduced cost of estimation/re-estimation,
idle time, unplanned induction of staff,
project scraps and so on.
Improved vendor management and efficient
outsourcing practices.
Repository of historical estimation data
created
High estimation awareness within the
practitioner community
Cost, effort and time recording against
defined implementation scopes
Estimation traceability to business
requirements
Quantitative risk analysis and understanding
of confidence of an estimate.
Fact based inputs for vendor bid
negotiations
Decomposed estimates which helped to
understand how estimates relate, through
different stages of a project.

RESULTS
Figure 4: Improvement in Scrap Value Reduction Figure 5: YoY Improvement in productivity
Figure 6: YoY Improvement in Estimation Effectiveness
 Reduced cost/function point (by 41 percent)
for web based projects
 Reduced cost/function point (by 15 percent)
for mainframe projects
New Process
Deployed
New Process
Deployed

9. CONCLUSION
This paper showcases that the development and
implementation of a standard Estimation Framework
based on historically proven techniques and data will
help bring the much desired efficiency in project
management. It will make the projects harness the
estimation experience of executed projects to bring
in the desired predictability and also provide
feedback for the improvements and further
refinements in future. To conclude, let us look at the
key differentiators of this framework and the lessons
learnt while deploying the same.
LESSONS LEARNT
“One Solution Does Not fit all”. Separate
prescription has to be provided for different
organisations depending on their exact problems
“Reuse” of existing artifacts is essential to get
the “buy-in” from the practitioner community
“High Impact Projects” need to be identified for
initial deployment. This will create success
stories and drive deployment for a larger
audience
The success of deployment should be timely
communicated to all stakeholders for benefits
management.
KEY DIFFERENTIATORS
• End to end estimation process definitions with
guidelines
• Plug and play framework components based on
organization maturity
• Well established cohesive collaboration between
components enabling easy propagation of
changes
• Framework validated and calibrated against
huge number of project data across domains
and technologies thus ensuring consistent
predictability with acceptable confidence
• Analytical approach (through up-to-date decision
matrix) to get the “best fit“ prescription
applicable for different types of projects
• Knowledge and understanding of various
estimation techniques captured through
framework components
• A streamlined integrated approach to generate
key metrics like variance, productivity, schedule
& effort slippage and so on
• Self-sustaining framework capable of capturing
end results and incorporate the same for
continuous improvement
10. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank TCS Global Delivery Excellence Group,
TCS Techcom Group, Sharmila Das from TCS
Estimation Center of Excellence for all the help and
support provided in writing this paper.
Special thanks to Ms. Aarthi Subramanian (Head –
TCS Global Delivery Excellence Group) for her
support and guidance.
11. REFERENCES
[1] Project Management Institute’s (PMI), Project
Management Body of Knowledge Guide (PMBOK®
Guide). Edition 5, 2013
[2] Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), Estimation
Guidelines Version 7.2, April 2013
[3] “Quality Software Project Management” by
Futrell, Shafer and Shafer.
12. AUTHORS’ PROFILE
Pranabendu Bhattacharyya, CFPS, PMP
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
pranabendu.bhattacharyya@tcs.com
Pranabendu is having more than 20 years of IT
experience and heading the TCS estimation Center
of Excellence for last 8 years. He is an M-Tech (IIT
KGP) and has been the chief consultant for many
estimation consulting engagements. He is one of the
core members of ITPC (IFPUG) guiding committee

and presented paper in various international
colloquiums
Parag Saha
parag.saha@tcs.com
Parag has over 15 years of industry experience
spanning multiple domains including Transportation,
Logistics, Government, Insurance and Telecom-
RAFM. He is currently part of the Estimation Center
of Excellence in TCS and has been involved in
defining and refining estimation models and in
deployment of these standardized models across
multiple domains in TCS.
Sanghamitra Ghoshbasu
sanghamitra.ghoshbasu@tcs.com
Sanghamitra has 13 years of experience in software
delivery and project management. She has around 9
years of experience in software estimation and has
been instrumental in defining, developing and
deploying estimation models for multiple
engagement types.
Sudipta Mohan Ghosh
sm.ghosh@tcs.com
Sudipta working with TCS Estimation Center of
Excellence for around 8 years is involved in various
estimation and project management engagements.
He is also a TCS Internal certified estimator
Sayantan Roy
sayantan.roy@tcs.com
Sayantan has 8 years of IT experience in fields of
application development, business analysis and
estimation process consulting. He is an IBM certified
Requirements Manager with Use Cases (RMUC)

Pranabendu

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Pranabendu

More from PMI2011

Recently uploaded

Pranabendu