When is it going to be done?

This question looms over every project, often posing one of the most challenging aspects of quoting timelines. While experience should theoretically make estimation more predictable, each new project is unique, carrying its unseen obstacles. Projects can be delayed by factors entirely out of your control, from minor API changes to unforeseen client delays. Addressing this requires a proactive approach to managing client expectations from the start and maintaining open lines of communication throughout project management (PM).

In my experience, project-based fees deliver higher-quality outcomes than hourly rates. While hourly billing may seem safer to handle delays, it can encourage inefficiency and lead to cost overruns. Project-based fees, on the other hand, align the focus on delivering value rather than clocking hours. However, some critical principles must be remembered to ensure that these estimates and expectations align with reality.

The Project Triangle: Balancing Time, Scope, and Budget

In project management, a common concept is the Project Triangle (or Triple Constraint), where time, scope, and budget form the three sides of the triangle, with quality at the center.

<figure class="aligncenter size-full"></figure>

This framework illustrates how these three elements are interdependent; altering one side of the triangle inevitably impacts the others and affects the overall quality. Successfully balancing these constraints is essential to achieving project goals and client satisfaction.

1. Time and Scope, But Not Budget: When a client requires a comprehensive scope of work delivered within a tight timeline, the budget will naturally need to increase to maintain quality. Completing a large project quickly often requires additional resources, advanced tools, or specialized skills, all of which add to the cost. While this approach ensures timely delivery with all requested features intact, it demands a higher investment.





2. Scope and Budget, But Not Time: If a project has an extensive scope but needs to be delivered within a limited budget, extending the timeline is necessary to maintain quality. A longer schedule allows for more efficient resource allocation and careful planning, but it may not meet urgent deadlines. This approach enables you to work within financial constraints while still delivering a fully-featured, quality product—albeit at a slower pace.





3. Time and Budget, But Not Scope: Projects requiring a quick turnaround and a strict budget must reduce their scope to uphold quality. By limiting features or reducing complexity, the team can deliver within the specified time and cost constraints. This option works well for projects with flexible requirements, where a minimum viable product is the primary goal, with the potential to add more features later as time and budget allow.

Placing quality at the center of the Project Triangle underscores its importance across all dimensions. A focus on quality ensures that, regardless of adjustments made to time, scope, or budget, the final deliverable meets the client’s standards and performs reliably. By discussing these trade-offs with clients early on, you can align on the priorities that matter most to them, setting the project up for success and delivering results that balance the client’s goals with realistic constraints.

Four Mistakes That Will Blow Your Next Estimate

1. Estimating Only for What the Client Asks: The client’s initial request rarely captures the full scope of what they’ll ultimately want. Estimating based on what they ask for is not enough, as these needs tend to evolve. Always go beyond the surface and anticipate the likely additions or changes. Failing to do so risks doubling the project’s scope and compromising budget and timeline estimates.





2. Ignoring Client-Driven Delays: Many projects fall behind due to external delays, often from the client’s team. Consider potential obstacles such as delayed access to necessary systems, internal approvals, or key contacts being out of the office. Set realistic expectations around these potential delays from the start and be clear that delays on their end will result in resetting the project timeline. Proactively build a multi-week buffer for client-side delays to provide a realistic timeline.





3. Bowing to Pressure for Shorter Timelines: Clients often push for faster completion, which can tempt you to cut corners by omitting critical steps such as error handling and testing. However, rushing these steps can lead to extended maintenance and additional fixes later. Whether you complete this work during the project or post-launch, include time for these critical steps in your estimate and charge accordingly. It’s better to negotiate the upfront cost than to compromise quality.





4. Underestimating Project Evolution and Scope Creep: Projects evolve as clients change priorities or new requirements arise. This is inevitable, so factor in a buffer for these shifts and adjust timelines as they occur. If a client pressures you to stick to the original timeline after they’ve made changes, remind them of the impact on delivery and adjust the expectations accordingly. Trying to deliver the “impossible late” can harm your reputation, so always allow enough time to do the job right.

Consistent and Aggressive Delay Management

One of the most crucial aspects of maintaining client satisfaction is vigilant management of client- or team-related delays. Every time a delay occurs, you must reset expectations. When delays originate from the client, communicate a revised completion date with each new request or change. This not only keeps the client informed but also helps avoid last-minute frustrations. It would be best if you swiftly addressed internal delays by adding additional resources to the project or informing the client about the updated timeline.

A project that I worked on illustrated this perfectly. Despite a minor change by an API provider that caused a significant delay, we communicated consistently with the client, explaining the new timeline and working to expedite the workaround. Even though the project was behind schedule, the client understood the reasons and appreciated the transparency. Ultimately, resetting expectations with clear communication allowed us to maintain trust and move forward positively.

Buffering for Worst-Case Scenarios

Setting a timeline with a built-in buffer is essential. Aiming for 150% of your internal expectations allows flexibility for unforeseen issues and even gives room to thrill the client by completing the project early. Over time, I’ve found this buffer to be invaluable. If a project should take ten days, estimate for fifteen. If you complete it in twelve, the client will be pleasantly surprised. But if unforeseen obstacles arise, this additional time can be the difference between delivering a quality product on time and struggling to catch up with a frustrated client. This tactic consistently transforms impossible timelines into successful, realistic outcomes.