.jpg)
Deadlines in Software Development: A Double-Edged Sword
Explore the role of deadlines in software development, weighing their pros and cons, and comparing continuous deployment to deadline-driven approaches.
Discover why project estimates should prioritize scope over hours. Learn Ottia’s proven approach to accurate software development estimation and smoother delivery.
When a new client asks us at Ottia to estimate the effort for a software development project, one question surfaces quite often: “Why does this task need four hours?”
It seems logical to scrutinize individual hours, yet this focus often leads teams down a frustrating path. In reality, the most reliable way to judge an estimate is by examining the scope—the list of activities, assumptions, and potential unknowns included in each task. In this article, we’ll explore:
- Why scope matters more than raw hours.
- How misreading task duration can derail project planning.
- Practical steps for clients and teams to evaluate estimates more effectively.
It helps to understand how shifting your perspective from hours to scope can make your next software project smoother, cheaper, and far more predictable.
On paper, judging a task by its duration feels intuitive: Task A – 3 hours; Task B – 12 hours. However, this approach masks critical questions:
* What exactly does each hour cover?
* How many unknowns might appear mid-task?
* Are we accounting for integration, testing, and review?
Without these clarifications, a comment like “three hours is too long” becomes meaningless. The hours are only a symptom of the underlying scope—and scope is where true estimation accuracy begins.
Consider software testing. Running automated tests can take seconds. Fixing bugs uncovered by those tests can consume hours—or even days—depending on complexity and team availability. The original estimate of “one hour of testing” might balloon if the scope implicitly assumes bug fixing as well. Time alone does not reveal that nuance; the scope does.
Scope captures every activity that must happen for a task to be finished. In a typical software development estimate, scope may include:
If any of these items are misunderstood—say, the client assumes no third-party integration is needed, but the development team has factored it in—the hours will appear inflated. Pinpoint the discrepancy in scope, and you pinpoint the path to an efficient project estimate.
When both client and development team share a scope-driven mindset, surprises fade. Everyone knows exactly what is included:
Therefore, schedule slips become rare instead of routine.
Before diving into numbers, create a shared language:
We recommend our clients look at the average hours per task and the total hours per sprint or month. This macro view allows for natural fluctuations: one task might end sooner, another might require extra polish. As long as the average holds, the project remains on track.
When something looks “too long,” ask:
1. What activities are bundled into this task?
2. Which assumptions am I missing?
3. Is any work being front-loaded to reduce later risk?
Nine times out of ten, you will discover the issue is not with the hours but with a scope mismatch—perhaps the developer included performance tuning that you plan to postpone, or an integration that can wait until phase two.
At Ottia, every estimate lives in a shared document that lists:
* Task name
* Scope outline
* Estimated hours
* Risk factors and dependencies
Clients can leave comments directly on each line. This transparency transforms feedback from vague (“Seems long”) to actionable (“Let’s move API integration to the next sprint”).
Some clients fear that developers “pad” their time. While padding is real in some industries, professional teams usually include risk buffers for unknowns: legacy code quirks, third-party outages, or evolving requirements. Clarify these buffers during scope review so they appear justified rather than arbitrary.
Trying to shave minutes off one task often leads to scope creep elsewhere. For example, skipping code reviews to save two hours may cost 20 hours when hidden bugs surface later.
Development is creative, not assembly-line work. A “simple” UI tweak may require developer concentration cycles, design feedback, and back-and-forth QA. Respect the human element by basing expectations on scope quality, not stopwatch timing.
1. Better budgeting: Forecast cash flow by milestone, not by microtasks.
2. Faster approvals: Teams spend less time renegotiating small variations.
3. Happier developers: Engineers can focus on delivering value instead of defending every hour.
4. Higher quality: Clear definitions of “done” encourage best practices like automated testing and code review.
Collectively, these advantages translate into predictable delivery, lower risk, and a stronger partnership with a client.
Focusing on scope instead of hours is not merely a project-management tip—it is the cornerstone of successful software development. The next time you review an estimate, zoom out. Challenge what is included, what can wait, and what risks still lurk in the shadows. Then, align on average effort and total capacity rather than dissecting each six-minute interval.
At Ottia, we’ve seen firsthand how conversations shift once clients adopt a scope-first mindset: meetings are shorter, milestones arrive sooner, and products launch with fewer surprises. If you want your next project to follow the same trajectory, start by asking “What’s really in scope?” instead of “Why eight hours?”
Commit to this perspective, and watch your software projects deliver on time, on budget, and above expectation.
With 3000+ professionals on board, we’re ready to assist you with full-cycle development.
.jpg)
.jpg)