Negotiating Project Timelines

Most negotiations fail before they even begin.   Not because of bad tactics. Not because of tough opponents. But because one side walks in without a real plan.   Vague goals and wishful thinking won’t cut it.   If you want to win, you need a negotiation plan that’s SMART:   → Specific Know exactly what you want. Not just “a better deal” but a defined outcome.   → Measurable Put numbers on it. What price? What terms? What deadlines?   → Achievable Be ambitious but realistic. If your ask is impossible, you won’t get anywhere.   → Relevant Focus on what truly matters. Price, quality, service—prioritize what moves the needle.   → Time-based Set deadlines. A deal that drags on forever is often a bad deal.   Now, let’s take this a step further.   Before any negotiation, you must define three critical points:   → MDO (Most Desirable Outcome): Your ideal result. The best-case scenario if everything goes your way.   → LAA (Least Acceptable Agreement): Your walk-away point. If the terms drop below this, you leave.   → BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement): Your backup plan. If this deal collapses, what’s your next move?   Here’s how it plays out in real life:   Say you’re negotiating a supplier contract for your company.   MDO: Secure a unit price of $11 with a 30-day delivery window.   LAA: You won’t go above $11.45 or accept more than a 45-day delivery time.   BATNA: If the supplier won’t meet your LAA, you have another vendor ready to step in at $11.50 with a 35-day turnaround.   Now, imagine negotiating without this clarity.   - You’d be guessing at what’s acceptable, - Making decisions under pressure, and - Likely leaving money on the table.   Top negotiators don’t guess.   They plan.   And here’s the real power move:   Subtly signal that you have options.   When the other side senses you have a strong BATNA, the dynamic shifts.   They start making concessions. You stay in control.   So before you step into any deal, ask yourself:   → Are my objectives SMART? → What’s my MDO, LAA, and BATNA?   Get clear on those, and you’ll never negotiate from a weak position again.   -------------------- Hi, I’m Scott Harrison and I help executive and leaders master negotiation & communication in high-pressure, high-stakes situations. - ICF Coach and EQ-i Practitioner - 24 yrs | 19 countries | 150+ clients  - Negotiation | Conflict resolution | Closing deals 📩 DM me or book a discovery call (link in the Featured section)

"𝟔𝟓% 𝐨𝐟 𝐒𝐀𝐏 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐫𝐮𝐧 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝟓𝟒% 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐛𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐬. 💵 𝑻𝒉𝒆 #1 𝒒𝒖𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑰 𝒈𝒆𝒕 𝒂𝒔 𝒂 𝑺𝑨𝑷 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒎 𝑴𝒂𝒏𝒂𝒈𝒆𝒓: 𝑯𝒐𝒘 𝒅𝒐 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒃𝒂𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒌 𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒂𝒈𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒃𝒖𝒅𝒈𝒆𝒕𝒔? 𝑯𝒆𝒓𝒆'𝒔 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕 20+ 𝒚𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝑨𝑷 𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒕𝒂𝒖𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝒎𝒆..." 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞: Every SAP project faces the 𝐢𝐫𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 - 𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐩𝐞, 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐭. But here's the reality: effective risk management isn't an obstacle to this balance, it's the key to achieving it. 𝐌𝐲 𝟓-𝐒𝐭𝐞𝐩 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐁𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐑𝐢𝐬𝐤 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭: 𝟏. 𝐄𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐑𝐢𝐬𝐤 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 (𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞) • Build 𝟏𝟓-𝟐𝟎% 𝐛𝐮𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫 zones beyond vendor estimates • Conduct risk workshops before locking budgets • Map risks to specific project phases using 𝖲̲𝖠̲𝖯̲ ̲𝖠̲𝖼̲𝗍̲𝗂̲𝗏̲𝖺̲𝗍̲𝖾̲ ̲𝗆̲𝖾̲𝗍̲𝗁̲𝗈̲𝖽̲𝗈̲𝗅̲𝗈̲𝗀̲𝗒̲ 𝟐. 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐜 𝐑𝐢𝐬𝐤 𝐂𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 • 𝐓𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐤𝐬: System integration, data migration complexities • 𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐤𝐬: Scope creep, resource allocation issues • 𝐎𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐤𝐬: Change resistance, stakeholder alignment. Weekly risk reviews (not monthly) - SAP projects move too fast • Set specific warning triggers: "𝐼𝑓 85% 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛'𝑡 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑘 16, 𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑦 𝑔𝑜-𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒" • Use SAP's Risk Management tools for continuous tracking 𝟒. 𝐁𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐭-𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐌𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 • Prioritize fit-to-standard approaches - reduces timeline risks by 40% • Allocate 2-3x expected effort for data migration (consistently underestimated) • Create scope reduction options without compromising core requirements 𝟓. 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 • Executive sponsorship prevents "analysis paralysis" • Cross-functional teams finish 30% faster than part-time participants • Quality gates with clear decision authority 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐨𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐦 𝐋𝐢𝐧𝐞: Risk management isn't about avoiding all risks - it's about making informed decisions with quantified impacts. Every risk needs an owner, a cost, and a mitigation plan. 𝑾𝒉𝒂𝒕'𝒔 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒃𝒊𝒈𝒈𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝑺𝑨𝑷 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒋𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒌 𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒂𝒈𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒈𝒆? 𝑺𝒉𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒔 - 𝒍𝒆𝒕'𝒔 𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒏 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒉 𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓'𝒔 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒔.

Most “delays” aren’t bad luck. They’re governance gaps in how we manage uncertainty. If your plan assumes a stable world, it’s a storyboard, not a strategy. Leaders don’t eliminate uncertainty. They design for it. Here’s the playbook I use on CAPEX, EPC, and brownfield work, built from hard lessons and your comments on the post: >> Three levers, three owners - Time Contingency = portfolio shield (sponsor/PMO) - Duration Uncertainty = task realism (discipline leads) - Soft Constraints = flow control (planner/scheduler) But the win isn’t the tools. It’s how you govern them. 1. Buffer placement = power. If everyone “owns” the float, no one does. Embed buffers inside the activities that carry the risk (V&V, regression, brownfield tie-ins). That keeps accountability with the owner—and protects last-mile disciplines under pressure. 2. Two schedules, one truth. Use P6 allowances to maintain a forecast schedule the board can trust. Filter/dissolve those allowances to show an optimistic target that motivates delivery. Same data, two narratives, no games. 3. Risk register → schedule logic. Don’t park risks in a spreadsheet. Tie threats/opportunities to durations, soft constraints, and decision points. That’s how risk appetite becomes calendar reality. 3. AI as a second opinion, not a pilot. Run QSRA/Monte Carlo (e.g., Safran Risk, Acumen) to test contingencies and scenario plans. Great for confidence indices and “what if” conversations. Judgment still decides. 4. Change without chaos. Soft constraints are your guardrails in rolling-wave planning. They keep flow without over-engineering logic or hiding risk. >> Leadership dashboard (simple, decisive) • P-80 vs Target Δ (days): are we honest? • Buffer burn rate vs value delivered: are we spending time to buy outcomes? • Near-critical exposure: % of work ≤ X days float. • Decision latency: avg days from trigger → exec decision. • Rework ratio: planned vs unplanned rework in last mile. >> One-Week implement Day 1: Set buffer ownership rules (who owns which minutes, where). Day 2–3: Map top 10 risks into durations/constraints. Day 4: Build the dual view (forecast + motivator) from the same plan. Day 5: Run a quick QSRA, agree decision thresholds, and publish the dashboard. This is how planning becomes leadership. Not predicting everything, adapting without chaos. >> Which metric above would change behavior fastest in your organization, and why? — Enjoy this? Like, comment, and share it with your network. Follow Bertrand GUERARD for strategies that help project leaders move from firefighting to foresight. Get exclusive insights! Join our newsletter today: https://lnkd.in/eejfY67J —

🚨 A Hard Truth: Yes, you can have fixed dates in Scrum The purists will tell you otherwise. What I’m telling you is you can, just don’t fix scope. Scrum is built on empiricism. Every Sprint already has a deadline. Every Sprint Review gather your Scrum Team and stakeholders to provide feedback on the latest increment and inspect progress towards the Product Goal. And don't leave this out of the Sprint Review: ask what’s the most valuable, useful thing we can deliver in upcoming Sprints before our final release date? Think of the iron triangle, sometimes referred to as the triple constraints of time, cost, and scope. You can fix two sides, but not all three: ⏰ Fix time and cost → scope must flex 📦 Fix scope and time → cost explodes by trying to add more people (and Brooks’s Law reminds us this usually makes things later) 💀 Fix scope and cost → release dates will probably get pushed and you'll go over budget This isn’t just a Scrum reality. It works the same way with Waterfall. Trying to lock all three sides leads to poor quality, technical debt, team burnout, and cut corners. Scrum doesn’t allow quality to be the thing that flexes. Scrum makes the trade-offs transparent: ✅ A fixed date doesn’t mean fixed scope ✅ You maximize value within the boundary of time ✅ You use transparency, inspection, and adaptation to make smart trade-offs 💪 A fixed release date can even sharpen focus. It forces the team and stakeholders to ask: what matters most? What must be delivered, and what can wait? Waterfall treats a deadline as a contract. Scrum treats a deadline as a constraint for focus and creativity. And because progress is inspected every Sprint, you won’t discover you’re late at the last minute, you’ll adapt long before the crunch hits. 👉 The real question isn’t "Can Scrum work with deadlines?" It’s "Are you managing scope to meet the date, or pretending the date will flex for your scope?" Deadlines aren’t the enemy, pretending scope is fixed is.

Your vendors are bleeding you dry—not money, time. After managing 100+ vendor relationships across Microsoft, Instacart, and our portfolio companies, I built a system that cuts project timelines by 70%. The problem: You think hiring experts means abdicating responsibility. Wrong. Your vendors manage 50 other clients. You're not their priority unless you make yourself one. Four Frameworks That Actually Work: 1. Deconstruct Your Blockers Don't ask "what's the update?" Ask "what specific approval are we waiting for?" Financial? Technical? Legal? You can't fix what you can't name. I've seen 6-week delays resolved in one call once we identified the actual blocker. 2. Own the Project Management Your vendors are specialists, not coordinators. Schedule the calls. Create the docs. Connect the dots. Yes, you're doing their job. It's also the highest-leverage work you can do. 3. Demand Time Boxes "We're working on it" = infinite timeline "Engineering review takes 5-7 days" = accountability Even vague deadlines beat no deadlines. One portfolio company cut deployment cycles 60% just by requiring time estimates. 4. Confidence ≠ Commitment "We're confident about approval" isn't "It's approved." Push for binary answers. This distinction alone prevents countless surprises. The Process: Monday: Status email to all parties Wednesday: 15-min sync if blocked Friday: Document decisions + next actions Rule: Never let a week pass without documented progress Real Results: Applied this to 6 portfolio companies last quarter: Project completion: 12 weeks → 4 weeks Cost overruns: Down 40% Vendor performance: Up 70% Best part? Our vendors started using our process with other clients. Advanced Play: Create quarterly vendor scorecards. Measure response time, timeline accuracy, and technical competence. Share transparently. Performance improves within one quarter. Why This Matters: Every week of delay costs runway. Every vendor inefficiency is a competitor's opportunity. The companies that scale aren't the ones with the best vendors—they're the ones who best manage them. Your Move: Pick your worst vendor relationship. Apply one framework this week. Document what changes. Vendor management isn't sexy, but neither is running out of runway because every project takes 3x longer than it should. What vendor challenges are you facing? Share what's worked (or hasn't) below. — Enjoy this? ♻️ Repost it to your network and follow Kevin Henrikson for more. Weekly frameworks on AI, startups, leadership, and scaling. Join 2000+ subscribers today: https://lnkd.in/gstGkhJF

How do you handle tight deadlines when multiple stakeholders expect their work first? Every Business Analyst faces this moment: everything is urgent, everyone wants priority, and the deadline is non-negotiable. This is exactly where BA maturity is tested, not in normal timelines. Tight deadlines expose clarity, structure, and negotiation skills. Definition Handling tight deadlines with overlapping stakeholder demands means balancing scope, expectations, and delivery through structured prioritization and transparent communication. Purpose The goal is not to please everyone. The goal is to deliver the most critical value with the least friction while protecting quality. Identify Real Priority Most stakeholders think their request is urgent. Use business impact, risk, and dependency criteria to rank work logically instead of emotionally. Align Expectations Early Conflicts happen when silence continues for too long. A quick alignment call at the start prevents blame, rework, and relationship strain later. Control Scope Aggressively Under pressure, scope silently expands. Anchor every task to a defined objective and reject anything that does not help the deadline. Practical Application Imagine a regulatory change is due in three days. Product wants UI changes. Compliance wants risk notes. Engineering wants clarity on flows. Instead of reacting randomly, you run a 20-minute alignment call, present a priority matrix, lock the scope, assign owners, close ambiguity, and reduce a week’s chaos into a structured plan. Step-by-Step Framework 1. Gather all demands in one place. 2. Identify impact, urgency, and risk for each. 3. Build a simple priority matrix and validate it with stakeholders. 4. Lock final scope and document exclusions. 5. Break down the work into smallest deliverables. 6. Communicate progress twice a day until completion. Key Takeaway Tight deadlines do not require speed. They require clarity. When clarity goes up, pressure goes down, and delivery becomes predictable. How do you currently manage conflicting stakeholder priorities under pressure?

Thesis Project 2025? As part of the early stage of your project, you must assess the feasibility of your timeframe. It is essential that you can meet deadlines while maintaining quality. Checklist: 1. Scope ➜ Clarity of research question: specific, well-defined, and feasible within the given timeframe? ➜ Complexity of topic: theoretical exploration, data collection, experimental work, or fieldwork? And impact on the timeline. ➜ Expected outcomes: deliverables (e.g., thesis chapters, presentations) realistic within your timeframe? 2. Breakdown of key phases ➜ Proposal: include time for drafting, revising, and gaining approval. ➜ Literature review: time needed to collect, analyse, and write about existing studies (estimate). ➜ Data collection (1) surveys (time to design, distribute, and gather responses) (2) interviews (time to schedule, conduct, and transcribe interviews); (3) experiments (setup, execution, and troubleshooting). ➜ Account for the complexity of tools/software you need for data analysis and your familiarity with them. ➜ Adequate time for writing drafts, receiving feedback, and revising. ➜ Time for formatting, proofreading, and adhering to submission guidelines for your final review. 3. Availability of resources ➜ How often can you meet your supervisor for guidance and feedback? ➜ Do you have the necessary literature access, as well as library or database access, for journal articles and books? Remember your librarian. ➜ Are tools like statistical software, lab equipment, or field instruments readily available? ➜ Budget: do you have the financial resources for equipment, travel, technology, transcription and other services? 4. Time commitments ➜ How many hours per week can you realistically devote to your thesis? ➜ Work/life/thesis balance: consider commitments like part-time jobs, family, or health needs. ➜ Flexibility: can you adjust your schedule in case of delays or unforeseen events? 5. Institutional requirements ➜ Know all the submission deadlines. ➜ Factor in the time needed for ethical clearance or administrative approvals. 6. Risk assessment ➜ What could slow you down (e.g., participant recruitment issues, technology crashes)? ➜ Plan B: Do you have contingency plans for delays or resource unavailability? 7. Support network ➜ How frequently can you consult your supervisor or advisors? ➜ Are there peers, study groups, mentors, coaches, and faculty to exchange ideas and share resources? 8. Regular evaluation ➜ Set interim deadlines and milestones for each phase to monitor your progress. ➜ Be prepared to revise and adjust the scope or methods if your initial timeline proves too ambitious. By assessing these aspects and creating a detailed project plan, you will clearly understand the feasibility of your thesis within your timeframe. Do this early and upfront! Good luck if this is your project for 2025.

My recent work for a new client inspires today’s Tuesday Tip. This client is totally brilliant and usually business-savvy. Yet, she constantly encounters problems with her clients about the scope of the services she is supposed to perform for them. When I looked at a few of her contracts, I saw the problem immediately: she defined the scope of her services too broadly, which confused her clients and did not manage expectations. Let’s take a look at the language she was using: 🚫 Too Broad: "Service Provider agrees to perform consulting services as needed for the Client." 👉 Why This Is Problematic: This clause is vague and leaves the door wide open for misunderstandings. What kind of consulting services? How often? What deliverables are expected? Broad language like this creates significant risk for scope creep, unmet expectations, and even disputes. Instead, I drafted some different language for her to use: ✅ Specific and Clear: "Service Provider agrees to provide up to 10 hours in the next 2 months, starting on the date of this Agreement, of business strategy consulting, including: (1) developing a written quarterly business plan for next quarter; (2) a Zoom call advising on the current quarter's written marketing strategy provided by Client; and (3) reviewing next quarter financial projections with feedback provided in writing." 👉 Why This Works: This clause clearly outlines: Scope: What services will (and won’t) be performed. Limitations: Time is capped at 10 hours for two months. Expectations: Deliverables and required client actions (e.g., written, via Zoom) are defined. By being specific, both parties know exactly what’s included, which minimizes confusion, protects you from being overburdened, and reduces the risk of disputes. 💡 Pro Tip: The clearer your contracts, the more professional and trustworthy you appear—and the better protected you’ll be. Take the time to get it right, or work with someone who knows how to do it for you. *For educational purposes. Does not constitute legal advice.

Scope creep doesn’t kill projects. Refusing to say no does. I’ve watched teams add 30% scope in 6 weeks, without a single new outcome becoming clearer. It rarely starts with bad intent. But it starts with small, unchallenged decisions and expansions. If your project keeps growing while results stay fuzzy, this is for you. And this is the framework I use to avoid scope creep. 1. Start smaller than feels comfortable: If it cannot be finished in a defined window, it is not a goal. It's a wish. Define: – What will be built – What will not – Who owns the decision – By when it must be made Large initiatives slip because no one forced them into staying on path early. 2. Treat timelines as constraints: Timelines are boundaries. You cannot let an initiative go for ever. So, lock milestones to decisions and not to activity. The moment you promise beyond the current phase, scope has already started expanding. 3. Make tradeoffs visible in real terms: Extra scope is never neutral. “Adding a reporting dashboard” sounds small. But it may cost you 3 weeks and delayed revenue recognition by a month. More features delay value and delayed value has a cost. Translate ideas into: – Weeks – Dollars – Opportunity cost While abstractions expand, numbers constrain. 4. Say no without drama: Saying no is hard, but it isn’t negativity, it's focus. Pleasing everyone is how nothing gets shipped. If a request does not move the agreed outcome forward, it does not belong in the current scope. 5. Use the scope doc as a living contract: Your scope document is not admin work. It is your leverage in hard conversations. Revisit it and when needed, point to it calmly. And update it deliberately. If a scope document it is not referenced in discussions, then you're already digressing from the scope. Scope creep is rarely a tooling problem. It is often a decision discipline problem. ♻️ Know a PM drowning in “just one more thing”? Send this to them. ➕ Follow RAJESH MATHUR for delivery clarity and execution thinking.

One of the hardest things about shipping products is balancing this contradiction: you want to do the best possible work everywhere, but optimizing every piece takes time, and time is finite. I’ve done a poor job here countless times in my career. And I have seen many others struggle here, too. If you like your craft, it’s natural that you want to do your best all the time. But the best and good enough are different things: you must learn when and where to aim for each. This is easy to understand, but it’s very hard to put into practice when it is time to do the work. How do you convince creative individuals who love building things to build less? How do you get someone who enjoys technical challenges to try to make things simpler and more boring? There is a joke about never asking a surgeon if you need surgery. What about asking developers if they need to build the perfect interaction, abstraction, or library? Of course they do! I believe the solution here is not about good practices or coaching. Instead, it’s about creating a working environment that makes costs a first-level concern for those doing the work. Aiming for good enough won’t happen as an intellectual exercise in the abstract but out of pure necessity at execution time. How can you create such an environment? With constraints! I’ve seen 37signals apply these two consistently: First, timeboxing. Time is not infinite, so don’t pretend it is. Set a deadline and give people doing the work the power to adjust what’s built. "Fixed time, variable scope" is probably the single most powerful concept I have ever learned about shipping [1]. Second, scarcity. Tiny teams that want to ship need to make the most of their time. Why would you restate problems to simplify them when you have an army of colleagues to work on whatever is pending to ship? On the contrary, how won’t you do it if shipping depends on completing a long list of additional things on your plate? The specific team sizes will vary, but I believe the principle prevails: a sense of scarcity helps shipping. It may sound counterintuitive but consider the alternative. If neither time nor development bandwidth is a concern, how could people doing the work make the right call for the millions of decisions ahead? When it comes to shipping, constraints are not to be avoided or resisted but rather embraced and even induced. https://lnkd.in/dvGeniJV [1] https://lnkd.in/dTyR-ncd