Project Management Techniques For Engineers

As an advisor to tech scaleups, and a former CTO and SVP of Engineering,  I've often encountered a familiar CEO complaint: "Our engineering team is too slow!" However, focusing solely on increasing individual productivity is rarely the solution. Sometimes the answer is changing the organizational structure. 🔍 The Issue with Flat Structures: Time to market was a major problem in a scale-up I advised, even though they had a flat structure where 40+ engineers reported directly to the VP of engineering and all of them shared equal accountability to the delivery of the software. 🚧 The Consequences: Major overcommitment.  People raised their hands to take on work even if the group was super extended. There was nobody that fully understood the team’s capacity vs the actual workload they took on. This approach led to a lack of predictability, chronic delays, unhappy customers, and ultimately, a tarnished reputation. 🛠️ The Solution: Transitioning to a hierarchical structure with focused teams and accountable experienced leaders was the game-changer. This shift brought in clarity, accountability, and much-needed structure. 📈 The Results: Predictable schedules, improved customer satisfaction, and a thriving engineering culture. ✅ Takeaways for Your Organization: Examine your organization with critical eyes: Is your ownership and accountability structure clear? Are your teams sized and focused appropriately? Do your leaders have the authority to deliver effectively? For more on the case study and about building a sustainable, efficient, and customer-centric engineering team in the blog post. 💭 I'm curious to hear your thoughts: Have you faced similar challenges? How did you address them? Let's share insights and grow together! #EngineeringManagement #Leadership #Productivity  _______________ ➡️ I am Talila Millman, a fractional CTO,  a management advisor, and a leadership coach. I help CEOs and their C-suite grow profit and scale through optimal Product portfolio and an operating system for Product Management and Engineering excellence.  📘 My book The TRIUMPH Framework: 7 Steps to Leading Organizational Transformation will be published in Spring 2024 https://lnkd.in/eVYGkz-e

I've trained 600+ project managers over the last 3 years. From budding teams in start-ups to large-scale projects in multinational corporations. Hre are 9 challenges and recommendations frequently shared. 1) Scope Creep Management It's daunting when project deliverables keep changing. Without clear boundaries and pushback, projects will derail. Highly recommend reading "Scope and Requirements Management" and "Effective PM and BA Role Collaboration" to solidify your scope management strategies. 2) Time Management Effective PMs understand that every minute counts. Design an “Ideal Project Week” and schedule critical tasks. Risk assessment? Schedule it. Stakeholder meeting? Schedule it. Documentation review? Schedule it. 3) Stakeholder Engagement Project Managers need to skillfully manage stakeholder expectations. Instead of just updating on progress, send out agendas ahead of stakeholder meetings. Focus on critical discussion points, and be prepared to address the top concerns. 4) Resource Allocation It's tempting to bring in the best talents, but ensure they align with the project's current needs. Don’t bring in a high-level consultant when you need hands-on expertise on the ground. 5) Driving Team Accountability Inconsistent team updates and feedback loops can hurt a project's momentum. As the PM authority, establish regular checkpoints. Embrace the mantra: “Consistency is the heartbeat of projects.” 6) Clear Project Objectives If stakeholders or team members can't quickly summarize the project's goal and outcomes, there’s a clarity issue. Consider methodologies like SMART goals to crystallize your objectives. 7) Handling Conflicts Project disputes, if not addressed promptly, can escalate and impact delivery. Address conflicts head-on. Familiarize yourself with techniques from "Crucial Conversations" for effective resolution. 8) Budgeting Managing finances is critical. A well-told narrative about your project’s ROI and value proposition is invaluable. Understand your budget's narrative, including how resources are allocated, potential ROI, and long-term project benefits. This narrative informs future budgeting decisions. 9) Project Strategy Many project managers grapple with succinctly defining their approach. A clearly articulated strategy not only provides direction but aids in stakeholder buy-in. I highly recommend diving into the "Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK)" to sharpen your strategic skills. How do you prioritize and balance stakeholder engagement with ensuring timely project delivery, especially when faced with conflicting interests?

Early in my career, I said “yes” to every: + client request, scope adjustment, and design revision because, I thought that’s what professionals do, only to later realise that I was being taken for granted. My payments would end up getting delayed, and my opinions would not be taken seriously because the clients started seeing me as a mere executor of their ideas, not as a design partner. So, by the end of it all, I would lose my creative liberty in such projects, take the blame for badly executed work by contractors, and lose my profit margins as well. Now, if you are dealing with something similar, here’s how you can overcome it: 1/ If a client wants to change the design brief, project timelines, or the extent of your involvement, it needs to be discussed, documented, and priced accordingly. 2/ Not every client's suggestion needs to be accepted to maintain a good relationship. Your role as a designer is to guide decisions rather than blindly agree with them. 3/ Unlimited flexibility often leads to unlimited revisions. Defining the number of design iterations upfront helps protect both your time and your creative intent. 4/ If design changes are being discussed informally, they will impact you formally. Putting things on email or contract makes people accountable for their word. 5/ Clear boundaries around scope, communication, and responsibilities are what position you as an industry expert. Have you made the mistake of being too accommodating in your projects? How was that experience for you? Let me know in the comments.

Let's be honest: extensive cross-team coordination is often a symptom of a larger problem, not an inevitable challenge that needs solving. When teams spend more time in alignment than on building, it's time to reconsider your organizational design. Conway's Law tells us that our systems inevitably mirror our communication structures. When I see teams drowning in coordination overhead, I look at these structural factors: - Team boundaries that cut across frequent workflows: If a single user journey requires six different teams to coordinate, your org structure might be optimized for technical specialization at the expense of delivery flow. - Mismatched team autonomy and system architecture: Microservices architecture with monolithic teams (or vice versa) creates natural friction points that no amount of coordination rituals can fully resolve. - Implicit dependencies that become visible too late: Teams discover they're blocking each other only during integration, indicating boundaries were drawn without understanding the full system dynamics. Rather than adding more coordination mechanisms, consider these structural approaches: - Domain-oriented teams over technology-oriented teams: Align team boundaries with business domains rather than technical layers to reduce cross-team handoffs. - Team topologies that acknowledge different types of teams: Platform teams, enabling teams, stream-aligned teams, and complicated subsystem teams each have different alignment needs. - Deliberate discovery of dependencies: Map the invisible structures in your organization before drawing team boundaries, not after. Dependencies are inevitable and systems are increasingly interconnected, so some cross-team alignment will always be necessary. When structural changes aren't immediately possible, here's what I've learned works to keep things on the right track: 1️⃣ Shared mental models matter more than shared documentation. When teams understand not just what other teams are building, but why and how it fits into the bigger picture, collaboration becomes fluid rather than forced. 2️⃣ Interface-first development creates clear contracts between systems, allowing teams to work autonomously while maintaining confidence in integration. 3️⃣ Regular alignment rituals prevent drift. Monthly tech radar sessions, quarterly architecture reviews, and cross-team demonstrations create the rhythm of alignment. 4️⃣ Technical decisions need business context. When engineers understand user and business outcomes, they make better architectural choices that transcend team boundaries. 5️⃣ Optimize for psychological safety across teams. The ability to raise concerns outside your immediate team hierarchy is what prevents organizational blind spots. The best engineering leaders recognize that excessive coordination is a tax on productivity. You can work to improve coordination, or you can work to reduce the need for coordination in the first place.

For 10 years as a construction engineer, I would plan any package of work like this… 1. Lay out a structure Break down the scope into logical chunks. Usually, these are physical components (Pile cap, headstock, bridge deck etc.). But not always. However YOU think about the scope is best for the rest of the steps to flow. Planners would call this the WBS, but who needs the jargon. 2. List the tasks Virtually build the components in your mind and just list the steps. Don’t worry about relationships, durations, calendars or anything else - it will only break your flow. Get the steps down in order. 3. Add relationships Link together the tasks to make sequences. Focus on physical constraints (what planners would call “hard logic”) rather than sequences of crews or equipment. For example, the road surface needs to be done between the line marking… that kinda stuff. 4. Estimate durations Give your best guesstimate of durations for all the tasks. It’ll be wrong approximately 100% of the time, but you need to start somewhere. If you are completely at a loss, grab a foreman or site supervisor, they love estimating durations 😉 5. Add constrained resources Don’t bother adding every resource each task needs (you don’t have the time). But, most engineers know if their project has a limited concrete supply, struggles to get enough electricians or has space constraints on site. Add this information to your tasks and check for conflicts. 6. Verify durations and optimise the sequence. Ok, now you need help. Get the most experienced people in your team together (sure, get your manager but supervisors and leading hands are better) and walk through the sequences. Ask for validation of durations and search for ways to pull things forward. This will usually kick off a discussion about crew sizes and their flow. Add this to your plan as you update the durations. Ps. This resource step is super easy if you are doing this in Aphex. 7. Prepare the plan for communication. You have a plan that the right people are bought into. Now, you need everyone to understand it. If you have subcontracted teams, assign them. If you need a QA inspector, assign them. If you need… you get it. 8. Communicate, communicate, communicate. Host a briefing session to run through the plan, recap short-term sequences at pre-start meetings, consistently update the plan and reissue it to everyone. Keep repeating the plans until you are sick of hearing your own voice. For over a decade, I found this was the fastest way to build a workable plan. It works in Aphex, in a spreadsheet, on on a whiteboard, or using slate and chalk for that matter.

The biggest mistake in large engineering projects is thinking they are only technical decisions. In reality, they are decisions about risk, timing, and long term consequences. Over the years while building and executing industrial projects at SES, I have noticed something interesting. One large project can quietly move a company several years forward. The wrong one can do the exact opposite. Not immediately, but slowly through stretched teams, cash pressure, and execution fatigue. The difference is rarely intelligence. It usually comes down to the way the opportunity is evaluated before saying yes. When I look at large scale engineering opportunities, I try to step back and think through a few simple principles that keep the decision grounded. First. Strategic fit before revenue. ↳ A project may look attractive on paper, but if it does not strengthen our capabilities or move us closer to the kind of work we want to be known for, revenue alone is not a strong enough reason to pursue it. Second. Thinking beyond the first outcome. ↳ The first year of a project usually looks manageable. The real pressure often comes later through delayed payments, working capital stretch, regulatory challenges, or client concentration. Looking ahead helps avoid surprises. Third. Reversible and irreversible decisions. ↳ Some decisions can be corrected quickly. Others stay with you for years. Large capital commitments, technology bets, or long term contracts need far deeper thinking than decisions that can be adjusted easily. Fourth. Margin for the unexpected. ↳ In engineering projects, timelines shift and costs change. If a project only works when everything goes perfectly, it is probably too fragile. Fifth. The uncomfortable question. ↳ Before moving ahead, I sometimes ask the team to imagine that the project did not work out three years later. The reasons people share in that discussion are often more revealing than any presentation. One more thing I always remind myself. ↳ Look carefully at who carries the downside risk. Over time I have realised that leaders are not just approving projects. They are deciding where the organisation’s capital, reputation, and energy will go. Not every opportunity deserves execution. Not every growth opportunity is strategic. And sometimes the most important decision a leader makes is simply choosing not to proceed.

𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐝𝐨 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐩𝐬𝐞𝐬? The difference is rarely talent. It is operating discipline at the system level. Most teams adopt Scrum as a process checklist. High-performing teams treat it as a control mechanism for uncertainty. At scale, speed does not come from working harder. It comes from reducing informational entropy across execution. → Transparency is operational truth, not visibility reporting • Work, priorities, and constraints are made unambiguous across stakeholders • Decision-making friction drops because interpretation gaps disappear • Execution becomes aligned by default, not negotiation → Inspection is early signal detection, not ceremony • Progress is validated continuously against intended outcomes • Deviations are surfaced while correction cost is still low • System health is monitored, not assumed → Adaptation is structured responsiveness, not reactive change • Feedback loops directly influence delivery direction • Plans evolve without destabilizing execution flow • Learning is embedded into the delivery cycle When these three pillars are treated as governance primitives, not rituals, teams stop managing tasks and start managing flow. The measurable outcome is not just faster delivery. It is fewer surprises, higher predictability, and lower coordination overhead. Scrum does not create speed. It removes the friction that prevents it from emerging. P.S. In your experience, which of these three pillars tends to degrade first when teams scale beyond a certain size? Follow Shraddha Sahu for more insights

Earlier in my career, I sat in my first team retrospective.  It was going horribly. The founder opened with everything that had gone wrong. I remember that we were all trying to avoid his eye contact. Nobody wanted to speak. He called on our team lead for answers. ❌ He didn't argue with him.  ❌ He didn't even get defensive. Calmly, he just said: "Thank you. But do you mind if we start with what we committed to  last time?" ⭐ That was the R (Review). It brought the room back to something concrete. No accusations, just what we said we'd do and whether  we had. Then he moved on to what had gone right from  his view. Not just the metrics, the human stuff. ⭐ That was the E (Establish what worked). You could feel the room soften.  People stopped bracing and started leaning in. Then it was time to surface the facts. ⭐ That was the S. "So what actually happened?" The founder cut in, same tone as before. He didn't take the bait. Instead, he invited people to speak.  To share their evidence, their reports, their numbers. By this point, people were excited to share what they  knew to be true. That's when he asked: "What did we need that we didn't have?" ⭐ There was the E (Explore what was missing). You could feel the blame leaving the room. Finally, he said: "Before I wrap up... can we all commit to one thing?" ⭐That was the T (Take action). I've thought about how he ran that room many times since.  And for what it's worth, here's how I think about it now: R — Review what you committed to last time E — Establish what worked, including the human stuff S — Surface the facts without assigning blame E — Explore what was missing T — Take one clear action before you leave Every retrospective will look different. No two teams are the same. But the ones that actually change something tend to have one thing in common. People leave owning something - not blaming someone. ♻️ If this resonates, repost for your network. 📌 Follow Amy Gibson for more leadership insights.

🚨 A Hard Truth: A Sprint Retrospective without action is like meal-prepping for your diet on Sunday and ordering fast food takeout all week. Too many Sprint Retrospectives turn into: ☠️ Complaint sessions with no action ☠️ Déjà vu conversations that repeat every Sprint ☠️ Endless brainstorming without narrowing down to one concrete action item ☠️ Pointing fingers instead of solving problems ☠️ A parking lot for every problem the organization will not solve ☠️ Meetings with sticky notes that vanish into the void ☠️ Feel-good chats that end in "we should…" but never "we will…" Here are some ideas to break the cycle: 💡Dot Vote → Cut through the noise to find the top priority 💡Start Small → One improvement per Sprint beats 10 forgotten ones. 💡Reserve Capacity → Plan time for improvements in Sprint Planning. 💡Make It Visible → Add an improvement idea to the Sprint Backlog. 💡Assign Ownership → Someone (or a small pair) drives the change. 💡Check Back → Inspect the outcome next Sprint Retrospective 💡Celebrate Wins → Highlight when a change sticks. Reinforcement makes continuous improvement contagious. 💡Rotate Facilitation → Let different team members lead the Sprint Retrospective so it does not feel like a Scrum Master’s ritual. 🔄 When the team feels overwhelmed by problems outside their control, try the Sphere of Influence, also known as Circles and Soup (from Diana Larsen and Esther Derby’s Agile Retrospectives): 1. Draw three concentric circles: inner = Control, middle = Influence, outer = Out of Our Control (often called Soup). 2. Sort sticky notes into each circle. 3. Focus on Control and Influence. Those are the changes the team can own. 4. Treat the Out of Our Control items as impediments the Scrum Master and leaders can work on as takeaways. This shifts the Sprint Retrospective from powerless venting to empowered problem-solving. 👉 Your Sprint Retrospective is not broken. Your follow-through is. ⚡ Improve, or stop wasting everyone’s time.

Leaders don’t build strong teams by accident. They build systems that support feedback, safety, and accountability. Retrospectives are one of those systems. They’re short, structured meetings where teams reflect on how they worked—so they can work better next time. When done well, retrospectives build: ↳ Psychological Safety – People feel safe to speak up ↳ Organizational Learning – Teams retain and apply lessons ↳ Engagement & Ownership – Promotes accountability and shared success Start with a simple structure. Keep your retrospectives predictable to invite engagement. Use this 4-question agenda: ↳ What went well? ↳ What didn’t go well? ↳ What do we need to change or keep doing? ↳ What actions do we need to take? Once your foundation is in place, here are four best practices to make your retrospectives more effective: ✅ Best Practice #1 – Create Psychological Safety ↳ Open with intent: “We’re here to learn. This is a safe space and there’s no judgment.” ↳ Thank people for their input—even if you disagree ↳ Make it a closed meeting with only the execution team ↳ Use sticky notes or digital whiteboards to gather input ↳ Timebox each agenda item ↳ Ask: “Is there anything here we should explore further?” ✅ Best Practice #2 – Ask Great Questions Great retros are driven by great questions. Use open-ended prompts like: ↳ “Can you share an example?” ↳ “What made that challenging?” ↳ “What is the action?” ↳ Avoid yes/no questions—explore context and nuance. ✅ Best Practice #3 – The Leader’s Role in a Retrospective Leaders set the tone—intentionally or not. ↳ Use active listening ↳ Hold back opinions until others share ↳ Thank input, don’t evaluate it ↳ Coach leaders ahead of time: “You’ll be prompted to respond at the end.” ↳ Encourage reflection, not resolution ✅ Best Practice #4 – Commit to Action ↳ Choose one improvement to implement next sprint ↳ Assign ownership and next steps ↳ Report back: “Here’s what we changed because of your feedback.” Retrospectives build trust, encourage ongoing feedback, and enable small, consistent improvements over time. When teams learn consistently, they grow consistently. Do you do retrospectives in your team and how have they helped you? ♻️ Repost to help more teams make reflection part of their rhythm. ➕ Follow Morgan Davis, PMP, PROSCI, MBA for frameworks that drive operational excellence.