Mike Pack

Howdy! I’m a principal engineer and senior startup leader with a passion for building, innovating, and solving tough problems. This is a glimpse into my brain.

5 minute read

This is Part Three of a three-part series on fixed timeline projects — a method that’s helped my teams ship faster, innovate more, and collaborate better.

In Part One, I broke down why traditional fixed-scope planning fails, especially in innovation work. In Part Two, I showed you how to plan and execute fixed timeline projects with a real-world example.

Now, let’s look at the results: what actually happens when you run these projects. Over the last six years, I’ve watched this framework succeed, stumble, evolve — and teach me something new every time.

In this final installment, I’ll break down the top three mistakes I’ve made, the key lessons I’ve learned, and the biggest upsides I’ve seen.

At the heart of it all is one concept: emergence.

Emergence

The defining quality of this methodology is emergence. Unlike fixed-scope, where outputs are largely prescribed, the outputs of a fixed timeline project are discovered. Think of it like a jazz performance: there’s a clear theme, but the magic happens in the improvisation.

When you put smart people together with clear outcomes, good things happen. Put the wrong people together, define the wrong outcome, or ignore the common mistakes outlined in this article, and you’re setting the stage for failure.

It takes courage to enable emergence, and hubris to avoid it. Emergent software adapts to reality. But because mistakes are politically unpopular, most leaders optimize for risk reduction instead of great software.

Let’s break down the most common missteps.

Mistake 1: The wrong spec

I’ve chased the perfect spec more times than I’d like to admit, but it doesn’t exist.

The spec’s fidelity should match your team’s maturity, the project’s complexity, your business’s risk tolerance, and stakeholder expectations.

Great teams in collaborative, experimental cultures need very little direction to deliver massive impact. But most teams aren’t operating in that environment. Shape accordingly.

If the team is still nascent, the project risky, or execs are nervous, add more structure to your spec. Don’t expect emergence on day one; work toward it.

Mistake 2: The wrong people

I’ve wasted too many cycles trying to make this process work with people who just weren’t interested in innovation. This method isn’t for everyone. It demands initiative, collaboration, and deep ownership.

Some folks don’t want to wear a product hat. Some prefer tactical, well-scoped work. Some aren’t social or self-directed.

These people will struggle, and they’ll slow the team down.

Coach where you can, reassign where you must. And be honest about whether they’re a fit for this kind of work.

Mistake 3: Poor expectation management

I’ve failed to set the right expectations more times than I’d like to admit. A fixed timeline gives you a clean stopping point, not a finished product. Software is never done.

Always anchor your communication around the problem you’re solving, not the solution you might ship.

When anyone asks, “What exactly are you building?”, the right answer is:

“We have a direction, but the solution is still evolving. I’ll share more as we learn.”

Even better: invite them in. Make them collaborators, not just consumers, of the process.

Getting it right takes more than just avoiding the traps, it takes intention. Here are the principles I rely on to make this process repeatable and resilient.

Tip 1: Cleanups and backlogs

Every project needs a cleanup phase — ~25% of the build length — to handle post-launch bugs, polish, and refactors. Put them on the roadmap. (See the example roadmap from Part Two.)

This is not time for “just one more feature.” Nor is it a catch-all for deferred requests.

Instead:

  • Maintain a backlog.
  • Cluster related requests into thematic projects.
  • Or set aside focused “backlog burn” weeks between larger cycles.

Protect the purpose of each phase: build time for delivery, cleanup for refinement, and backlog time for the rest.

Tip 2: Not a hammer

Don’t force fixed timelines where they just don’t fit.

It won’t work when:

  • Leadership doesn’t trust their teams
  • The work is pure execution
  • The team isn’t ready
  • The timelines are too short
  • Engineering is measured by output (eg velocity)

Use it when it works, and incrementally address the roadblocks. I’ve managed to use it for most teams, on most projects, since 2019, but YMMV.

Tip 3: Consider it an experiment

Healthy cultures experiment.

Frame fixed timeline projects as one of many ways you’re learning to maximize impact. Share progress, celebrate wins, and be honest about missteps.

This humility builds trust and invites others to help improve the process.

If you follow the tips above, and avoid the traps, the payoff is real. Here are the three biggest upsides I’ve experienced from running fixed timeline projects.

Upside 1: Better outcomes

Executives see market trends. Managers see product-market fit. Implementation teams see what users actually do.

When executives define the why, managers clarify the what, and teams own the how, you close the gap between vision and reality.

Upside 2: Morale

Autonomy fuels morale. It’s that simple.

When teams own the work — not just the execution — they care more, collaborate more, and enjoy it more. That energy compounds.

Upside 3: Strategic planning

Often, the hardest part of software isn’t shipping, it’s knowing whether it worked.

When executives stop micromanaging delivery, they can focus on outcomes. That makes them better leaders, not just better planners.

Conclusion

Fixed timeline projects aren’t a silver bullet, but they are a powerful tool.

They bring structure to chaos. They empower teams to own outcomes. And they shift companies from a culture of output to a culture of impact.

But most of all: they reveal how your team actually works, and how to make it better.

After six years of running fixed timeline projects, I’ve learned this: the best outcomes don’t come from perfect specs or detailed tickets. They come from alignment, clarity, and the freedom to adapt.

If you’re ready to try it, don’t wait for permission. Shape a problem. Set a timeline. Invite your best people. And let the work emerge.

Finally, reach out. I’d love to hear how it’s unfolding for you.