Outcomes at a Glance

• Team size reduced from 100 to ~50 people for Phase 1
• 2× faster delivery in Phase 2 (completed in 2/3 the time), even though it was 50% larger
• 60% reduction in cost per LOC (from $45 to $18 per LOC)
• Significant project cost savings and improved work environment
• Delivered both phases successfully with a right‑sized, more efficient team

Context

A Director of Engineering for a major software engineering firm was asked to estimate a large multi‑phase project (2–3 million lines of code) for a customer in Hong Kong. The customer proposed staffing the project with 100 people to meet an aggressive timeline — a typical but risky reaction when facing a large scope and tight deadlines.
Despite having completed more than 200 assessments, the engineering director needed solid, quantitative evidence to challenge the customer’s plan.

Barriers

• Customer insisted on an oversized team of 100 developers
• Belief that “more people = faster delivery,” despite industry data showing the opposite
• High risk of schedule slip, rework, communication overload, and quality degradation
• No objective way to demonstrate that a smaller team would deliver better results

What QSM Delivered

Using SLIM‑Estimate, the engineering director modeled the project and demonstrated that a system of this size required only 25–30 developers, not 100. The SLIM analysis exposed the customer’s plan as significantly overstaffed, increasing both cost and risk.
Armed with quantitative evidence, the director successfully negotiated a 50% reduction in team size.

The results were dramatic:

• Phase 1 completed successfully with the smaller team
• Phase 2 — which was 50% larger — finished in just 2/3 of the time
• Cost efficiency improved from $45 to $18 per line of code
• A smaller, quieter workspace boosted developer focus and productivity

By right‑sizing the team, the company delivered faster, cheaper, and with higher quality — and avoided the pitfalls of a large, inefficient team structure.