Restoring Commitment Reliability From 10% to 80%

Restoring Commitment Reliability From 10% to 80%

Jan 15, 2026

Jan 15, 2026

The Challenge

Multiple Scrum and Kanban teams consistently missed commitments. Story-point velocity created false confidence, forecasts were optimistic, and leadership had little visibility into real delivery risk. Escalations increased and trust in planning eroded.

The Approach

I replaced velocity-based forecasting with flow-based probabilistic forecasting using historical cycle time data.

WIP limits were stabilized, aging work was surfaced, and forecast ranges were communicated in confidence intervals instead of single-point commitments.

Decision guardrails were introduced to reduce last-minute scope changes and escalation loops.

The Outcome

Commitment reliability improved from ~10% to 80%+ within two quarters.

Forecasts became data-backed and confidence-based, enabling more accurate roadmap planning and capital allocation.

Escalations decreased, and leadership regained trust in delivery commitments.

The Challenge

Multiple Scrum and Kanban teams consistently missed commitments. Story-point velocity created false confidence, forecasts were optimistic, and leadership had little visibility into real delivery risk. Escalations increased and trust in planning eroded.

The Approach

I replaced velocity-based forecasting with flow-based probabilistic forecasting using historical cycle time data.

WIP limits were stabilized, aging work was surfaced, and forecast ranges were communicated in confidence intervals instead of single-point commitments.

Decision guardrails were introduced to reduce last-minute scope changes and escalation loops.

The Outcome

Commitment reliability improved from ~10% to 80%+ within two quarters.

Forecasts became data-backed and confidence-based, enabling more accurate roadmap planning and capital allocation.

Escalations decreased, and leadership regained trust in delivery commitments.