Field Notes
Effort bands beat fake precision in maintainability notes
Why our reports use small, medium, and large instead of hour estimates pulled from thin air.
Clients sometimes ask for hour estimates on every recommendation. We resist. Outside consultants who skim a module for a few days cannot honestly price a refactor the way an embedded team can.
What we do instead
Recommendations in a UX & Maintainability Review carry effort bands:
- Small — localized change, low regression risk, fits inside a normal sprint slice
- Medium — crosses a few modules, needs a design decision, deserves a spike
- Large — architectural, multi-sprint, or blocked by missing tests
The bands exist to support sequencing, not procurement theater. Your team still owns the calendar estimate.
When numbers appear
If we have seen the same class of change across prior desktop clients, we may offer a range in conversation — never as a contractual commitment inside the report. The written artifact stays qualitative on time and quantitative on priority.
That distinction keeps trust intact when the first “quick win” turns out to touch a global state object nobody remembered.