“We need this feature by end of quarter—the competition just launched theirs.”
You’ve heard it. Maybe you’ve said it. The pressure to deliver faster isn’t new, but something has shifted. We now have Agile backlogs, OKRs, sprint commitments, and velocity charts—tools that promise predictability. Yet somehow, the impossible deadline conversations haven’t disappeared. They’ve just acquired new vocabulary.
The competitor launches a feature that wasn’t in your roadmap. Marketing commits to a launch date in a sales deck. The board asks why velocity is “only 32 points” this sprint. And engineering sits in the middle, expected to negotiate reality with people who believe software is simply a matter of working harder.
Now add another layer: vendors promising AI will solve your productivity problems. Why invest months in process improvement—teaching estimation, building planning discipline, earning trust through consistency—when a tool claims it can 10x your output tomorrow?
Because broken fundamentals don’t get fixed by better tools. They just get automated.
Who Pays When Reality Doesn’t Cooperate?
I worked with the IT arm of an insurance business—15 people serving internal stakeholders who treated them like an order-taking department. Priorities changed constantly. Mid-sprint interruptions were routine. The two-week sprint had become a bitter joke.
By the time I arrived, trust had evaporated. Business asked: “when will it be done?” Product backlogs were treated as binding contracts rather than starting conversations. Everyone was working hard. Nothing was working well.
The problem wasn’t the methodology. It wasn’t the tools. It was accountability.
We called a joint meeting—engineering and business stakeholders in one room. I asked a simple question: “When we interrupt a sprint, who’s at fault?”
The room went quiet.
We worked out rules that fit their context. If a “critical” requirement emerged mid-sprint that should have been in the backlog? Product Owner’s miss. Business absorbs the cost of re-planning. If engineering discovers a story was wildly misestimated and has to drop it halfway through? Engineering’s accountability. IT owns that failure.
The philosophy was simple: make the cost of disruption visible and assign it fairly. Not to punish, but to create honest conversations about trade-offs.
Within three months—four to six sprints—the team was consistently delivering what they committed to at sprint planning. Not because they worked harder. Not because they adopted a new tool. Because nobody interrupted the sprint anymore. When you know who pays for chaos, chaos becomes expensive.
No AI assistant wrote those rules. No velocity optimization tool created that accountability. It required difficult conversations, context-specific agreements, and the discipline to honor them.
The Age of Tools Hasn’t Solved This
The Age of Tools has brought AI assistant tools that are genuinely useful. They can accelerate coding, catch bugs, and suggest improvements. But they don’t fix misaligned incentives. They don’t create accountability for interruptions. They don’t teach your team to estimate well or your stakeholders to respect planning boundaries.
If anything, new tools have made date negotiation harder. Velocity charts imply predictability that doesn’t exist. OKRs create artificial urgency. “Sprint commitment” sounds like a promise when it’s actually a forecast. And now AI promises to make developers 10x more productive—which stakeholders hear as “we can demand 10x more work.”
Watts Humphrey wrote about the Burning Market as a motivator—competitive pressure pushing organisations to move faster or risk irrelevance. That pressure is real. The solution isn’t to pretend it doesn’t exist, or to hope the next tool will solve it. It’s to build systems where honest conversations about capability and capacity can happen without fear.
When your competitors seem to move fast (and faster than you), don’t catch up by instantly trying to move faster. From my days trying to play tennis, when the opponent’s ball is faster than yours, you don’t try to hit harder, you try to prepare a bit earlier! For software development, the lesson is to move sustainably and build things that work. This is the winning ticket in the long run!
Start With Process, Not Promises
Well-planned engineering work is seldom missed. The corollary is also true: poorly-planned work is reliably late, no matter how good your tools are. If your team is constantly missing dates, the answer isn’t to adopt AI coding assistants or the latest project management platform. It’s to get better at planning.
Teach estimation. Create space for monitoring and adjustment. Agree on the rules for interruption. Make the cost of chaos visible. Build trust through consistent delivery, not heroic effort or technology silver bullets.
The date negotiation doesn’t go away. The promise of faster tools won’t make it disappear. But when you have evidence, process, and a track record, you’re negotiating from strength rather than desperation. And when you do adopt new tools—AI or otherwise—you’ll use them to amplify good fundamentals, not paper over broken ones.
While the principles discussed here are straightforward, their effective implementation often requires a nuanced understanding of your team’s unique context. That’s where evidence-based coaching makes the difference, accelerating your journey to sustainable productivity. Let’s explore how tailored coaching can help you build trust through consistent delivery and navigate impossible deadline pressures with confidence. Reach out today! and let’s turn your date negotiations from conflicts into collaborative trade-off conversations.
Discover more from The Software Coach
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
