Morning friend ☕️

Walter White is back.

Some of you may remember Heisenberg from our earlier chat about uncertainty.

This time, he has arrived for the distance between important and approved.

Project Heisenberg already has a name, a team and a proposed platform modernisation.

Richard and Anand can make the case for it: faster change, lower support effort and safer operation.

The difficult part begins after everyone nods.

Should the company act now, stage the work or wait? What would each choice require? What would have to move to make room?

Welcome to the trailer for Project Heisenberg.

Grab your coffee.

Let’s chat!

Thandi is the developing leader at the centre of the Scary Management novel I'm writing. She becomes a key player in Project Heisenberg, a massive fintech project that could make or break her career.

For this blog series, we zoom out to Richard Vale, the Chief Information Officer, and Anand, the Head of Software Engineering.

Richard needs a recommendation on the project he can take upward. Anand needs to know what engineering can responsibly support.

Project Heisenberg is a fictional proposal to replace an established fintech platform. Richard and Anand believe the evidence supports replacement: faster change, lower support effort and safer operation.

But a credible engineering recommendation does not settle the company’s decision.

Should the company commit to the broader modernisation now, start with a bounded first phase or wait? What would each choice require? What would have to move to make room?

AI has also been suggested for the migration, before anyone has decided which work it should perform or how they would know whether it helped.

By the time a proposal like this reaches engineering, it may already have urgency, attention and a name people recognise. You are asked what it will take to deliver. The harder question is what the company should commit to, and why this choice deserves priority over other legitimate work.

I’m working through similar leadership questions at SDM level myself. I want to understand the CEO, CIO and Engineering Head’s thinking and needs so I can support my Engineering Head more usefully.

I’m still working that out.

Project Heisenberg and its characters belong to the fictional world of Scary Management. The management questions reflect common patterns in large projects.

Richard leaves the executive pack between them.

"The next update needs a recommendation."

Anand: "On replacing the system?"

"On whether the company should commit."

Anand: "My recommendation is to migrate."

"That is the engineering answer."

Anand holds his gaze. "It is the answer the platform evidence supports."

"Then make it a choice the company can see."

Anand turns to the Benefits page. "Faster change. Lower support effort. Safer operation."

"And the alternatives?"

Anand: "Act now, stagger it or wait. Each carries a different cost."

Richard taps the page. "Put those costs here."

Richard looks at the next item. "There is also a request to use AI in the migration."

"For which work?"

"That has not been decided."

Anand: "Then it stays outside the benefit case."

Each episode follows the project through one decision and offers one practical move you can try in your own work.

Translate the project into a business improvement: what should become better, what waiting would cost and why the case deserves attention now.

Test whether the platform is a material constraint and whether the proposed change would address it.

Recommend whether to commit now, start with a bounded first phase or wait—and state what engineering can support and what it cannot yet prove.

Make the consequences for other legitimate work visible before the choice is made.

Use evidence to recommend continuing, changing direction or stopping, including when the evidence is not yet strong enough.

AI may have a place in those decisions too. Which work might it change? How would Richard and Anand evaluate it? Until they can answer those questions, no saving belongs in the recommendation.

You may not own the company’s commitment.

Your team may still hold evidence about feasibility, operational risk, dependencies or the cost of waiting that should influence it.

For a major project, try asking your leader:

What evidence would change our recommendation: committing now, starting with a bounded first phase or waiting?

That question turns an apparent yes-or-no decision into something your team can examine.

Perhaps the evidence shows that a full migration path creates an operational risk that a bounded first phase avoids. Perhaps it reveals that waiting carries a cost nobody has put on the page. It might also expose a recommendation with no credible alternative or review point.

You do not need a seat at the executive table to contribute that evidence.

You need one clear observation about your own work, and somewhere sensible to put it.

A strong project case does more than list benefits. It shows what the organisation should commit to now, the consequences of each credible alternative and the evidence that could change the recommendation.

Until next time, friend!☕️

Vaugan