Hum... The way to GP is written looks more like the scenario that the dev manager/PM/whatever comes to the team with the problem and gets the 1 year estimate, says "it's too expensive" and closes the project. A few weeks later, somebody states the problem again and pushes the manager to get another estimate, that is too large, so the project is closed.
Repeat that until the problem gets a singularly misleading wording, or some key person is away, and the project gets a 6 weeks estimation. It will take 19 months anyway, because nothing changed, but for 17 of those you will be late.
(Anyway, I have never seen a problem statement to be well defined enough for this to be the problem.)
> Repeat that until the problem gets a singularly misleading wording, or some key person is away, and the project gets a 6 weeks estimation.
At that point we're definitely at a point of "severe company process problems" and the method outlined in the original article probably isn't feasible - I can't really imagine that manager accepting the time required to create a GOOD estimate - but I've definitely seen it work properly at some of my jobs.
Repeat that until the problem gets a singularly misleading wording, or some key person is away, and the project gets a 6 weeks estimation. It will take 19 months anyway, because nothing changed, but for 17 of those you will be late.
(Anyway, I have never seen a problem statement to be well defined enough for this to be the problem.)