52724Re: Story point estimating - ideal time vs relative scale
- Sep 28, 2011There's no reason why "ideal" hours can't be used in the estimation process, as long as everyone understands and agrees that an "ideal" hour != real hour.
We used ideal hours for years, and our velocity was consistently at ~60% of real hours. A handful of managers would always ask where we were "losing" productivity, and I'd basically say "everywhere", which was a nice way of saying that "sh&t happens".
Fundamentally, it doesn't matter what unit of measurement you use to estimate a PBI, as long as you apply it consistently. Your velocity will be your guide to how much stuff to pull off the backlog each Sprint.
If you take a single story, and have two relatively teams estimate it, then you just might get to very different answers. That's OK, because the team with the higher number will appear to have a higher velocity, but the fact remains that they'll both get the same amount of real work done.
I always believed that the U.S. should have switched to the metric system, so I can travel 100 on the highways. :-)
--- In email@example.com, Michael Jones <michaelhardwinjones@...> wrote:
> Hi Ron,
> I suppose over time, as a team, we would get a sense of how much work the
> team can do in a sprint, at a very high level - for example "2 medium-weight
> new features and 8 bug fixes". That's probably just as accurate as
> meticulously adding up the micro-estimates for all the development items. Is
> that what you're getting at? But by keeping things at such a high level we
> may lose the ability to understand the rate at which the work is being done
> during the sprint. And we also don't have a commonly-agreed measure of
> average performance (or velocity) between sprints (just a notion in our
> heads of what's reasonable, which may vary between team members).
> So the inclusion of *x *amount of work in a sprint may feel too arbitrary if
> not backed up by numbers (i.e. that *x *bundle of work equates to e.g. 20
> ideal hours, or to 20 story points etc). I do get the point though that
> those estimates are ultimately arbitrary themselves.
> Look forward to your thoughts,
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 3:53 PM, RonJeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
> > **
> > Hi Michael,
> > On Sep 27, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Michael Jones wrote:
> > So I guess by not having them we lose a sense of what and how much we can
> > do in the coming sprint, and in our sprints in general.
> > Is there some other way to have that "sense"?
> > Ron Jeffries
> > www.XProgramming.com <http://www.xprogramming.com>
> > I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way. -- Jessica Rabbit
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>