3 ms·
I always use factor 3. I just think: based on what I know now, how long would it probably take to write it - optimistic -? Multiplying this by 3 is justified
by ToJans 9y ago
I always use factor 3.
I just think: based on what I know now, how long would it probably take to write it - optimistic -?
Multiplying this by 3 is justified by the unknown unknows, bugfixing, communication, changing scope and assuming stuff is more simple than it actually is.
Works like a charm for me in most cases.
For problems where the solution is still unknown, I tend to break it up in small cycles, with a best-case estimate. At the end of every cycle we adjust and align, so that the customer can decide for himself whether to proceed, restart or abort.
- arethuza 9y ago"Multiply by π for small, known teams, doing a new job, by π^2 for unknown teams, and √π for known teams who have already started, know their work and have a good track record." http://alistair.cockburn.us/The+magic+of+pi+for+project+managers http://alistair.cockburn.us/The+magic+of+pi+for+project+mana...
- p0nce 9y agoI use π for new kinds of projects and the golden ratio φ for well known types of projects. (edit: however, the only purpose of an estimate might be to go faster, so perhaps it's better to have an unrealistic one)