50 ms·
Your claims are outrageous with no supporting evidence. If you just want to throw out anecdotes I'll give you my own. I collected data on all the pointed stori
by voxl 9y ago
Your claims are outrageous with no supporting evidence.
If you just want to throw out anecdotes I'll give you my own. I collected data on all the pointed stories at one previous job for three years and found a negative correlation between story point and time from a story being started to being completed.
Sure, you might claim that it all averages out in the end, except that our velocities were wildly in flux for that entire span as well. But we were just "doing it wrong" right?
- lostcolony 9y agoOutrageous? Seriously? Hyperbole much? I doubt that you did, if I understand you. Because it sounds like you're saying that overall 3 pointed stories took the most amount of time, and 13 (or whatever your max) took the least. But let's say it did. I'd look to see why your estimates fluctuated all over the place. Or whether stories were being closed when they were actually finished (i.e., being accurately reported). Did you have deadlines? Did you have delivery pressures? Because that right there is a good reason; as you near a deadline you start padding estimates more. Did you keep having things come up that broke the sprint? Etc. All manner of things can cause estimates to be wrong. But not negatively correlated, -especially- with velocities constantly in flux (and I mean seriously in flux; you take an average because it can and will vary, especially if there's unexpected stuff, like someone getting sick, that you didn't account for when planning); that to me, yes, definitely sounds like you were doing something very, very wrong.