3 ms·
The above approach uses the factor 2.2. Why would your factors be any better?
by leethargo 7y ago
The above approach uses the factor 2.2. Why would your factors be any better?
- ajuc 7y agoNitpick: x * 2 * 1.2 == x * 2.4, not 2.2
- apaatsio 7y agoExtended nitpick: Technically, they only said "then add 20%". They didn't specify of what that 20% is. It's up to interpretation whether they mean 20% of the original value or the doubled value.
- alexgmcm 7y agoWouldn't it be 2.4 as you are adding 20% of the already doubled estimate?
- spurgu 7y agoYes.
- anoncake 7y ago2.2 is just an arbitrary number. e is also just an arbitrary number, but it looks like someone calculated it using sophisticated math.
- skrebbel 7y agoBecause e is more scientific.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y agoSemi-seriously, e is a number defined by recursive growth. So if you estimate to Level 1, and then break down to Level 2 sub-tasks, then Level 3, your estimate will be out by the same amount each time. and your total error will be a multiplicative series. If you have an infinite number of levels - which is reasonable for most real-world projects, although this may not be obvious in the planning stages - e will get you nicely in the ballpark.