3 ms·
I sort of agree with you although for different reasons. The problem with the MC approach IMO is not really that it is also an estimate, estimates are fine. How
by cycomanic 5y ago
I sort of agree with you although for different reasons. The problem with the MC approach IMO is not really that it is also an estimate, estimates are fine. However doing a Monte Carlo simulation is only reasonable if we have a good model. So now we have moved from we can't estimate (intuitively I guess) to how to find a good model, that is not trivial and the time spend on finding and verifying the model might take more time than what you are actually trying to do (just an (gu-)estimate on my part)
- Jensson 5y agoA Monte Carlo simulation is infinitely better than all the conventional "to estimate, take your first estimate and multiply it with 10x". And even better, your manager can do that without your help and this learn better how much you tend to over/under estimate projects without trying to force you to change your estimates to fit what he think it should be. It also ensures that the final estimate becomes on average correct, which is much better than most projects which tends to under estimate the effort it will take. Although, under estimating projects is often a feature managers wants since it makes it easier to sell it to customers, ie "My engineers estimated we can remake Twitter in a weekend, I think we should focus on that!". Anyway, the point is that if your manager complains about your estimations being on average off then he is just incompetent and should have applied a Monte Carlo simulation on it instead of asking you to perform an easily automatable task.