3 ms·

I tried to do that! Didn't use Poisson, used normal distribution, but I think that's not so relevant - at the end of the day it's still just more elaborate gue

I tried to do that! Didn't use Poisson, used normal distribution, but I think that's not so relevant - at the end of the day it's still just more elaborate guesswork. I think what's useful is thinking about the problem, and communicating in group/ disseminating the information (this is required in order to do the typical "planning poker" or whatever planning technique the team happens to use). Whether you end up with L/ S /M or 7/13/21 points or whatever else you use - it's irrelevant, so no need to sweat it; what is relevant is that you discussed the tasks and everyone has some understanding, and maybe they're a little bit better spec-ed now.

samus 5y ago
Normal distribution is deeply inapproprite for time estimation because it yields the same probability for 3x the estimated time than for the negative amount(!) of the estimated time. Your second point rings closer to what we should be doing instead. We should put more effort into analysis and refinement. In my experience, estimation meetings where all tasks got estimated were almost useless in the end; and the most valuable meetings where when we didn't finish to estimate, but instead gained a deeper understanding of the requirements and of the domain.