4 ms·

Look at this peace from Jeff Sutherland: https://qr.ae/pv4DI3 https://qr.ae/pv4DI3. There is a study out there that shows, that teams working with estimates are

Look at this peace from Jeff Sutherland: https://qr.ae/pv4DI3 https://qr.ae/pv4DI3. There is a study out there that shows, that teams working with estimates are less productive than teams working with no estimates. The key is: "Best teams have small stories and do no tasking." What I'll try next: only estimate with t-shirt sizes S and L. And everytime it's an L trying to slice it smaller.

tbrownaw 4y ago
So, work that doesn't need the long-term planning coordination that estimates allow, is likely to go to more skilled teams? Routine project work goes to the rank-and-file while exceptions go to the tiger team? And that possible interpretation is assuming that "slowest" and "team performance" are even measuring the right thing and not accounting artifacts. (Does completing the same work in the same time get counted differently when it's tracked as two 3-hour tasks vs three 2-hour tasks vs 12 "no estimate" tasks?)
- vasco 4y ago
  Split tasks so they don't take more than a morning or a day. If you want to know how much a big project will take, you count the tasks, multiply by the half days and there you go. You can also get a good sense of your throughput when each story is roughly the same. If a task takes longer or shorter, doesn't matter, it'll bring the throughput of the week down, and next time you're doing this sort of thing you'll likely split it. Just keep counting tasks. With more sophisticated estimation you'll still get it wrong, so the point is to make the process of planning faster and simpler, since you won't get it right with a bunch of investment anyway.
  - satyrnein 4y ago
    That is sophisticated estimation. So in order to say a project will take a month, first you'd have to plan it in such detail to break into like 40 half day tasks? That's more detailed than most waterfall shops.
    - vasco 4y ago
      In practice I've reduced the time spent in planning sessions and gotten more reliable throughput quarter over quarter like this, but feel free to do whatever works for your team.
  - roeles 4y ago
    Is this similar to the "No Estimates" talk by Alan Holub[1]? [1] https://youtu.be/QVBlnCTu9Ms https://youtu.be/QVBlnCTu9Ms
vasco 4y ago
You should look into the noestimates approach which will give you more of a skeleton around that insight.
gxt 4y ago
Correlation, not causation. My personal experience is that unreliable or unpredictable teams end up with mandatory estimates to ease the burden of managing them. Overperforming teams will organize themselves and management may choose not to interfere to avoid jinxing the winning combo they have.
tengbretson 4y ago
If this study was able to clearly define a way to measure work, why don't we just use the system they came up with for estimating?
- taeric 4y ago
  I think the point was there are two real sizes. Things you know the size of, and are small. And things that you don't know the size of, but are probably huge.

tbrownaw 4y ago

So, work that doesn't need the long-term planning coordination that estimates allow, is likely to go to more skilled teams? Routine project work goes to the rank-and-file while exceptions go to the tiger team? And that possible interpretation is assuming that "slowest" and "team performance" are even measuring the right thing and not accounting artifacts. (Does completing the same work in the same time get counted differently when it's tracked as two 3-hour tasks vs three 2-hour tasks vs 12 "no estimate" tasks?)

vasco 4y ago
Split tasks so they don't take more than a morning or a day. If you want to know how much a big project will take, you count the tasks, multiply by the half days and there you go. You can also get a good sense of your throughput when each story is roughly the same. If a task takes longer or shorter, doesn't matter, it'll bring the throughput of the week down, and next time you're doing this sort of thing you'll likely split it. Just keep counting tasks. With more sophisticated estimation you'll still get it wrong, so the point is to make the process of planning faster and simpler, since you won't get it right with a bunch of investment anyway.
- satyrnein 4y ago
  That is sophisticated estimation. So in order to say a project will take a month, first you'd have to plan it in such detail to break into like 40 half day tasks? That's more detailed than most waterfall shops.
  - vasco 4y ago
    In practice I've reduced the time spent in planning sessions and gotten more reliable throughput quarter over quarter like this, but feel free to do whatever works for your team.
- roeles 4y ago
  Is this similar to the "No Estimates" talk by Alan Holub[1]? [1] https://youtu.be/QVBlnCTu9Ms https://youtu.be/QVBlnCTu9Ms

vasco 4y ago

You should look into the noestimates approach which will give you more of a skeleton around that insight.

gxt 4y ago

Correlation, not causation. My personal experience is that unreliable or unpredictable teams end up with mandatory estimates to ease the burden of managing them. Overperforming teams will organize themselves and management may choose not to interfere to avoid jinxing the winning combo they have.

tengbretson 4y ago

If this study was able to clearly define a way to measure work, why don't we just use the system they came up with for estimating?

taeric 4y ago
I think the point was there are two real sizes. Things you know the size of, and are small. And things that you don't know the size of, but are probably huge.