2 ms·
I'm a bit surprised by the "validated by scientific studies" bit. If there's anything I got out of the likes of Kahneman (Noise), Hubbard (How To Measure Anythi
by kqr 4y ago
I'm a bit surprised by the "validated by scientific studies" bit. If there's anything I got out of the likes of Kahneman (Noise), Hubbard (How To Measure Anything), and Tetlock (no particular reference) it's the complete opposite: If you estimate in t-shirt sizes people will come to false agreements. The variation in what people mean when they give the same t-shirt size is enormous. Even the same person estimating similar tasks weeks apart may give the same t-shirt size but when asked how to translate it to time will give wildly varying numbers.
The only thing that actually stands up to hindsight verification is estimating in as concrete units as possible – ideally calendar dates.
Of course, if you invoke statistical properties of past estimations to convert t-shirt sizes to calendar dates, you're sort of doing that already. But why do it behind people's backs? In my experience (and drawing from system theory) it is much more useful to allow people to receive the feedback of their successes and failures.
- ohthehugemanate 4y agoI'm so happy to see someone who has actually read some of these studies on here. There are only 2 reasons to do the translation behind peoples' backs AFAIK: 1) also from kahneman et al we know that humans are bad at estimating time, and much more consistent and accurate about measuring effort. And consistency is required for the law of large numbers to apply. By estimating in consistent non time units you avoid those cognitive biases. 2) humans will very quickly start to unconsciously bias the units if they feel pressure. Speaking in terms of time puts one very close to a lot of pressure points for a lot of people. Ideally engineers are concerned with doing things Right, and PMs are using past performance to predict how long that will take.