3 ms·

Great response. Part of the point of estimating difficulty is exactly to reduce the one-sidedness evident in time estimations. Human brains are much more accur

Great response. Part of the point of estimating difficulty is exactly to reduce the one-sidedness evident in time estimations. Human brains are much more accurate and consistent with effort estimation than time. It's still very likely a beta distribution but for the level of accuracy we're talking about it's just fine. We should probably clarify the "bar" here: the very best time estimators never beat about +30% delta from actual time. (Note that I'm not using +/- intervals because it's only ever +). So how many points (effort/time ratio values) does it take for convergence to get your effort/time ratio mean within 30% of the peak of the curve?

regularfry 3y ago
I don't think that 30% bar is commonly understood. From details in conversations I've had in the past where the reaction to (for instance) a 50% miss was "we can't ever be that bad at estimating again", there's a pervasive attitude that it's a fault in implementation teams that they're not accurate to the day. There's no middle ground: a team that can't give "good enough" estimates is held as incompetent, while the best anyone can ever do would be unacceptable. What's interesting on that specific 50% miss I saw is that the original estimate from the actual teams themselves was argued down as "too big, do it again" by their own management...