3 ms·
Interestingly, Thoughtworks have observed that over a project they get the same consistency simply counting number of tasks as counting effort estimates for tho
by dreamfactory 13y ago
Interestingly, Thoughtworks have observed that over a project they get the same consistency simply counting number of tasks as counting effort estimates for those tasks. The key for project management is therefore to focus on maintaining a backlog of manageable tasks and throughput, not in estimating them individually.
- jacques_chester 13y agoThat's an interesting finding. Do you have a link to the research?
- dreamfactory 13y agoThink it's in here - http://info.thoughtworks.com/how-do-you-estimate-on-an-Agile-project.html http://info.thoughtworks.com/how-do-you-estimate-on-an-Agile...
- DanielBMarkham 13y agoWe're finding this out in a lot of places. The key issue is variability. Larger sample sizes usually lead to less variability, which means flow-based systems will hold up better. If you've broken your work out into tasks, instead of stories, presumably you have a lot of them, and they're mostly the same size over a large set. So sure, should work fine. If, however, you have a small number of highly-variable chunks of work, then flow-based systems fail. It all depends on the nature of the item pool.
- jacques_chester 13y agoSummation can apparently reduce error without, actually, reducing error. I wrote an article about different ways of measuring estimate accuracy[1] that explains the difference. It's a question for each business as to whether that matters. [1] http://confidest.com/articles/how-accurate-was-that-estimate/ http://confidest.com/articles/how-accurate-was-that-estimate...