11–20 of 324 posts
I have no data to back that up though.
This is why I like 3 point estimation[1] - if you have optimistic, expected and pessimistic estimates for each task you can pull out which points are high risk. Using a single estimate can't give you that insight. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-point_estimation
manager: "thanks for the optimistic estimate!"
My rule of thumb: take your estimate, double it, then add 20%. I'm not joking.
My rule of thumb: take your estimate, double it, then add 20%. I'm not joking.
Sadly, managers want to believe that you put more effort into estimating deadlines so I'll just whip up a gannt chart retroactively based on the 2/20 rule and they're happy.
I believe this is the reason why scrum uses story points instead of time estimate. By putting uncertainty on the same level as effort, you give it more weight. And using a fibonacci sequence rather than a continuous amount with the rule you should round up if unsure tend to correct those defects.
My rule of thumb: take your estimate, double it, then add 20%. I'm not joking.
An approach that gives very similar results to yours but is more scientific is to multiply the initial estimates by e (2.718). Or, if you're conservative, then by pi.
Here is the link to the time estimation described above with Beta distribution. https://www.isixsigma.com/methodology/project-management/bet...
My rule of thumb: take your estimate, double it, then add 20%. I'm not joking.