how_can_we_scale_our_estimating_approach_beyond_a_team
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |||
how_can_we_scale_our_estimating_approach_beyond_a_team [2019/01/21 09:08] – Reading enhancements hpsamios | how_can_we_scale_our_estimating_approach_beyond_a_team [2021/12/08 13:47] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
What this means is that in most places I have worked, organizations end up with the Pure Feature and Epic Points approach where Feature Points are the Fibonacci numbers times 10 (10, 20, 30, …, 130) and the Epic points are the Fibonacci numbers times 100 (100, 200, 300, …, 1300). The other thing that organizations do is limited the highest number to 13 or 20, no 100’s etc, with the idea that this encourages people to split the work up if it gets to this level. So if there is a Feature Point estimate of “this is more than 130”, the discussion is “Perhaps this is an Epic? Or perhaps we need to split the work so that it will fit in a quarter.” This is a good discussion to have. | What this means is that in most places I have worked, organizations end up with the Pure Feature and Epic Points approach where Feature Points are the Fibonacci numbers times 10 (10, 20, 30, …, 130) and the Epic points are the Fibonacci numbers times 100 (100, 200, 300, …, 1300). The other thing that organizations do is limited the highest number to 13 or 20, no 100’s etc, with the idea that this encourages people to split the work up if it gets to this level. So if there is a Feature Point estimate of “this is more than 130”, the discussion is “Perhaps this is an Epic? Or perhaps we need to split the work so that it will fit in a quarter.” This is a good discussion to have. | ||
+ | |||
+ | One final note on this. Many organizations I've worked with like to abstract estimation one step further by using t-shirt sizes for estimates. For many it is easy to say "in comparison to this small piece of work, this is a large"; | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{ :: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Note that the mapping and the numbers would be validated to ensure that there is in fact a meaningful mapping between a feature we call " | ||
+ | |||
+ | One final note. Some organizations I’ve worked with step back from an either or approach and work a both and approach. When little is know about the Feature, say when it is still being analyzed, they use a Feature point scaling based on S, M, L t-shirt sizing. They then equate the t-shirt size to numbers, so a S might be a 3 Feature Points, M might be 8, and so on. Then, as they learn more and understand the kind of work they have they move to a summated story point approach to Feature size; a second estimate, if you like. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====== Want to Know More? ====== | ||
+ | |||
+ | * [[https:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
{{tag> | {{tag> |
/home/hpsamios/hanssamios.com/dokuwiki/data/attic/how_can_we_scale_our_estimating_approach_beyond_a_team.1548090499.txt.gz · Last modified: 2020/06/02 14:24 (external edit)