use_ranges_to_understand_risk
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Next revision | Previous revision | ||
| use_ranges_to_understand_risk [2016/06/16 11:04] – created hpsamios | use_ranges_to_understand_risk [2020/06/04 11:32] (current) – Removed LINKBACK hans | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| As Steve McConnell says “A single-point estimate is usually a target masquerading as an estimate.” Further he says “There is a limit to how well a project can go but no limit to how many problems can occur." | As Steve McConnell says “A single-point estimate is usually a target masquerading as an estimate.” Further he says “There is a limit to how well a project can go but no limit to how many problems can occur." | ||
| - | One way of doing this in planning poker is to ask people to offer up two cards instead of one when estimating where the first card is the " | + | One way of doing this in planning poker is to ask people to offer up two cards instead of one when estimating where the first card is the " |
| - | estimate and the second card is the "worst case" estimate (note that not everything should be just worse case of 100). You can use the variability | + | |
| - | to either produce a better single point estimate (more informed) or track both estimates. | + | |
| - | How does this work. If I were to read a user story and ask the team to estimate it, I might have 3, 5, 5, 5, 5, 8 as the responses. From this you | + | How does this work. If I were to read a user story and ask the team to estimate it, I might have 3, 5, 5, 5, 5, 8 as the responses. From this you would think that people are pretty comfortable with the result and would not be surprised to see a 5 as the consensus estimate. But if the team were to use 2 numbers as above you might get something like (3,40), (5,8), (5,5) , (5,40), (5,20), (8,13). This says that at least 3 team members think there is a lot of risk and after discussion you would not be surprised to see the consensus estimate to be 8 or 13 (assuming you only record one estimate). |
| - | would think that people are pretty comfortable with the result and would not be surprised to see a 5 as the consensus estimate. But if the team | + | |
| - | were to use 2 numbers as above you might get something like (3,40), (5,8), (5,5) , (5,40), (5,20), (8,13). This says that at least 3 team members | + | |
| - | think there is a lot of risk and after discussion you would not be surprised to see the consensus estimate to be 8 or 13 (assuming you only record one estimate). | + | |
| - | Note that this range approach can also be used on the detailed task estimates. Also this " | + | Note that this range approach can also be used on the detailed task estimates. Also this " |
| - | to discussion what is likely to be released by a certain date. | + | |
| - | |||
| - | ~~LINKBACK~~ | ||
| - | ~~DISCUSSION~~ | ||
| {{tag> | {{tag> | ||
/home/hpsamios/hanssamios.com/dokuwiki/data/attic/use_ranges_to_understand_risk.1466100268.txt.gz · Last modified: (external edit)
