Re:Defense against the dark art of estimation bargaining (2014)
by lushdogg on Wednesday August 18, 2021 @07:46AM
(#28219912)
Another way to look at it is that there are three variables. Time, scope and velocity. If time and velocity are fixed variables then it follows that only scope can be changed to make a project fit into the time box.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Defense against the dark art of estimation bargaining (2014)
by sumnole on Wednesday August 18, 2021 @09:05AM
(#28220476)
Scope is sometimes fixed too, ie through contractual obligations. Velocity can be increased by pulling more resources in - to a certain point.
Re:Defense against the dark art of estimation bargaining (2014)
by lushdogg on Wednesday August 18, 2021 @09:19AM
(#28220594)
Agreed. Identifying what is fixed and what is negotiable is key. Most often I see that scope is the only one that is not fixed when it comes down to it.
Even more important is not letting your team get boxed into fixed scope and fixed time as you can increase velocity some but increases to velocity are usually the most over-estimated in my experience.
Re:Defense against the dark art of estimation bargaining (2014)
by Igelau on Wednesday August 18, 2021 @09:03AM
(#28220467)
Velocity is derived. It's scope/time.
Re:Defense against the dark art of estimation bargaining (2014)
by WastingMyTime89 on Wednesday August 18, 2021 @10:28AM
(#28221387)
That's the necessary velocity to complete in time. It might be very different from the actual current velocity of the team.
Re:Defense against the dark art of estimation bargaining (2014)
by lushdogg on Wednesday August 18, 2021 @02:08PM
(#28224964)
Right. That's required velocity to make equation balance. Much different than actual velocity.
Re:Defense against the dark art of estimation bargaining (2014)
by IggleSniggle on Wednesday August 18, 2021 @12:40PM
(#28223720)
It’s (scope/time)/person_or_team