Skip to main content

Estimating size and effort - Why are they different?

A common question I get asked about estimating in xProcess (after three-point estimating of course, which is another popular question!) is: "What's the difference between a task's estimate for size and its (three-point) estimate for effort... and why do I need both?".

There are several ways to answer this, but perhaps a starting point is to ask why we think they're the same. If I ask you the size of your swimming pool you're more like to give me an answer in feet or metres that to reply with the number of person days it took to build the pool. (Building swimming pools is an xProcess application by the way - but that's another story!) When we are discussing the planning of a project the first thing to consider is the size (in whatever units are appropriate) of the deliverables of that project. Then we need a function (based on previous experience) to map from size to the estimate of the effort and consumables required to provide those deliverables.

Because the size of the things we want to deliver are measured in many different units, all of which we want to map eventually to an estimate of effort, it is common for projects to estimate directly in effort units such as person-days, person-hours or person-years. However if we do this, we lose a very important measure of the effectiveness of the project. Questions of team velocity or productivity become somewhat meaningless (except as a correction factor on original estimates of effort, compared to actual effort expended).

So if we can agree size is an important metric for projects, the next question is what units should it be estimated in, and can we compare the estimates with actuals at the end of the project. Software projects in particular are notoriously difficult to find an appropriate measure for size. Lines of source code is commonly used (because they are easy to count) but they don't readily map either to effective functionality delivered nor to effort required to develop them. Function points is another option and more recently "story points" (for an XP user story) or simply "points" have gained popularity where these are arbitrary units that are comparable only within the single project where they are being used. Another useful measure is "ideal-days" - in other words the amount that can be produced by a typical team member in a completely uninterrupted day. We rarely get such days (if ever) so it will take most of us more than a day to implement an ideal-day's worth of size. Nevertheless it is an understandable and reasonably verifiable measure of size.

In xProcess the units of size are common to the whole Data Source (they can be set in Data Source Preferences) and the value is used in several important places. When creating tasks the size value is often used in process patterns to set initial values for three-point estimates. The size units are used in burndown charts and earned-value plots to show progress of a project towards creating its deliverables. And size is also used to calculate productivity measures such as team velocity and software productivity.


Popular posts from this blog

Does your Definition of Done allow known defects?

Is it just me or do you also find it odd that some teams have clauses like this in their definition of done (DoD)?
... the Story will contain defects of level 3 severity or less only ... Of course they don't mean you have to put minor bugs in your code - that really would be mad - but it does mean you can sign the Story off as "Done"if the bugs you discover in it are only minor (like spelling mistakes, graphical misalignment, faults with easy workarounds, etc.). I saw DoDs like this some time ago and was seriously puzzled by the madness of it. I was reminded of it again at a meet-up discussion recently - it's clearly a practice that's not uncommon.

Let's look at the consequences of this policy. 

Potentially for every User Story that is signed off as "Done" there could be several additional Defect Stories (of low priority) that will be created. It's possible that finishing a Story (with no additional user requirements) will result in an increase in…

"Plan of Intent" and "Plan of Record"

Ron Lichty is well known in the Software Engineering community on the West Coast as a practitioner, as a seasoned project manager of many successful ventures and in a number of SIGs and conferences in which he is active. In spite of knowing Ron by correspondence over a long period of time it was only at JavaOne this year that we finally got together and I'm very glad we did.

Ron wrote to me after our meeting:

I told a number of people later at JavaOne, and even later that evening at the Software Engineering Management SIG, about xProcess. It really looks good. A question came up: It's a common technique in large organizations to keep a "Plan of Intent" and a "Plan of Record" - to have two project plans, one for the business partners and boss, one you actually execute to. Any support for that in xProcess?

Good question! Here's my reply...

There is support in xProcess for an arbitrary number of target levels through what we call (in the process definitions) P…

Understanding Cost of Delay and its Use in Kanban

Cost of Delay (CoD) is a vital concept to understand in product development. It should be a guide to the ordering of work items, even if - as is often the case - estimating it quantitatively may be difficult or even impossible. Analysing Cost of Delay (even if done qualitatively) is important because it focuses on the business value of work items and how that value changes over time. An understanding of Cost of Delay is essential if you want to maximise the flow of value to your customers.

Don Reinertsen in his book Flow [1] has shown that, if you want to deliver the maximum business value with a given size team, you give the highest priority, not to the most valuable work items in your "pool of ideas," not even to the most urgent items (those whose business value decays at the fastest rate), nor to your smallest items. Rather you should prioritise those items with the highest value of urgency (or CoD) divided by the time taken to implement them. Reinertsen called this appro…