A few weeks ago my post “Scrum is dying, story points are stupid, and true agility lives on” stirred the pot by calling out the dysfunctions of story point estimation and the waning relevance of Scrum.
I like that the article is focusing on the proper dialogue. I have one main question though.
"Time... It’s a gut feel for size/length, independent of complexity"
The increased complexity would usually significantly increase the time estimates. How do you really separate the two? And if you do, would this mean time an epic will potentially take is the sum of all the stories' time estimates?
You’re absolutely right that complexity often influences time estimates, as the two are closely intertwined in practice and I talk about this in the article.
When we refer to estimating “time” as a gut feel for size or length independent of complexity, the goal is to isolate time as a distinct component for discussion and analysis. This separation allows teams to have more focused conversations about each factor, time, complexity, and risk, while acknowledging their interplay.
In reality, complexity, risk, and time are not fully independent; they impact one another. For example, a highly complex task often requires more time due to the cognitive or technical challenges involved. By breaking them down, we can better understand why a time estimate might be high and identify potential levers to adjust it, such as cutting scope, simplifying the approach, or mitigating risks early.
Regarding epics, you’re spot on that their time estimates are often informed by the sum of their child stories’ estimates, especially as those stories are defined and refined. Early on, when an epic is estimated before its child stories are fully fleshed out, the estimate is more like a rough forecast, similar to predicting a hurricane’s path from afar. As the epic is broken down into stories and those stories are estimated for time, complexity, and risk, the overall estimate becomes more accurate. Summing the time estimates of the stories can provide a solid foundation for the epic’s timeline, but we also factor in additional considerations like dependencies, integration efforts, or unforeseen risks that might not be fully captured at the story level.
The goal is to use these components, time, complexity, and risk, as lenses to support better dialogue and decision making. By analyzing them separately, teams can pinpoint where uncertainties lie and take proactive steps, like reducing complexity or addressing risks, to refine the estimate and improve planning.
Thanks again for sparking this discussion. Does this clarify the approach, or do you have further thoughts on how to balance these factors in practice?
I like that the article is focusing on the proper dialogue. I have one main question though.
"Time... It’s a gut feel for size/length, independent of complexity"
The increased complexity would usually significantly increase the time estimates. How do you really separate the two? And if you do, would this mean time an epic will potentially take is the sum of all the stories' time estimates?
Thank you, Dragi, for your insightful question!
You’re absolutely right that complexity often influences time estimates, as the two are closely intertwined in practice and I talk about this in the article.
When we refer to estimating “time” as a gut feel for size or length independent of complexity, the goal is to isolate time as a distinct component for discussion and analysis. This separation allows teams to have more focused conversations about each factor, time, complexity, and risk, while acknowledging their interplay.
In reality, complexity, risk, and time are not fully independent; they impact one another. For example, a highly complex task often requires more time due to the cognitive or technical challenges involved. By breaking them down, we can better understand why a time estimate might be high and identify potential levers to adjust it, such as cutting scope, simplifying the approach, or mitigating risks early.
Regarding epics, you’re spot on that their time estimates are often informed by the sum of their child stories’ estimates, especially as those stories are defined and refined. Early on, when an epic is estimated before its child stories are fully fleshed out, the estimate is more like a rough forecast, similar to predicting a hurricane’s path from afar. As the epic is broken down into stories and those stories are estimated for time, complexity, and risk, the overall estimate becomes more accurate. Summing the time estimates of the stories can provide a solid foundation for the epic’s timeline, but we also factor in additional considerations like dependencies, integration efforts, or unforeseen risks that might not be fully captured at the story level.
The goal is to use these components, time, complexity, and risk, as lenses to support better dialogue and decision making. By analyzing them separately, teams can pinpoint where uncertainties lie and take proactive steps, like reducing complexity or addressing risks, to refine the estimate and improve planning.
Thanks again for sparking this discussion. Does this clarify the approach, or do you have further thoughts on how to balance these factors in practice?