You say that like we've improved our ability to plan in any measurable way in the last 10-15 years. There's a lot of evidence we have done the exact opposite.
-
"By value before-the-fact" is what engineering always typically try to do, but it's a weak method that cannot ever tell you upfront how you're likely to miss something on milestone N, and that you should replan or cut. For $100M+ projects we should do better.
My problem with estimates is that they always, no matter what, are wrong, and pretty much every tasks just stretches out to whatever deadline you choose. What I prefer is to do just that: 1/2
-
-
set a deadline, figure out the scope, rate task sizes 1-5, assign people (everyone has estimated bandwidth - say senior can do one '5' task a year), check if no one is over their bandwidth to see if you're going to fit in schedule, track progress of each task along the way 2/2
-
Ahem, isn’t figuring out task size 1-5 an estimate? :)
- Antwoorden weergeven
Nieuw gesprek -
-
-
That independent task estimates are always wrong is completely irrelevant vis-a-vis reasoning about tasks in *totality*. Don't confuse the two.
-
I think we’ve been not-quite taking about the same things, but this I can totally agree with. It’s got to run in frame. Some things may be faster than expected, some things slower. But as a whole, Make it fit.
Einde van gesprek
Nieuw gesprek -
Het laden lijkt wat langer te duren.
Twitter is mogelijk overbelast of ondervindt een tijdelijke onderbreking. Probeer het opnieuw of bekijk de Twitter-status voor meer informatie.