Skip to content

Update 02-How to Estimate Programming Time.md #83

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 30, 2016
Merged

Update 02-How to Estimate Programming Time.md #83

merged 2 commits into from
Mar 30, 2016

Conversation

mmarica
Copy link
Contributor

@mmarica mmarica commented Mar 29, 2016

Fixed a typo

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ When not possible to take the time for some investigation, you should first esta

I know good engineers who pad estimates implicitly, but I recommend that you do not. One of the results of padding is trust in you may be depleted. For instance, an engineer might estimate three days for a task that she truly thinks will take one day. The engineer may plan to spend two days documenting it, or two days working on some other useful project. But it will be detectable that the task was done in only one day (if it turns out that way), and the appearance of slacking or overestimating is born. It's far better to give proper visibility into what you are actually doing. If documentation takes twice as long as coding and the estimate says so, tremendous advantage is gained by making this visible to the manager.

Pad explicitly instead. If a task will probably take one day - but might take ten days if your approach doesn't work - note this somehow in the estimate if you can; if not, at least do an average weighted by your estimates of the probabilities. Any risk factor that you can identify and assign an estimate to should go into the schedule. One person is unlikely to be sick in any given week. But a large project with many engineers will have some sick time; likewise vacation time. And what is the probability of a mandatory company-wide training seminar? If it can be estimated, stick it in. There are of course, unknown unknowns, or *unk-unks*. Unk-unks by definition cannot be estimated individually. You can try to create a global line item for all unk-unks, or handle them in some other way that you communicate to your boss. You cannot, however, let your boss forget that they exist, and it is devilishly easy for an estimate to become a schedule without the unk-unks considered.
Pad explicitly instead. If a task will probably take one day - but might take ten days if your approach doesn't work - note this somehow in the estimate if you can; if not, at least do an average weighted by your estimates of the probabilities. Any risk factor that you can identify and assign an estimate that should go into the schedule. One person is unlikely to be sick in any given week. But a large project with many engineers will have some sick time; likewise vacation time. And what is the probability of a mandatory company-wide training seminar? If it can be estimated, stick it in. There are of course, unknown unknowns, or *unk-unks*. Unk-unks by definition cannot be estimated individually. You can try to create a global line item for all unk-unks, or handle them in some other way that you communicate to your boss. You cannot, however, let your boss forget that they exist, and it is devilishly easy for an estimate to become a schedule without the unk-unks considered.
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hey, @mmarica, could you roll this change back to 'to' instead of 'that' as I don't think change clarifies the sentence. Perhaps "Any risk factor that you can identify and assign an estimate to, should go into the schedule" could work better?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi, your version sounds much better :)

@Idyllei
Copy link

Idyllei commented Mar 30, 2016

How about rewording similar to the following: "Any risk factor which you can identify and to wish you can assign an estimate should be put into the schedule."

@braydie braydie merged commit b489e02 into braydie:master Mar 30, 2016
@mmarica mmarica deleted the patch-3 branch March 30, 2016 08:19
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants